Carbon Capture and Storage

Source: Cutting Carbon: Should We Capture and Store It? By Simon Robinson  / Time

In the push to cut the amount of carbon we release into the atmosphere, solutions usually focus on how to reduce our power use (drive less, insulate our houses better) or how to replace our carbon fuels (coal, oil) with renewable sources (solar, wind, biofuels).

But even in the most optimistic scenario, we will be using fossil fuels such as coal for years to come. Solar and wind may be today's sexy new energy sources but coal is the fastest growing fuel in the world, boasting twice the known gas reserves and three times the known oil reserves.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) — a process that traps CO2 produced by factories and gas or coal power stations and then stores it, usually underground.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that CCS could contribute between 10% and 55% of the cumulative worldwide carbon mitigation effort over the next 90 years.

Though it requires up to 40% more energy to run a CCS coal power plant than a regular coal plant, CCS could potentially capture about 90% of all the carbon emitted by the plant.

Can the technology can be scaled up and used on power plants everywhere?

Critics argue that large-scale CCS deployment is decades away and that the world is better off focusing on renewable energy. Some environmental groups say that, just like nuclear power stations, CCS technology leaves behind a dangerous waste material that has to be stored. Greenpeace says that there's no way of knowing that carbon will stay underground for centuries and has called CCS "unproven, risky and expensive."

Industry figures who want governments to embrace CCS as the most pragmatic response to climate change.  If we get realistic about the fact that we need the fossil fuels in the development of places like China and India, then this is a way to make that acceptable.