|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mon, 3rd Apr 2023 17:39:00 |
|
Making the case for carbon capture and storage |
Prof Paul Fennell and other environment and energy experts say the argument against CCS technology is incorrect and circular
We were surprised to see the negative focus of the article regarding carbon capture and storage (UK government gambles on carbon capture and storage tech despite scientists’ doubts, 30 March). Far from unproven, this group of technologies is being applied on many tens of industrial CO2 capture projects, including two operating offshore (Sleipner and Snohvit), which have been capturing a million tonnes of CO2 a year for 27 years and 15 years respectively. The geography professor quoted in the article as being unaware of any CCS that works should perhaps take a trip to see one.
There are a diversity of opinions on the viability of CCS, and scientists are not uniformly doubting – see the Royal Society report from 2022. It is also clear from Emily Shuckburgh and Bob Ward that CCS is imperative, which flows directly from the executive summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s March 2023 sixth assessment report that mentions “Transition from fossil fuels … To very low carbon fossil fuels with CCS”.
The argument against CCS, that it is unproven – aside from being incorrect – is circular. The IPCC says we need it; everyone, including our committee on climate change, agrees we need it for industrial processes. And if it were unproven we should quickly get on with proving it in the UK, while driving up efficiency and decreasing hydrocarbon extraction.
Read original full article
|
| |
|
|
Back to Featured Articles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy News
|
|
| |
| |
