CCS, CCUS are boycotted, "carbon catcher" technology is a scam?

"If a company proposes to use CCUS technology to solve the problem of carbon emissions, then it can be seen as 'greenwashing'. Think of this process as smoking, we shouldn't deal with the smoke, and snuffing out the cigarette butt is the most fundamental solution. ”

At COP28, an opponent of fossil fuels told reporters.

This statement seems quite "radical". Carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) sparked strong controversy at COP28, adding a lot of "gunpowder flavor" to the conference.

At COP28, it was observed that some industry associations and non-governmental organizations questioned the feasibility of CCS and CCUS technology, and even fiercely resisted it.

"CCS, CCUS is clearly a scam laid by fossil fuel companies. Most of the project owners are oil and gas companies, and in the future they can continue to produce 100 million barrels of oil per day and then claim to offset CO2 with CCUS technology to 'wash away' their large-scale fossil fuel production. Protesters said at COP28.

Why are CCS and CCUS technologies, known as "carbon catchers", so unpopular at COP28?

At COP28, many fossil fuel protesters questioned CCS technology. Source: Photographed by the author.

The "carbon catcher" caught in a huge controversy

"Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies are important in reducing emissions, but their role is limited. In November of this year, the Energy Transition Commission released a report.

At COP28, reporters interviewed Adair Turner, chairman of the Energy Transition Commission and former chairman of the UK Climate Change Commission. He also gave his own opinion on this controversy.

"When we think about how we can achieve our net-zero goals, there are two approaches: one is to actually reduce the use of fossil fuels, and the other is to continue to use fossil fuels but offset them with CCUS. We believe that the right balance is for 85% of the actual emissions reductions and the remaining 15% for carbon capture and storage. Adair Turner told reporters. He believes that technologies such as CCUS are necessary to reduce carbon emissions, but they need to be prioritized.

Not only COP28, but also CCS/CCUS technology has long been criticized. They are seen as a stopgap measure to combat climate change, rather than a radical solution, and have even been asked to withdraw from the stage of history.

The reason for this is that even though this is an emerging technology known as the "hottest carbon catcher", the high cost, low operational efficiency, and immature business model are all practical problems that are difficult to ignore, and also draw a question mark for the commercial deployment of CCS/CCUS.

First, the effectiveness of technology becomes the "target of public criticism".

In September 2022, a report by the Australian Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) analysed the performance of 13 CCS flagship projects around the world and concluded that carbon capture projects in most countries were performing well below expectations.

For example, the world's largest CCS project, Gorgon, was built by Chevron, the second largest oil and gas producer in the United States, at a cost of $2.1 billion and is located in Western Australia. In the first five years of the project's implementation, it has not yet reached 50% of its carbon capture target.

As a result, Chevron had to spend more than $200 million in carbon tax credits in the 2021 Australian carbon market to meet its commitment to the Australian government's emissions reduction targets.

Chevron's Gorgon project. Source: Chevron

In addition, ExxonMobil's LaBarge plant in Shute Creek, Wyoming, USA, has a carbon capture capacity performance that falls short of its target by about 36%.

In a McKinsey study this year, the global uptake of CCUS would need to expand 120-fold from current levels, capturing at least 4.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, to ensure countries meet their net-zero commitments by 2050.

At the same time, the "economic account" of CCS/CCUS is not very good, and its combined cost is much higher than the price of renewable energy deployment and carbon prices around the world, which is another mountain that hinders the scale of technology.

Turner told reporters that the cost of solar and wind energy is falling rapidly, but the cost reduction rate and financing speed of CCUS have not met expectations, which makes it difficult for CCUS technology to meet future target needs.

McKinsey research shows that the world will need to invest between US$120 billion and US$150 billion annually in CCUS technology to achieve net-zero emissions by 2035, and a huge funding gap remains an issue.

On the eve of COP28 this year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report calling on oil and gas producers to abandon "the illusion of massive carbon capture" and instead switch to clean energy.

This conclusion directly sparked dissatisfaction with OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries, which publicly denounced it as an "extremely narrow framework" that would adversely affect energy security and operability.

CCS and CCUS technologies are debated, but from the perspective of the technology itself, it is not a binary issue of black and white.

Without CCS/CCUS technology, carbon neutrality is impossible

"CCUS technology is the 'ugly duckling' of carbon neutral technology because it connects fossil fuels and traditional industries. Many NGOs and international organizations will think that CCUS is a technology used to renew the life of fossil fuels, so it is more controversial. Liang Xi, tenured professor of sustainable infrastructure transformation at University College London and secretary-general of the Guangdong Southern Carbon Capture and Storage Industry Center, told reporters.

In fact, without CCS/CCUS technology, achieving carbon neutrality is almost impossible.

Liang Xi, who has studied CCUS technology for many years, told reporters that under the scenario of achieving carbon neutrality (net zero emissions), some carbon emissions from the cement, petrochemical and steel industries are still unavoidable, which requires CCUS technology to offset.

In the case of cement production, for example, the production process involves heating common materials such as silica sand, limestone, slate, clay and iron ore, and two-thirds of the emissions come from the associated chemical reactions generated by heating the limestone.

Even traditional measures such as demand-side improvements, energy efficiency improvements, and clean energy substitution cannot solve these emissions problems in cement production, so CCUS is currently the only scalable emission reduction solution.

At the same time, considering the factors such as energy security, grid stability, and long-term transmission stability, the future is to need a power set, in which a certain amount of fossil energy is required. In this scenario, CCUS technology is needed to achieve carbon neutrality.

In addition, in combination with biofuels or direct air capture technologies, CCUS can also achieve "negative emissions".

Biofuels, such as BECCS (e.g. wood pellets and agricultural waste), can capture and store carbon dioxide absorbed by plants, creating a pathway for energy production with negative emissions. Direct air capture (DAC), on the other hand, can extract carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and store it through CCUS technology, contributing to negative emissions targets.

Therefore, the role of CCUS has changed from a reserve and transitional emerging technology to an indispensable foundation technology for achieving carbon neutrality, and even a solution for negative emissions.

In terms of cost composition, the cost of CCS/CCUS technology depends on the type of process, capture technology, and location of CO2 transport and storage.

Carbon capture, for example, is the most cost-effective part, as carbon dioxide must be separated from other gases such as oxygen, nitrogen and methane, which consumes a lot of energy and water.

However, the cost range of this link is also very wide, and the main factor affecting the cost of capture is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the flue gas, which can vary greatly depending on the source of the carbon dioxide: the lower the concentration of carbon dioxide in the gas, the higher the energy demand required to separate the carbon dioxide, which leads to higher costs.

In cement production scenarios, industrial processes that can produce relatively pure CO2 at higher concentrations from the exhaust gas stream are also the most cost-effective way to use in combination.

Liang Xi also mentioned that the carbon dioxide concentration produced by natural gas processing and coal chemical hydrogen production units is more than 70%-80%, and the cost of this part of carbon dioxide separation is usually less than 20 US dollars.

As a result, CCUS technology is actually one of the cheapest options for reducing emissions in the industrial sector. CCUS retrofitting existing industrial facilities can sometimes be more cost-effective than building new capacity using alternative technologies.

Comparison of the marginal abatement costs of CCUS and major low-carbon technologies. Source: China Agenda 21 Management Center

Adair Turner also said that in some production scenarios, carbon capture and storage may be the cheapest way to produce it. For example, under the current technology, if natural gas is cheap enough, the cost of producing blue hydrogen superimposed on CCUS technology will be lower than that of producing green hydrogen.

Liang Xi believes that the root cause of this challenge lies in climate policy, or more intuitively, the issue of carbon price.

"China's current low carbon price will affect the momentum for large-scale deployment of CCUS technology. If the current carbon price (including carbon market, carbon tax, financial subsidies, carbon emission performance appraisal and other forms of policy tools) rises to 500 yuan a tonne, enterprises can make money by reducing carbon emissions themselves, or pay less taxes. Enterprises will choose the appropriate CCUS technology path to achieve cost advantages and economic benefits. Liang Xi said.

It is clear that achieving the goal of carbon neutrality is not a simple matter of discussing who should exit and who should join, but rather a reasonable and efficient combination of technologies and corresponding policy implementation mechanisms to promote deep emission reductions.

CCS and CCUS technology, as an "ugly duckling" to solve the problem of carbon emissions, are still under criticism. But "Say No" without distinguishing between scenarios is really an irresponsible and radical approach.