The future of fossil fuels takes center stage at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai, with many activists, experts and countries calling for an agreement to phase out the oil, gas and coal responsible for warming the planet . On the other side: energy companies and oil-rich countries with plans to continue drilling well into the future.
In the background of these discussions are carbon capture and removal, technologies that most, if not all, producers are counting on to meet their commitments to achieving net-zero emissions. Skeptics worry that the technology is being oversold so that the industry can maintain the status quo.
"The industry must commit to actually helping the world meet its energy needs and climate goals - which means letting go of the illusion that impossibly large amounts of carbon capture are the solution," said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, before the start of the conference. talk.
WHAT EXACTLY IS CARBON DEPOSIT?
Many industrial facilities such as coal-fired power plants and ethanol plants produce carbon dioxide. To prevent these planet-warming emissions from reaching the atmosphere, companies can install equipment to separate that gas from all the other gases coming out of the stack and transport it to a place where it can be stored permanently underground. And even industries that try to reduce emissions, some will likely always produce some carbon, such as cement manufacturers that use a chemical process that releases CO2.
"We call that a mitigation technology, a way to stop the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Karl Hausker, an expert on achieving net-zero emissions at the World Resources Institute, a climate-focused nonprofit. which supports pungent fossil fuels. reductions, along with a limited role for carbon capture.
The captured carbon is concentrated into a form that can be transported in a vehicle or through a pipeline to a place where it can be injected underground for long-term storage.
Then there's carbon removal. Rather than capturing carbon from a single, concentrated source, the goal is to remove carbon that is already in the atmosphere. This already happens, for example, when forests are restored, but there is also an urge to use technology. One type captures it directly from the air and uses chemicals to pull carbon dioxide out as the air passes through it.
For some, removing carbon is essential during a global clean energy transition that will take years. For example, despite notable gains for electric vehicles in some countries, gas-powered cars will continue to operate well into the future. And for some sectors, such as shipping and aviation, it is a challenge to fully decarbonize.
"We need to remove some of what's in the atmosphere in addition to stopping emissions," said Jennifer Pett-Ridge, who leads the federally backed carbon initiative at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, the second largest largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.
HOW ARE YOU?
Many experts say the technology to capture and store carbon works, but it is expensive and still in its infancy.
According to the International Energy Agency, there are about 40 large-scale carbon capture projects in operation around the world, capturing about 45 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. That's a small amount - about 0.1% - of the 36.8 billion tons emitted worldwide, as tallied by the Global Carbon Project.
The IEA says the history of carbon capture has "largely been a history of unmet expectations." The group analyzed how the world can achieve net zero emissions and its guidance relies heavily on lowering emissions by reducing fossil fuel use. Carbon capture is only a small part of the solution - less than 10% - but despite its relatively small role, its expansion is still behind schedule.
The pace of new projects is increasing, but they face significant obstacles. In the United States, there is opposition to CO2 pipelines that transport carbon to storage sites. Safety is one concern; in 2020, a CO2 pipeline ruptured in Mississippi, releasing carbon dioxide that displaced breathable air near the ground and sent dozens of people to hospitals. The federal government is working to improve safety standards.
Companies may also experience problems obtaining permits. For example, regulators in South Dakota this year rejected a construction permit for a 1,300-mile network of CO2 pipelines in the Midwest to move carbon to a storage site in Illinois.
The technology to remove carbon directly from the air also exists, but its widespread application is still further away and, above all, expensive.
WHO SUPPORTS CARBON CAPTURE?
The American Petroleum Institute says oil and gas will remain a crucial energy source for decades to come, meaning that if the world wants to reduce its carbon emissions, rapidly growing carbon capture technology "is the key to cleaner energy use in the entire economy." A check of most oil companies' plans to get to net-zero emissions also shows that most of them rely on carbon capture in some way.
The Biden administration also wants more investment in carbon capture and removal, which will help it build on America's relatively large spending compared to the rest of the world. But it is a sector that needs subsidies to attract private financing. The Inflation Reduction Act makes tax breaks much more generous. For example, investors can get a credit of $180 per ton for removing carbon from the air and storing it underground. And the Department of Energy has billions to support new projects.
"What we're talking about now is taking a technology that is proven and tested, but applying it much more broadly and also applying it in sectors where the costs of implementation are higher," said Jessie Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, an interest group from the sector.
Investments are picking up. The EPA is considering dozens of applications for sinks that can store carbon. And in places like Louisiana and North Dakota, local leaders are fighting to attract projects and investments.
Even left-wing California has an ambitious climate plan that includes carbon capture, removing carbon directly from the air. Leaders say there is no other way to get emissions to zero.
WHO IS AGAINST?
Some environmentalists argue that fossil fuel companies are holding back carbon capture to distract from the need to quickly phase out oil, gas and coal.
"The fossil fuel industry has proven to be dangerous and deceitful," said Shaye Wolf, a climate scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity.
There are other problems. Some projects have not met their carbon removal targets. A 2021 U.S. government accountability report said that of eight demonstration projects aimed at capturing and storing carbon from coal-fired power plants, only one was operational at the time the report was published, despite hundreds of millions of dollars in funding.
Opponents also note that carbon capture can serve to extend the life of a polluting plant that would otherwise be more likely to close. This could particularly affect poorer minority communities that have lived near heavily polluting facilities for long periods of time.
They also note that most of the carbon captured in the U.S. is now ultimately injected into the ground to squeeze out more oil, a process called enhanced oil recovery.
Hausker said it is essential that governments create policies that enforce reduced use of fossil fuels - which can then be supplemented with carbon capture and removal.
"We're not going to ask Exxon, 'please stop developing fossil fuels,'" he said.
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for reporting on water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment
