Carbon Pipelines Negative T

AT: Warming – CCS Doesn’t Solve

No tech for at least 40 years—too late to solve warming

Rochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate,” http://www.probeinternational.org/False%20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H
CCS cannot deliver in time to save the climate

Every decision made about new power plants today will influence the energy mix of the next 30-40 years. The urgency of the climate crisis means solutions must be ready for large-scale deployment in the short-term. CCS simply cannot deliver in time. While some system components of CCS are already in commercial use – mostly in the oil and gas industry“there is no operational experience with carbon capture from coal plants and certainly not with an integrated sequestration operation”.78 While plans for demonstration facilities are underway, it is believed that the earliest CCS might become feasible is 2030.79 The UNDP concludes that CCS “will arrive on the battlefield far too late to help the world avoid dangerous climate change.”80

Doesn’t capture enough CO2

Rochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate,” http://www.probeinternational.org/False%20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H
Assuming that commercial viability is reached, scenario studies indicate that by 2050 only 20-40% of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions could be technically suitable for capture. This includes 30-60% of emissions from the power sector.66 Therefore, up to 70% of emissions from electricity generation in 2050 may not even be technically suited to CCS.

Status quo solves warming—plan prevents solutions

Rochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate,” http://www.probeinternational.org/False%20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H
The world already has the solutions to the climate crisis

Investment in CCS risks locking the world into an energy future that fails to save the climate. Those technologies with the greatest potential to provide energy security and reduce emissions, and to provide renewable energy and energy efficiency, need to be prioritised.

Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution blueprint shows how renewable energy, combined with greater energy efficiency, can cut global CO2 emissions by almost 50%, and deliver half the world’s energy needs by 2050.40 The renewable energy market is booming; in 2007, global annual investment in renewables exceeded US$100 billion.41 Decades of technological progress have seen renewable energy technologies such as wind turbines, solar photovoltaic panels, biomass power plants and solar thermal collectors move steadily into the mainstream. The same climate decision-makers who were sceptical about CCS believed far more in the ability of renewable technologies to deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: 74% expressed confidence in solar hot water, 62% in offshore wind farms, and 60% in onshore wind farms.42Investment in CCS risks locking the world into an energy future that fails to save the climate. Those technologies with the greatest potential to provide energy security and reduce emissions, and to provide renewable energy and energy efficiency, need to be prioritised.

Many nations have recognised the potential of these true climate solutions and are pressing ahead with ambitious plans for energy revolutions within their borders. New Zealand plans to achieve carbon neutrality by midcentury. Renewable energy and energy efficiency, not CCS, are leading the way. New Zealand already obtains 70% of its electricity from renewable resources and aims to increase it to 90% by 2025.43 In Germany, renewable energy use has increased 300% in the past 10 years. In the US, over 5,200 megawatts (MW) of wind energy were installed in 2007, accounting for 30% of new power installed that year; an increase of 45% in one year.44

The urgency of the climate crisis means solutions must be ready for large-scale deployment in the short-term. CCS simply cannot deliver in time. The technology is highly speculative, risky and unlikely to be technically feasible in the next twenty years. Letting CCS be used as a smokescreen for building new coal-fired power stations is unacceptable and irresponsible. “Capture ready” coal plants pose a significant threat to the climate.

The world can fight climate change but only if it reduces its dependence on fossil fuels, particularly coal. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are safe, costeffective solutions that carry none of the risks of CCS, and are available today to cut emissions and save the climate.
CCS is expensive and prevents solutions to warming

Rochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate,” http://www.probeinternational.org/False%20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H
CCS is expensive and undermines funding for sustainable solutions

While cost estimates for CCS vary considerably, one thing is certain – it is extremely expensive.

CCS will require significant funding to construct the power station and necessary infrastructure to transport and store carbon. Existing policy mechanisms, such as a price on carbon, would need to be significantly increased (by as much as five times higher than their current levels) and supplemented by additional policy commitments and financial incentives.25

The US Department of Energy (US DOE) calculates that installing carbon capture systems will almost double plant costs.26 This will lead to electricity price hikes of anywhere between 21 and 91%.27

Providing the substantial levels of support needed to get CCS off the ground comes at the expense of real solutions. Current research shows electricity generated from coal-fired power stations equipped with CCS will be more expensive than other less-polluting sources, such as wind power and many types of sustainable biomass.28

CCS doesn’t solve warming—takes too long

Rochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate,” http://www.probeinternational.org/False%20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H
The climate crisis requires urgent action. Climate scientists warn that to avoid the worst effects, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015 and then start falling by at least 50% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. Coal is the most polluting of all fossil fuels, and the single greatest threat to the climate. If current plans to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in coal plants are realised, CO2 emissions from coal could increase 60% by 2030. Concerns about the feasibility, costs, safety, and liability of CCS make it a dangerous gamble. A survey of 1000 “climate decision-makers and influencers” around the world reveals substantial doubt in the ability of CCS to deliver. Just 34% were confident that retrofitting ‘clean coal technology’ to existing power plants could reduce CO2 emissions over the next 25 years without unacceptable side effects, and only 36% were confident in its ability to deliver low-carbon energy from new power stations.5