Carbon capture and storage a costly, risky distraction

  • Article claims CCS does not work
  • There is not a commercial power plant yet that captures and stores its CO2 emissions
  • When Greenpeace first looked at CCS technology in 2008, CCS has not improved since then
    • Examples of CCS failing:
      • In 2013 Norway cancelled the Mongstad project
      • In 2015 United States govt closed the FutureGen CCS facility
      • In 2015 the EU carbon capture platform lost Many European utilities
      • UK govt had a one billion pound for the CCS industry which was funded by taxpayers. It ended up being canceled now the industry is nonexistent
      • There is a risk that CO2 that is stored underground will leak
      • In Salah, Algeria the CCS plant was shut down because when the CO2 was injected into the sandstone it caused earthquakes
      • In the North Sea in Sleipner, Noregian the CCS plant was shut down because scientists found cracks and decided that the CO2 would leak from the reservoir were it was being stored
      • In Mississippi, United States the CCS plant was shut down because of well blowouts which released harmful emissions into the atmosphere. As a result many animals ended up dying
      • When these plants close the fuel companies make the govt responsible for them
      • CCS comes with a high cost: CCS is 40% more expensive than solar energy, 125% more than wind, 260% more than geothermal energy
      • Also bad for energy production, can cut a coal power plants production by 40%
    • Other uses for CCS
      • Once the CO2 is captured oil companies use it for a process called Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
      • This process works by putting CO2 into the ground to get out more oil and gas out of the earth
      • This makes things worse for the environment because the extra gas and oil that the oil industry gets from using EOR is burned emitting more harmful emissions  into the atmosphere
  • CCS does not solve everything
    •  CCS does not fix all the problems relating to CCS, there will still be pollution from other sources like mining, drilling, and when fossil fuels are burned
    • CCS could make pollution worse because CO2 storage areas in the water could leak causing ocean acidification
    • Greenpeace, an environmental organization stated that CCS is not good for the future. They think the only way to make the environment and the atmosphere clear from harmful pollutants is to ditch the fossil fuels
    • Greenpeace states that the energy from the sun and the wind can supply all the energy we need
    • Article states that the clean energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuels but I disagree because I think fossil fuels are still cheaper

Works Cited:

Greenpeace International. Carbon capture and storage a costly, risky distraction. . 2016. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/Solutions/Reject-false-solutions/Reject-carbon-capture–storage/.