The headlines are dominated by global weather catastrophes, from heat waves to flash flooding. Climate change is something that impacts all of us, no matter where we live or what we believe in. Carbon emissions are a clear source of this problem, and at the moment, not enough is being done to reverse this trend.
There are currently 17 large-scale carbon capture plants around the world. These are responsible for sequestering 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year. This amounts to just 0.1% of the total global emissions. It is clear that the technology needs to scale up quickly if we are to see any positive environmental impact from this process. According to the International Energy Agency, we need to sequester around 6 billion metric tonnes of CO2 by 2050 in order to see any impact.
At present, much of the carbon capture process focuses on capturing CO2 from large point sources and then storing it somewhere so that it doesn’t enter the atmosphere. This often involves pumping it into underground geological reservoirs including the seabed and depleted oil reserves. Many people are asking if we put so much effort into capturing the CO2, wouldn’t it make more sense to put it to good use?
How does carbon capture work?
In its simplest form, carbon capture works by trapping CO2 at the source, moving it to a storage location and then isolating it so that it never enters the atmosphere. It’s a complex process, but it does result in greener energy production.
Storage vs reuse
One of the biggest environmental arguments raging today surrounds the choice to store the captured CO2 or reuse it. Captured CO2 can be used to create Methanol which is a clean energy which can be used in place to fuel in internal combustion engines. We could essentially trap the emissions from fossil fuel powered plants and convert this into a green fuel to power our cars.
The process is relatively new, but in early tests, scientists were able to convert 79% of carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere into methanol using hydrogen. For companies, the biggest impact this would have would be on their carbon credits status. Carbon credits allow companies to offset their own emissions by investing in green initiatives which help to reduce carbon emissions. At the moment, many companies choose to invest in green technology in developing countries as a way to offset future emissions, but carbon capture could be an alternative to this.
Is it viable?
The biggest obstacle to carbon capture programmes has always been the cost. Companies would much rather purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions rather than investing in carbon capture programmes. In early 2018, Donald Trump signed a new bill into law that could tip the scales in the opposite direction. The budget bill boost tax credits for companies and organisations that choose to invest in carbon capture.
It won’t write off the cost of retrofitting old factories, but it will significantly lower the cost. This is the first time that carbon capture has been a commercially viable investment and this should help to encourage more companies to take the plunge. The tax credit will add up to $50 for every metric tonne of CO2 captured and stored and $35 for every tonne put to work in other ways. This is an improvement on the previous $20 and $10 tax credit before the bill came into law.
It is clear that carbon capture is required if we are to take control of the environment and prevent global temperatures from continuing to rise. By incentivising carbon capture programmes and increased the production of methanol fuel from carbon, we should see significant environmental impact which will benefit generations to come.
Find out more about what Silent is doing and how you can get involved at https://silent.technology/en/
