In 2023, Friends of the Earth International released the first part of the *Bank of Evidence*, highlighting the devastating impacts of so-called "Nature-Based Solutions."
The CO2 in the pioneering Norwegian CCS projects has moved in an unexpected way, says a recent IEEFA study. This raises questions about the feasibility and economy of large-scale CO2 storage.
The huge emissions from the steel industry can be virtually eliminated by using hydrogen from green power, or from other electric processes. CCS is not used, not needed and not likely to be a mitigation option.
This is a continuation of an article from the previous issue, here presenting the situation for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in Australia, China and the US.
Enthusiasm for CCS has waned across much of Europe as the technology has failed to advance and renewables have convincingly demonstrated their ability to cost-effectively decarbonize the energy system. But don’t tell that to Norway.
Carbon capture and storage is not a real mitigation option. There are faster, cleaner, surer, safer, more durable, more effective and cheaper ways to cut CO2: renewables, efficiency measures and the development of carbon-free industrial processes.
The risk of leaks that are difficult to detect and the thorough investigations required to find suitable sites are factors that limit the potential to scale up ongoing CO2 storage projects.
As the change from fossil fuels to renewable energy is gradually gaining wider acceptance, CCS is now seen more and more as a method mainly applicable to industrial processes.
