There were two articles I found interesting to earth-ies on The Economist (which I love) this week.  CCS, also known as carbon sequestration, is a technology which isolates carbon dioxide from processes that often produce large quantities (i.e. coal burning) and compresses then pumps it underground.   This creates a “storage” system that successfully allows CO2 from being released into the atmosphere… or does it?

1) The illusion of clean coal
2) Trouble in store

Below are three key points I found interesting with the attempted and future implementation of CCS.

I. Does it work? Adequacy of credibility

There is a lot of enthusiasm, even I had been wanting to do a bit of research on CCS.  But the optimism is really a product of the idea of possibilites.  There is not a single big power plant using the CCS technology in the world.   According to the article, Exxon Mobil runs the biggest carbon-capture facility, using the pressure from CO2 pumping into reservoirs to push out more fuel.  The two points below really answers this first point.

II. Is it tested? Ambitions outperform reality

If enthusiasm isn’t backed by enough CCS facilities, then how will the industry progress?  There seems to be several pilot projects underway but the technology hasn’t been proven because for one, the high cost of CCS is deterring investment (more below) and two, the reports of leakage are not dependable yet.   The Economist says that according to Greenpeace, CO2 can react with minerals and materials that house it, thereby leaking at a rate of 1% a year which would lead to 63% of the total CO2 stores… net net?   Obviously a lot of work needs to be done in this area of science/technology thereby providing progressively cheaper technology engineering alternatives.

III. Is it cost effective?   Interesting note on policy

Currently the expected price range to implement CCS is broad but one thing is for sure — it’s too expensive.  I won’t get into the details here but what I found more interesting was this: “Politicians should indeed encourage investment in clean technologies, but direct subsidies are not the way to do it. A carbon price or tax, which raises the cost of emitting carbon dioxide while leaving it up to the private sector to pick technologies, is the better approach.”  I agree.