Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is being hailed as the revolutionary technology that will help to solve climate change by capturing carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes and storing them deep underground. At first blush, this would appear to be a promising answer to the mitigation of global warming, allowing the continued use of fossil fuels without penalty. But it becomes glaringly apparent on closer scrutiny that there is a woefully glaring inadequacy, failure, and inefficiency of CCS. Australia alone has the world’s largest CCS project, and in that country, its shortcomings are very obvious. Indeed, the project proves to be far from being an effective solution for the climate crisis.

Case Study: Gorgon Gas Project

The Gorgon project in Western Australia is one of the largest CCS initiatives in the world and has often been quoted as a flagship example of the technology’s potential. Operated by Chevron, the project was set to capture up to 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually from its liquefied natural gas (LNG) operations and store it in a geological formation beneath Barrow Island. This ambitious goal was at the heart of its environmental approval, making the project a keystone in Australia’s climate strategy.

Reality, though, has been far less impressive. Since beginning operations, the Gorgon project has repeatedly underperformed, capturing only around 1.6 million tonnes of CO₂ annually-less than half its intended target. Failure to achieve these milestones did not only result in loss of jobs but also cost the company money. The Australian government fined Chevron millions of dollars for the lack of commitment toward its mandates, and it undeniably crystallized the practical and regulatory challenges CCS entails.

Technical and Operational Challenges

That’s not the scenario for CCS projects like Gorgon. All such projects that have been started worldwide have had technical, economic, and logistics issues. Capture of CO₂ is energy intensive because additional fossil fuel may have to be supplied to power equipment. It thus seems ironic that this reduction of emissions will create a demand for energy and even more emissions.

The storage component of CCS is also poorly understood. Injections of CO₂ into the geological formations might leak, whether through fractures which already exist or long-term deterioration of the seals. The most minute leak could render the effort futile, as carbon dioxide released back into the atmosphere renders all the effort for nought.

Economic Feasibility: An Important Barrier to Widespread Acceptance

One significant problem with CCS is its enormous cost. The installation and operation of a CCS plant are capital intensive, involving tremendous investments in infrastructure for capture equipment, transportation pipelines, and storage facilities. Such a cost is highly prohibitive in most cases to make the technology economically viable. Even with all these stronger forms of government support through subsidies, investment returns are a bit uncertain, not to mention if it can top the declining rates of renewable energies like photovoltaic cells and wind mills.

For example, in Chevron’s Gorgon project, if the company failed to meet CCS targets this year 2021, it would have to purchase carbon credits to make up for its shortfall in emissions. Such an incident also proved that not only did CCS fail financially, but it proved to be a technology that needs outside mechanisms to overcome its inbuilt shortcomings. According to the critics, money would have been better spent accelerating the shift towards renewables rather than trying to prop up a technology that has not been proven and continues to prove itself useless.

CCS as Diversion from Real Solutions

One of the sharpest critiques is that it diverts attention and funds away from effective and more sustainable climate solutions. In so far as proponents for CCS represent an extension of efforts by the fossil fuel lobby, they support a fantasy wherein extracting and consuming more oil, gas, and coal can become “green.” That narrative then prevents the pace toward renewable energies and real decarbonization.

Renewables, like solar and wind, have already demonstrated their scalability, cost competitiveness, and emissions savings. They are not based on unproven assumptions for the long-term stability of storage, and therefore there is no prospect of a disaster leak. States can build renewable energy infrastructure and improve energy efficiency – these are viable emission reduction strategies that don’t rely on speculative technologies like CCS.

The Verdict: CCS is Not the Solution

A silver bullet, maybe. The failure of the Gorgon gas project, coupled with other un-successful CCS ventures around the globe, only demonstrates clearly that carbon capture and storage will not work in saving our Earth. These shortcomings in its technological limitations, lack of economic efficacy, and dangers for the environment establish it as the least desirable course of action towards saving this climate. Instead, billions of dollars should be invested in proven solutions: renewable energy, energy storage, and electrification.

Every minute counts in the fight against climate change, so do every dollar and pound. Going all out with a bad technology like CCS is a risk that delays getting to a sustainable low-carbon future. The sooner we face its weaknesses and redirect our attention toward meaningful solutions, the better we will be empowered to solve the climate crisis.