Carbon Capture and Storage Growth Stalled in 2011

May 12th, 2012 by Worldwatch Institute

New Worldwatch Institute report discusses the future of carbon capture and storage technology.

Washington, D.C.—Funding for carbon capture and storage technology, a tool for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, remained unchanged at US$23.5 billion in 2011 in comparison to the previous year, according to a new report from the Worldwatch Institute. Although there are currently 75 large-scale, fully-integrated carbon capture and storage projects in 17 countries at various stages of development, only eight are currently operational—a figure that has not changed since 2009

Carbon capture and storage, more commonly known as CCS, refers to the technology that attempts to capture carbon dioxide from its anthropogenic source—often industry and power generation systems—and then store it in permanent geologic reservoirs so that it never enters the atmosphere. The United States is the leading funder of large-scale CCS projects, followed by the European Union and Canada. The new Worldwatch report, part of the Institute’s Vital Signs Online series of analyses of environmentally related trends and data, discusses a number of new CCS projects and facilities throughout the world. Among these is the Century Plant in the United States, which began operating in 2010.

“Although CCS technology has the potential to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions—particularly when used in greenhouse gas intensive coal plants—developing the CCS sector to the point that it can make a serious contribution to emissions reduction will require large-scale investment,” said report author and Worldwatch Sustainable Energy Fellow, Matthew Lucky.

Today, the total storage capacity of all active and planned large-scale CCS projects is equivalent to only about 0.5 percent of the emissions from energy production in 2010. “Capacity will have to be increased several times over before CCS can begin to make a serious dent in global emissions,” said Lucky.

The prospects for future development and application of CCS technology will likely be influenced by a number of factors, the report explains. Last March the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency imposed regulations on CO₂ emissions from power plants. As a result, U.S. power producers will soon be unable to build traditional coal plants without carbon control capabilities (including CCS). The technology will therefore likely become increasingly important as power producers adjust to the new regulations.

Globally, an international regulatory framework for CCS is developing slowly and the technology has been addressed in international climate negotiations. Its classification as a Clean Development Mechanism—a mechanism created through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change to allow industrialized countries to gain credit for emissions reductions they achieve through funding development projects in developing countries—has raised objections, however, from those who argue that it risks prolonging the use carbon-intensive industries.

“CCS technology is worth exploring as one of a large array of potential strategies for slowing the buildup of CO₂ in the atmosphere,” said Worldwatch president Robert Engelman. “But as this report demonstrates, right now there’s little progress in realizing this potential. A technology capable of permanently sequestering large amounts of carbon will be expensive, and so far the world’s markets and governments haven’t assigned much value to carbon or to the prevention of human-caused climate change. Ultimately, that will be needed for progress in CCS development and implementation.”

Further highlights:

There are now 7 large-scale CCS plants currently under construction, bringing the total annual storage capacity of operating and under constructions plants to 34.97 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
According to the International Energy Agency, an additional $2.5–3 trillion will need to be invested in CCS between 2010 and 2050 to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by mid-century.
On average, $5–6.5 billion a year will need to be invested in CCS globally until 2020 for the development of this technology.
About 76 percent of global government funding for large-scale CCS has been allocated to power generation projects.

Purchase the full report here.

Image: coal power plant via Shutterstock

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: carbon capture and storage, CCS, coal capture and storage, coal emissions, reducing coal emissions

About the Author

Worldwatch Institute analyzes interdisciplinary environmental data from around the world, providing information on how to build a sustainable society.

Hope

http://igg.me/p/36238
http://www.facebook.com/people/Gerald-Wilhite/100003126679960 Gerald Wilhite

The problem for the embryonic CO2 sequestration industry is that it is an expensive experimental solution in search of a problem. To everybody except the true believers, the reality is that the notion that man-made CO2 is significant factor in global warming is (1) sorely lacking in the scientifically sound evidence department, and (2) yet to even be articulated by its proponents as a legitimate scientific hypothesis that can be subjected to falsifiability tests.
- Altair IV
  
  Your “reality” is obviously very different from the one everybody else is experiencing. For those of us in the real world the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is rock-solid and the evidence is overwhelming. It only took me a couple of minutes on Google to locate one of the main IPCC reports summarizing the science in support of it.
  
  http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
  
  That’s just one report, 12 years old and almost 900 pages long, on this “yet to be articulated” hypothesis.
  
  I will however agree with you that carbon sequestration is a mistake, but only because not producing CO2 emissions in the first place is a much better long-term solution.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  Gerald, that’s just foolish talk.
  
  Human caused global warming is settled science. Would you like a list of a few hundred international scientific organizations that have accepted the fact that people have changed the planet’s climate by burning fossil fuels?
  
  The remaining questions are simply ‘How much?’ and ‘How fast?’.
- Rob
  
  Your point #2 is a loquacious way of saying nobody has ever put forward the theory that climate change has a human cause. It is one thing to disagree with the anthropogenic climate change theory but to say the theory doesn’t exist exposes you as either an idiot or having your head firmly planted in the sand or some combination thereof.
RobS

I think carbon capture propagates the myth that burning millions of years worth of fossilised carbon per year can ever be clean or sustainable. What we need to do is reduce the production of CO2 and let the perfectly capable natural carbon sinks which presently absorb 97% of all CO2 released continue to do their job.
Matt

As long as it is free do dump it in the air why would any company pay to capture it. For storage or structural plastic. A company’s goal is to make money. The US government has said over and over again, dump all you want into the air, it is someone else problem to deal with. Until the rules say there is a cost to dumping it in the air, that is where the CO2 is going to go.
James Salsman

Pumping waste carbon underground is a profoundly silly idea. Use it to make structural plastic lumber (look it up) and it’s sequestered much more firmly while promoting reforestation.
- RobS
  
  Heres an idea, rather than a complicated techno fix which involves chemical and labor intensive manufacturing why don’t we use a low maintenance chemical free alternative called trees, they by pure chance also produce lumber whose use in construction also locks up co2 very effectively.
mk1313

Good! This is a disaster waiting to happen!!!!!!!!!! Coals so called “clean” boondoggle!