Record $6.4 billion invested in carbon capture tech, but challenges and controversies persist
Record $6.4 billion invested in carbon capture tech, but challenges and controversies persist
Amid growing concerns, carbon capture technologies receive unprecedented funding, yet efficacy and viability remain uncertain
Summer is just around the corner, and extreme climate events have already emerged worldwide, surprising even seasoned scientists accustomed to rising temperatures and record-breaking heat. Siberia and Spain are already grappling with extreme heat, while a recent oppressive heat wave in the southern U.S. created dangerous conditions from Texas to Florida. In India, approximately 100 people perished in a heat wave, while Antarctica witnessed historically low sea ice levels last month compared to previous years in May. Moreover, the powerful fires in Canada contaminated the air that New York residents breathed, even hundreds of kilometers away. On the coast of Great Britain, an extreme heat wave has caused the ocean temperature to rise about 4 degrees Celsius above the seasonal norm, putting numerous animals at risk.
Countries worldwide are engaged in a race against time. Failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades will lead to more frequent, intense, and prolonged extreme climate events, endangering the lives and livelihoods of millions of people globally. As part of the UN climate agreement, nearly 200 nations have pledged to do everything in their power to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the mid-century. Each country has set its own target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, primarily generated from coal, oil, and gas, by the end of the decade. However, many of these goals, particularly the net-zero emissions targets for 2050, are ambitious and lack clear strategies for achieving them. There is uncertainty surrounding the implementation and timeline of these targets.
Carbon capture technologies are emerging as a central focus for many countries. These technologies offer the prospect of removing emissions from the atmosphere, potentially allowing the continued use of coal, oil, and gas. However, these solutions have yet to be technologically or commercially proven, casting doubt on their viability and sustainability in the coming decades. Despite this uncertainty, oil companies worldwide manage to secure government funding for carbon capture projects and convince governments that this technology is the ultimate solution for the climate crisis, driven by their own products.
Various methods exist for carbon capture, including capturing and storing carbon directly from power plants or industrial sources. Despite significant government investment in the United States, most of these projects have failed or were canceled before reaching commercial viability due to financing issues. Another method gaining attention and funding involves directly removing carbon dioxide from the air. Oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron rely on government subsidies for the development and implementation of these systems.
These systems employ high-powered turbines to draw air into processing facilities where carbon is separated through chemical reactions. It can then be stored underground in geological layers or used to create building materials and fuels. However, a major challenge with these systems is their significant energy requirement, which often leads to more greenhouse gas emissions than they capture. According to a study by the US National Academy of Sciences, capturing 1 gigaton of carbon dioxide per year (approximately 3% of emissions) could necessitate up to 3,889 terawatt-hours of energy—almost equivalent to the entire electricity generation of the United States in 2020.
Today, there are 18 such facilities operating across the world, with the first large-scale carbon capture plant being built in the 1970s. Its job was to separate carbon from natural gas, then inject the greenhouse gasses underground to extract more oil from a depleting reservoir.
The use of technology to help deal with global warming began in the 1990s, yet today all the carbon capture facilities that exist capture less than 0.01% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, about 50 gigatons emitted annually by humanity.
Carbon capture and storage has been proposed as a key component of Britain's plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Japan relies more than most countries on this technology, and has positioned it as a key method for offsetting emissions, in a way that will allow it to continue burning fossil fuels and deepen its dependence on its coal and gas power plants.
In the European Union and the U.S., significant funding is flowing into ventures in the carbon capture field. The European Union supports startups and experimental plants in this sector and has set a goal of capturing and storing 50 million tons of carbon by the end of the decade. Similarly, the US Inflation Reduction Act will allocate $374 billion to climate goals, including generous funding and tax breaks for carbon capture projects. The business sector is also showing interest in these startups and ventures, which are emerging rapidly. According to Bloomberg, funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects reached a record $6.4 billion worldwide last year, more than double the amount in 2021.
Private companies are also joining the movement. Last month, JPMorgan Chase Bank announced that it would invest over $200 million in developing carbon removal technologies to offset its own emissions. Other companies like Alphabet, Shopify, McKinsey, Microsoft, and Meta have made similar commitments.
Startups in the sector have nevertheless recorded little success to date. For example, Climeworks, a Swiss company that established a factory in Iceland, raised an impressive $650 million in April 2022, despite being able to capture only 4,000 tons of carbon per year, equivalent to a mere 3 seconds of global emissions.
Oil companies, traditionally known for sowing doubt about climate change, have shifted their strategy in recent years. They portray themselves as part of the solution by positioning their operations as "carbon management" industries that capture and dispose of emissions for which they are responsible. They seek sufficient funding and government support while heavily investing in carbon capture. However, many of these projects are not economically feasible or effective. For instance, Chevron's flagship carbon capture and storage project in Australia, touted as the world's largest facility, operates at only a third of its intended capacity, emits more greenhouse gasses than it stores, and falls far short of its goals, six years after its establishment.
Carbon capture may play a significant role in global discussions on combating the climate crisis. Sultan Al Jaber, the CEO of the National Oil Company of the United Arab Emirates and the president of the UN's global climate conference, has highlighted the importance of carbon capture technologies in the conference. It is likely that the host country, Dubai, will advocate for placing these technologies at the center of the roadmap and global work plans in the field, as it aims to achieve a global climate "deal" this year.
Most carbon capture projects have failed
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), to align with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, the annual carbon capture capacity must reach 1.6 billion tons by 2030. However, the technologies are still unproven on a large scale, and their prioritization has sparked controversy. Critics argue that excessive focus on carbon capture diverts attention and resources from urgently needed emissions reductions and existing solutions. Making this technology central to the road map means diverting taxpayer funding, private investments, technological innovation, attention of scientists and public support to uncertain solutions.
Last year, a report by the Institute for Energy Economics concluded that the majority of carbon capture projects have failed, with the few successful ones primarily benefiting oil companies. The study examined 10 of the world's most significant projects and found that seven of them did not meet their targets, two failed completely, and one stalled. Out of the 39 million tons of carbon captured in plants, approximately 28 million tons were "re-injected" and stored in oil fields to extract more polluting oil. Even at the Alberta Fuel Company's carbon capture plant, considered a relative technological success, the carbon emitted during the process only offsets 21% of the emissions saved. Proponents of carbon capture argue that the report's conclusions are based on an outdated view of the technology, but practical solutions have yet to pave the way forward.
Concerns also arise regarding the storage of captured carbon. The by-product is injected into geological layers in the ground through pipes, but the long-term consequences and the ability of the greenhouse gas to remain sequestered and not leak are not fully understood. A 2020 study conducted by Princeton University estimated that transporting a gigaton of carbon dioxide by 2050 would require 105,000 kilometers of pipelines, which would have their own environmental consequences and risks.
While investors and governments are captivated by technological solutions, experts emphasize that no approach to carbon capture alone can solve the climate crisis without a substantial reduction in fossil fuel usage. Yet, proven solutions with numerous advantages receive significantly less attention—nature-based solutions that naturally capture greenhouse gas emissions from human sources while providing additional benefits. These solutions do not require the complex deployment of polluting and energy-consuming machinery; on the contrary, they involve leveraging nature itself. Trees serve as a prime example. Trees not only help moderate extreme heat, winds, and floods but also sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide. In the United States, trees capture nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. Improved management of existing forests and urban trees, without additional land use, could increase this capture by 70%. Furthermore, by adding nearly 50 million acres of reforestation (an area equivalent to the size of Nebraska), the U.S. could capture nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, accounting for 40% of its annual emissions.
Different ecosystems have the capacity to absorb substantial amounts of carbon, offering assistance in the battle against climate change. However, these solutions require active management and the preservation of nature. Agriculture can also shift from being an environmental burden to a natural process that captures carbon in the soil. No-till farming methods, which reduce soil erosion and prevent the release of carbon stored in the soil, are already being practiced in countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy.
Around the world, various startups are focusing on nature-based solutions, including in Israel. For instance, the company Rewind aims to bury plant residues in the depths of the sea, where the carbon they contain can be deposited instead of being released into the air during the decay process. The company Groundwork has developed a mushroom that enhances nutrient absorption by plants. This approach saves on fertilization, increases crop yields, and allows the soil to sequester larger amounts of carbon. Additionally, the company Terra is involved in converting unprofitable agricultural areas into wetlands, which efficiently capture carbon in the soil while restoring nature to the region.
Israel is actively engaged in promoting experiments in the field of carbon capture. However, according to Dr. Gideon Friedman, the chief scientist of the Ministry of Energy, these technologies are not yet mature or economically viable, although they hold potential in the long run. "Until now, these technologies have not proven themselves. While we have seen capture installations in power plants or oil fields, and re-injection into wells, capturing carbon from the air is the most difficult problem. The concentration is low, the cost is high, and it is expected to take a long time before anything happens on a significant scale. In Israel we are examining the potential of carbon burial. We are working with the Geological Institute to see where it is possible to bury the subsoil in Israel and are mapping the best potential locations. We are evaluating whether the technology will become viable in the next few years, as carbon prices rise, but this is not something that can be applied immediately.”
Dr. Gil Proctor, Senior Director of the Energy and Climate Division at the Ministry of Environmental Protection, believes that these technologies should be treated with skepticism, and that available resources should be invested in the implementation of existing solutions, without wasting precious time when the world must significantly cut its emissions to combat the climate crisis.
"Oil companies with deep pockets and significant budgets are trying it without success. It’s hard for me to believe that in Israel with much lower budgets and less knowledge, the result will be different regarding carbon burial. The world is investing billions in experiments that have not been proven on a significant scale and certainly not on a commercial scale. Nor have they been able to capture carbon directly at its emission source - in power plant chimneys. If these technologies were commercially sustainable, they would become the big story. We might see nuclear fusion before they become commercial. The State of Israel must focus on the very limited resources it has, in the application of technologies that exist and are available and proven on a huge scale, and are also cheaper and more viable than fossil technologies. Anything that is a distraction harms efforts in renewable energy, storage, energy efficiency and resource efficiency.”
