by The world has far fewer places to save carbon dioxide deep underground than previously assumed, which steeply lowers its potential to contain global warming. This emerges from a new study that questions the long -term industry claims on practice.
The study published on Wednesday in the Nature magazine showed that the global carbon storage capacity was ten times less than earlier estimates after excluding geological formations in which the gas leak, triggered earthquakes or had other restrictions. This means that CO2 recording and memory only have the potential that the warming of people around 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.26 Fahrenheit)—–far less than earlier estimates of about 5 to 6 degrees Celsius (9-10.8 degrees Fahrenheit), said researcher.
“The carbon storage is often shown as a way out of the climate crisis. Our results make it clear that it is a limited tool.” The study was carried out by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, in which Gidded is also a senior researcher in the program for energy, climate and the environment.
The study is the latest knock on a technology that has been promoted by the oil and gas industry for years and has often been advertised as climate protection. Nowadays, CO2 records are far from using the worldwide, despite the billion of dollars, and the amount of carbon currently recorded is only a tiny part of the billions of tons of carbon dioxide that are emitted every year.
Challenging assumptions
The Paris agreement from 2015 called for the limitation of the average global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), but ideally below 1.5 ° C (2.7f) compared to the early 1800s.
Many scenarios for the achievement based on the removal and storage of carbon, assuming that the potential was “very large”, since earlier estimates did not constitute areas in need of protection that may not be suitable, said the co-author of studies, Alexandre Koberle, researcher at the University of Lisbon.
“This was never systematically challenged and tested,” said Koberle, adding that the study was the first to examine what areas should be avoided, which led to a “prudent potential” that minimized the risks for people and the environment.
This does not mean that the CO2 recording and memory are not important to keep the global temperatures in chess -but the countries have to set priorities on how to use limited storage and do this in connection with fast and deep emissions, according to the researchers.
Ideally, the technology should be used for sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, such as: B. cement production, aviation and agriculture instead of extending the lifespan of contaminated power plants or extending the use of oil and gas, said Koberle.
Industry officials defended the carbon recording and storage as by nature from a low risk and say that emerging technologies such as storing carbon dioxide in basalt formations in which they are mineralized could increase the total storage amount dramatically.
In addition, his use is “not optional if we hope to tackle global warming,” said Jessie Stolark, managing director of the carbon capture coalition and added that it has to be combined with other options to reduce emissions and to be compensated with the need for reliable and affordable energy.
Rob Jackson, head of the Global Carbon project, a group of scientists who monitor greenhouse gas emissions, praised the study for its warning perspective. And although it is optimistic that the Carbon Capture technology will work itself, he believes that very little is stored, “because I don’t think we are ready to pay for it”.
“If we are not ready to shorten emissions today, why do we expect people to automatically pay for our pollution in the future?” Said Jackson. “We just continue to pollute and do not address the root of the problem.”
How it works
Carbon dioxide, a gas that is created by burning fossil fuels, catches the heat near the floor when it is released into the atmosphere, where it has been in the case of years and increases global temperatures.
Industry and power plants can install devices to separate carbon dioxide from other gases before leaving the smoke stack, or can be recorded directly with huge vacuers from the atmosphere.
The carbon recorded is compressed and sent to a place where it can be injected deeply underground underground for long-term storage in deep salt or basalt formations and non-adequate carbon seams- about three quarters in oil fields to build pressure to extract more oil.
In the United States, such projects were criticized by some conservatives who say that it is expensive and unnecessary, and of environmentalists who say that it did not consistently capture as much pollution as promised and is simply a way for manufacturers of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal to continue their use.
With the most frequently used technology, the facilities can capture and save around 60% of their carbon dioxide emissions during the production process. According to the International Energy Agency, everything about this rate is much more difficult and expensive.
Gidden, the senior author, said it was clear that the spread of carbon storage will be important to achieve net zero emissions and finally reduce them, and said the use of basalt formations is promising. But the world can hardly wait for it to happen before they resolve the emissions of fossil fuels.
“If we extend our dependence on fossil fuels for too long that are expected to compensate for the fact that by simply saving carbon underground, we can not only act with our confusion, but also to have limited options for cleaning up,” he said.
___
Associated Press’s climate and environmental protection receives financial support from several private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the standards of AP for working with philanthropias, a list of supporters and financed coverage areas at Ap.org.
