The Carbon Capture Mirage: Why We’re Betting on a Fantasy
Techno-hopium
It seems like many people out there are still sniffing techno-hopium by the tank-load.
As much as I'd love for them to be right, it's just too easy to show why they're wrong. Or at least how they're overrelying on unreasonable assumptions.
Today, let’s talk about carbon capture and storage. CCS. The “get out of jail free” card for the fossil fuel industry. The darling of politicians who want to look like they’re doing something about the climate crisis, without actually changing a thing.
But here’s the truth: CCS is a mirage. It makes great promises, but delivers little.
Let’s break it down.
The dream goes like this: we’ll keep burning fossil fuels, but we’ll catch all that nasty carbon before it escapes into the sky. We’ll stuff it deep underground, lock it away for eternity, and keep the party going. No need to change. No need to transform. No need to face the music.
It’s a seductive idea. It’s also a dangerous one.
Because it rests on a tower of assumptions, each one shakier than the last.
First, we assume CCS can actually capture 90, 95, maybe even 100 percent of the carbon emissions from a power plant or factory. Slick brochures and ads imply this possibility.
But reality? The best we’ve ever done, anywhere on earth, is 83%. That’s the high score. Most projects limp along, capturing far less. Some fail outright. Some refuse to even publish their data.
Second, we assume CCS will get cheaper as we build more. That’s how it worked for solar panels, wind turbines, VCRs and many other new technologies. Build more, befit from scale, costs plummet, everyone wins. But CCS is different. It’s bespoke. Custom-built for every site, every smokestack, every underground formation. No mass production. No assembly line. Just endless engineering headaches, unique to every project.
Third, we assume the carbon will stay underground. Forever. Not for a decade, not for a century, but for thousands of years. But geology is tricky. Wells leak. Rocks crack. Pressure builds. Monitoring is expensive. Who’s going to pay for it in 50 years, 100 years, when the company’s long gone and the world’s moved on? Nobody knows.
Fourth, we assume we can quickly scale CCS to meet remediation objectives. Tbis is a massive undertaking. We’re talking gigatons of carbon every single year.
Right now, after decades of hype, the world’s total CCS capacity is only about 50 million tons a year. That’s less than 0.1% of global emissions. A rounding error.
The Gorgon project in Australia, one of the world’s biggest, cost billions. It’s delivered half of what it promised. The In Salah project in Algeria? Shut down after seven years. Shute Creek in the US? Underperformed by a third. Most projects are subsidized by governments, propped up with taxpayer money, and still can’t deliver what they promise.
Meanwhile, the costs haven’t budged. CCS costs anywhere from $30 to $150 a ton of CO2, depending on the source. That’s before you even count the pipelines, the monitoring, the insurance for leaks.
And the kicker: even when it works, CCS uses a ton of energy. You have to run the capture equipment, compress the gas, pump it underground. That means burning more fuel, making more emissions. The net savings? Often 10-20% less than the headline number. Sometimes, not much at all.
Now let’s talk about the elephant in the room: emissions are still rising. Every year, we burn more oil, more gas, more coal. And every year, the gap between what CCS can do and what we need grows wider.
The International Energy Agency says we’d need to multiply CCS capacity by ten, twenty, fifty times to make a dent. And that’s just to keep up with today’s emissions, never mind tomorrow’s. The math doesn’t add up. The timeline doesn’t work. The fantasy falls apart.
Here’s the part nobody talks about. Every dollar we pour into CCS is a dollar we don’t spend on renewables, on efficiency, on real transformation. Every year we wait for CCS to deliver is a year we could have been building a new world. Instead, we’re propping up the old one. Keeping the fossil fuel machine alive, just a little bit longer.
CCS is the fossil fuel industry’s last, best hope. It’s the fig leaf that lets them say, “Don’t worry, we’ve got this.” But they don’t. The numbers don’t lie. The projects don’t deliver.
Why do we cling to CCS? Because it lets us believe we don’t have to change. That we can keep driving, flying, consuming, as if nothing’s wrong. It’s denial, dressed up as technology. It’s hopium in its most dangerous form.
Support my writing by making a one time contribution: https://ko-fi.com/collapse2050
It doesn't speak very highly of our educational system or the PhDs that are promoting it. They probably believe in perpetual motion as well and are working feverishly on it.
The concept of sucking the entire atmosphere of the planet and removing the carbon, methane and other gases with fans is one of the biggest propaganda spiels ever contrived, and is being promoted by the scientific community. Doesn't give me much faith in science or engineering.
The impossibility of it is high school physics and yet it's being pursued at a cost of billions of dollars (for short term profit) by government and corporations the same as fusion energy which is always 20 years away. The planet was doomed 60 years ago given the path chosen at that time and continually made worse by the economic system and out of control population growth. Intelligent and realistic people knew then but were overruled by profiteering.
The bottom line (which is what everything has run on till now) are the ones making the decisions who know they will all be dead when collapse comes so it doesn't matter to them. They also have the option of retreat to their "bunkers" to go insane after a year living underground. I wonder if they have a game in the billionaire club of "the last one standing".
Maybe the earth is flat and I just need a bigger pair of binoculars to prove it to myself. Wonder when we'll cut a hole in the dome over our the earth to let all the carbon dioxide out? It'll be way cheaper than fans.
We have a childlike FAITH in Technology. Most Americans BELIEVE with all their hearts that once a problem becomes profitable to solve, a solution will be found. Their catechism is that "resources may be limited but human ingenuity is limitless".
People, and industries, LOVE this idea. It allows them to "have their cake and eat it too". Since the consequences for our actions today, will be easily and cheaply solved in the FUTURE, through the "miracle" of TECHNOLOGY.
It's not a really a "rational" position, which is why you cannot change people's minds. It's a FAITH, just like faith in G-d. People simply BELIEVE that if we need something bad enough, someone will solve the problem.
So, spending money and taking actions to "save" the future is just stupid. The FUTURE doesn't need us to take care of it, the future will take care of itself.
I think it ultimately always goes back to the common perception that we still have 40 or 50 years before climate change "gets serious". People who don't follow climate science closely have NO CLUE what's going on.