Is Carbon Capture a Solution… or a Delay?

 


Is Carbon Capture a Solution… or a Delay?

The Climate Fix That Might Be Buying Us Time… or Costing It

Carbon capture sounds brilliant on paper.

Capture missions. Store them underground. Carry on as before.

Problem solved.

If only it were that simple.

What Is Carbon Capture, Really?


Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is exactly what it sounds like:

  • Capture CO₂ from power stations or industry
  • Compress it
  • Inject it deep underground for long-term storage

In theory, it allows us to keep using fossil fuels—or biomass—without releasing emissions into the atmosphere.

And that’s why it’s so appealing.

It promises change without disruption.

The Timing Problem

Here’s where things get uncomfortable.

Some approaches—especially bioenergy with carbon capture (BECCS)—rely on:

  • Growing biomass (trees or crops)
  • Burning it for energy
  • Capturing the resulting CO₂

Sounds carbon neutral… even carbon negative.

But recent research suggests:
It can take decades—or even over a century to truly offset the carbon released.

Why?

Because:

  • Trees take time to regrow
  • Land-use changes release carbon upfront
  • Ecosystems are disrupted in the process

That’s a long time to wait for a solution to an urgent problem.

The Real Risk: Delay Disguised as Progress


There’s a subtle but important danger here.

If carbon capture becomes the plan rather than part of the plan, it risks doing something unintended:

Slowing down real change.

It can create a narrative that says:

“We don’t need to reduce emissions quickly—we’ll deal with them later.”

That’s appealing. Comfortable, even.

But climate change doesn’t work on comfort—it works on physics.

Where Carbon Capture Does Make Sense

This isn’t a hit piece.

Carbon capture has a role—an important one.

For industries like:

  • Cement
  • Steel
  • Chemicals

There are emissions that are very difficult to eliminate entirely.

In these cases, CCS may be: 

Essential, not optional.

It can also help with:

  • Legacy emissions
  • Transitional energy systems

So the answer isn’t “ditch it.”

It’s “use it wisely.”

The Better Approach: Reduce First, Capture What’s Left


A more balanced strategy looks like this:

  1. Reduce emissions at source (renewables, efficiency, electrification)
  2. Change behaviour and systems
  3. Use carbon capture for what remains

Not the other way around.

Because capturing carbon after the fact is always:

  • More complex
  • More expensive
  • More uncertain

than simply not producing it in the first place.

What Does This Mean for Us?

It’s easy to think this is all happening at government or industry level.

But there’s a familiar pattern here.

We often look for:

  • A clever fix
  • A future solution
  • A way to carry on as normal

Sound familiar?

Carbon capture is, in many ways, the ultimate version of that mindset.

And yet, the real progress often comes from:

  • Using less energy
  • Switching to renewables
  • Making small, consistent changes

Not dramatic. Not futuristic.

But effective.

The Danger of the “Magic Fix”

We’ve seen this before:

  • Biofuels that weren’t as green as promised
  • Recycling systems that didn’t quite deliver
  • “Eco” products that solved one problem and created another

Carbon capture risks joining that list—if misunderstood.

Because it’s not magic.

It’s engineering.

And engineering always comes with trade-offs.

What Are the Problems with Carbon Capture? (Including the Canada Leak)

Carbon capture sounds reassuring—capture CO₂, store it safely underground, and carry on.

But like most large-scale engineering solutions, the reality is more complicated.

Let’s look at the main challenges, including the kind of incident you’re referring to.

1. The Risk of Leaks (Yes, It Can Happen)


CO₂ has to be:

  • Captured
  • Compressed
  • Transported (often via pipelines)
  • Stored underground

At each stage, there is potential for failure.

There have been incidents in North America, including pipeline leaks involving compressed CO₂. While not always from storage sites themselves, they highlight a key issue:

CO₂ is not harmless in high concentrations.

  • It can displace oxygen
  • Cause dizziness, confusion, or suffocation
  • Settle in low-lying areas

In one well-known case in the US (Satartia, Mississippi), a CO₂ pipeline rupture led to evacuations and hospitalisations.

Canada has also had concerns and scrutiny around pipeline integrity and storage safety—especially as projects scale up.

The key takeaway:
Carbon capture requires long-term containment, potentially for centuries.

That’s a big engineering and monitoring challenge.

2. It Doesn’t Solve the Problem Immediately

Even when CO₂ is captured:

  • Emissions have already been produced
  • Energy was used to capture and compress it

And with systems like biomass + CCS:

  • It can take decades to become net negative

 It’s not instant climate benefit—it’s delayed.

3. It Uses a Lot of Energy

Carbon capture isn’t free.

It requires:

  • Energy to capture CO₂ from exhaust gases
  • Energy to compress it
  • Energy to transport and store it

This is known as the “energy penalty.”

In some cases, a power station may need 20–30% more energy just to run the capture system.

Which raises an awkward question:

Are we burning more fuel to clean up emissions from burning fuel?

4. It’s Expensive

CCS projects are:

  • Technically complex
  • Capital intensive
  • Dependent on subsidies in many cases

Costs include:

  • Infrastructure (pipelines, storage sites)
  • Monitoring for decades
  • Maintenance and liability

Without government support, many projects struggle financially.

5. Land Use & Biomass Concerns (BECCS)

When linked to biomass:

  • Large areas of land may be needed to grow fuel
  • Forests or ecosystems can be displaced
  • Carbon stored in soil and vegetation may be lost

So the “green” label isn’t always straightforward.

6. The Moral Hazard Problem

This is perhaps the biggest concern.

If carbon capture is seen as a solution, it can:

  • Justify continued fossil fuel use
  • Delay investment in renewables
  • Reduce urgency for behaviour change

In simple terms:

“We’ll fix it later” becomes the plan.

7. Long-Term Responsibility (Who Is Liable?)

CO₂ must stay underground for:

  • Decades
  • Centuries
  • Possibly longer

So who is responsible if:

  • A leak occurs in 50 years?
  • Monitoring fails?
  • A company no longer exists?

This is still an unresolved issue in many regions.

So… Should We Use Carbon Capture?

Yes—but carefully.

It makes sense for:

  • Cement
  • Steel
  • Certain industrial processes

Where emissions are hard to eliminate.

But it should be:
A last step, not the first step

Final Thought

Carbon capture is often presented as a safety net.

And it can be.

But safety nets only work if:

  • They’re strong
  • They’re rarely needed
  • And you’re not relying on them to replace the ground beneath your feet

The danger isn’t the technology.

It’s how easily it can be used as an excuse to delay real change.

Carbon capture isn’t the villain.

But it’s not the hero either.

It’s a tool.

And like any tool, its impact depends on how we use it.

Used wisely: it helps us reach net zero
Used carelessly: it delays the journey

So perhaps the real question isn’t:

“Does carbon capture work?”

It’s:

“What are we using it instead of?”

Because if it replaces real action, it becomes a delay.

And time, as we keep being reminded, is the one thing we don’t have much of.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Using Ecosia: The Search Engine That Plants Trees

Image
  Using Ecosia: The Search Engine That Plants Trees ( Click. Search. Plant. Repeat. ) Imagine if every time you googled something, you planted a tree. No, it’s not some kind of green-tech fantasy — it’s Ecosia , a real search engine that uses its ad revenue to fund global reforestation projects. And all it takes is changing your browser’s homepage. What Is Ecosia? Ecosia is a free, privacy-respecting search engine based in Germany. It works just like Google or Bing, but with a twist: They use 100% of their profits to plant trees. So far, they've funded over 180 million trees in places like: Brazil Burkina Faso Madagascar Indonesia Kenya All you have to do is search the web. That’s it. You search — they plant. How It Works Every time you search on Ecosia, the platform earns revenue from clicks on sponsored search results (just like Google). Roughly 45 searches = 1 tree . The money goes to vetted reforestation projects with a focus on: Native bi...
Read more

Plug-In Solar is Coming to the UK – Cheap Energy or Just a Gimmick?

Image
Plug-In Solar is Coming to the UK – Cheap Energy or Just a Gimmick? There’s a quiet little revolution on the way. The UK Government has announced plans to allow “plug-in solar” systems —small solar panel kits you can install yourself and plug directly into a standard socket. No scaffolding. No installers. No £10,000 upfront cost. But before we all rush out and cover the shed roof, let’s look at what this actually means in real terms—especially using what’s already happening in countries like Germany , where these systems are already popular. What Will It Likely Cost? Germany gives us a very good benchmark. Typical “balcony solar” kits there cost: €400–€1,000 (£340–£850) Usually includes: 1–2 solar panels (300–800W total) Micro-inverter Plug-and-play connection Likely UK Pricing Once they arrive in the UK: £400–£1,000 per system is realistic Possibly slightly higher at launch due to: Certification requirements Supply chain differences Early adopter pr...
Read more

Does economic growth have to mean rising emissions?

Image
  Does economic growth have to mean rising emissions? For decades, we’ve been told there’s an awkward trade-off: grow the economy or cut emissions – pick one . It’s a neat story. It’s also increasingly out of date. The uncomfortable truth for that old argument is this: several countries are already growing their economies while cutting emissions . Not hypothetically. Not on a whiteboard. In the real world. The old assumption (and why it stuck) Historically, growth did mean more emissions. Industrialisation burned coal, oil powered transport, and cheap energy meant dirty energy. GDP and carbon rose together, so the idea became baked in: prosperity equals pollution. But that logic assumes three things: Energy must come from fossil fuels Efficiency improvements are marginal Consumption can’t change None of those assumptions still hold. What “decoupling” actually looks like Economists talk about decoupling – separating economic growth from emissions. There are two...
Read more