Hello, what do you know about CCS and CDR ? If these words do not mean anything to you, you are in the right place. These methods are based on fascinating processes and are answers to the actual climate change issues. Discover what these acronyms signify with me.
The difference between Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) lies in their focus and methods. CCS consists in capturing the Carbon Dioxide directly from the fossil fuel power plants before it is released into the atmosphere. After that, the CO2 is injected deep into geological formations at a theoretically safe storage site. For this method, concerns about leakage remain and the energy needed is high. On the other hand, Carbon Dioxide Removal is aimed at removing Carbon Dioxide that is already in the atmosphere through natural processes like afforestation and technological methods such as Direct Air Capture (DAC). DAC is a costly method that consists in using chemical reactions and filtrations to remove the CO2 from captured fresh air. We have multiple solutions to repurpose the captured CO2, it can be stored in the ground or can be used to produce jet fuel. In this case the Carbon Dioxide is then released again in the atmosphere, limiting the long-term benefits of this method.
The main economic and practical criticisms of CCS technology discussed are the high costs of these processes and the small impact they have on combating climate change. Some experts argue that it is not a viable solution for addressing climate change because CCS adds 25% to the operational costs of business where it is deployed. With no-decrease in price since 40 years, CCS does not align with renewable energy sources. Furthermore the video emphasizes that the amount of CO2 captured by Direct Air Capture is dwarfed by the global emissions (roughly 38 billion tons). It follows that experts suggest transitioning to 100% renewable energy for cost savings and health benefits, based on the comparition between scenarios with or without CCS.
Studies from institutions like Oxford University and Stanford University regarding the costs and feasibility of CSS compared different scenarios of technology use in energy production. Then they estimate the consequences on the environment and the health, in addition to the associated costs. The key findings are that the less we use CCS, the lower the costs and the environmental and health impacts are. As a consequence, if we use a 100% renewable energy mix, end-use energy consumption and annual energy costs could theorically decrease. Hundreds of air pollution-related illnesses and deaths could be avoided as well.
In brief, CCS and CDR are technologies that could shape our future energy production mix. For now, let's follow their evolution and the potential improvement that can be implemented in the actual processes.
