Exploring the effectiveness of CCS by examining its technological potential, economic feasibility, and environmental impact.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is increasingly being promoted as a crucial technology in the fight against climate change. It involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from industrial sources or directly from the air, transporting it, and storing it underground to prevent its release into the atmosphere. While proponents argue that CCS is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, critics question its efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and long-term viability.

The technological potential of CCS

CCS is composed of three main stages: capture, transportation, and storage. The capture process can occur through post-combustion, pre-combustion, or oxy-fuel combustion techniques. Post-combustion capture, which removes CO₂ from flue gases, is the most common due to its adaptability to existing power plants. Pre-combustion capture involves converting fossil fuels into hydrogen and CO₂ before combustion, whereas oxy-fuel combustion burns fuels in oxygen, creating a concentrated CO₂ stream for easier capture.

Storage options include geological formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep saline aquifers, and unmineable coal seams. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that well-selected storage sites could retain over 99% of the injected CO₂ for more than 1,000 years. Additionally, emerging technologies like direct air capture (DAC) offer the potential to remove CO₂ directly from the atmosphere, further enhancing CCS’s role in climate mitigation.

Economic feasibility and challenges

Despite its potential, CCS remains an expensive and energy-intensive technology. The cost of capturing CO₂ varies widely, ranging from $40 to $120 per tonne depending on the method and industry. Transportation and storage add further expenses, with estimates suggesting that full-chain CCS deployment could cost between $50 and $150 per tonne of CO₂ avoided. These high costs make CCS less attractive compared to alternative decarbonisation strategies such as renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements.

Moreover, large-scale deployment of CCS requires significant infrastructure investment, including pipelines, storage facilities, and monitoring systems. Governments and industries have been slow to invest due to uncertainties in regulatory frameworks, long-term liability for stored carbon, and public skepticism regarding potential leaks and seismic risks. While financial incentives such as carbon pricing and tax credits (e.g., the US 45Q tax credit) help promote CCS, widespread adoption remains limited due to economic constraints.

Environmental impact and risks

CCS can significantly reduce emissions from fossil fuel-based industries, but its overall effectiveness is dependent on deployment scale and operational reliability. One major concern is the potential for CO₂ leakage from storage sites, which could undermine climate benefits and pose risks to local environments. However, well-managed projects with robust monitoring systems can mitigate these risks.

Another criticism of CCS is that it may prolong reliance on fossil fuels by providing a justification for continued extraction and use. This concern is particularly relevant in industries like coal power generation, where CCS is sometimes promoted as a means to maintain operations rather than transitioning to cleaner alternatives. Additionally, CCS consumes substantial energy, sometimes reducing the net efficiency of power plants and industrial processes, further questioning its overall sustainability.

The role of CCS in climate mitigation

Despite its challenges, CCS remains an important tool for decarbonisation, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors such as cement, steel, and chemical production. These industries produce emissions that cannot be easily eliminated through renewable energy alone. The IPCC and the International Energy Agency (IEA) both emphasize that CCS is necessary to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, particularly when combined with negative-emission technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

However, CCS should not be seen as a silver bullet. It must be integrated into a broader climate strategy that includes renewable energy expansion, energy efficiency improvements, and behavioral changes to reduce carbon footprints. A balanced approach that combines CCS with other mitigation strategies is essential for achieving global climate goals.

Conclusion

Carbon Capture and Storage presents a viable but imperfect solution to climate change. While it has the potential to significantly reduce emissions from heavy industries and fossil-fuel-based power generation, its high costs, energy requirements, and long-term storage risks pose challenges to its large-scale deployment. To maximise its effectiveness, CCS should be implemented alongside comprehensive decarbonisation efforts, ensuring that it complements rather than delays the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon future. If technological advancements and economic incentives improve its feasibility, CCS could play a crucial role in achieving global climate targets.