Energy & Infrastructure Insights — Storing Carbon Dioxide: “Forests Alone Will Not Suffice”

Latham’s Energy & Infrastructure partner, Tobias Larisch, spoke to renowned scientist Sabine Fuss about a technology with a controversial reputation in Germany: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which removes carbon dioxide during production processes and then stores it.

Sabine Fuss leads the “Sustainable Resource Management and Global Change” working group at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. A team under her lead published a detailed study on the topic of carbon dioxide removal in 2022, highlighting that even if industry sectors show relentless determination in advancing the green transformation, “process-related and residual emissions will be unavoidable for the foreseeable future”. Therefore CCS technology will play a vital role in helping to reach net zero — especially since the climate crisis is reducing the capacity of forests to absorb carbon dioxide.

The good news: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confirmed that safe storage capacities exist, while other countries have already tried and tested the technology. However, Germany, Fuss criticises, is lagging behind. She urges the federal government to use its upcoming Carbon Management Strategy to set the right course of action.

Larisch: The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs has published an evaluation report in which it considers enabling CCS technology to store carbon dioxide. What kind of potential does CCS offer to achieve net zero?

Fuss: Net zero means offsetting any human-made carbon emissions that can’t be reduced to zero via human-made carbon removal. Some industrial process emissions in particular will not cease by 2045 (Germany’s target year for reaching net zero) — however, the carbon dioxide can be extracted during the manufacturing process and then geologically stored. Additionally, so-called residual emissions, which sectors such as agriculture and air travel generate, may also be unavoidable in such a brief timeframe. These emissions would then need to be offset by extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, by incinerating newly planted biomass, or by removing carbon directly through air filtering systems. The point: none of the hundreds of the IPCC’s scenarios can achieve net zero without carbon dioxide removal. And if we cannot exclusively rely on biological carbon sinks, especially since the climate crisis is harming forests’ resilience and capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, artificial capture and storage will eventually take precedence.

"The point: none of the hundreds of the IPCC’s scenarios can achieve net zero without carbon dioxide removal."

Sabine Fuss, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change

Larisch: And yet, the idea of storing carbon dioxide remains controversial. Critics warn about the method’s environmental risks. How would you respond to these concerns?

Fuss: CCS is now a tried-and-tested technology. Projects such as Sleipner in Norway give little cause for concern that expansive leakage could impair public health or the environment. In view of the residual risk that exists in every industrial plant, we need extensive monitoring, security measures, liability arrangements and, of course, transparent communication. According to the IPCC, safe storage capacities exist, so the German government needs to press the launch button sooner rather than later. Geoscience tells us that the entire process of selecting, evaluating, and developing storage projects will take 15 to 20 years. However, CCS remains controversial since the public still associates it with the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore, CSS projects should not facilitate the ongoing operation of coal-fired power stations, but instead cover unavoidable process-related and residual emissions only.

Larisch: How could Germany and Europe advance the rapid development (and financing) of a carbon transport and storage infrastructure? How could CCS-related Contracts for Difference mitigate this issue in your opinion?

Fuss: Offsetting the climate impact of burning fossil fuels requires a carbon price. But economically removing carbon, on the other hand, requires a reduction in project costs; so government financial support is key. Currently, infrastructure development lacks a policy framework. And economic actors would need some certainty to start planning projects. So-called CCS Contracts for Difference could help solve this problem. As carbon costs increase, under these contracts the government would reimburse the shortfall generated by the (for now higher) marginal abatement costs. By simultaneously nurturing innovation, the government could support technical development, as well as incentivise entrepreneurship to create a market niche — by promoting pilot facilities and setting an increasing the volume target.

Sabine Fuss

Larisch: Other countries have already gained experience with CCS. What can Germany learn from them?

Fuss: Germany is a technology hub with great potential for innovation. However, because of the government’s hesitation to implement CCS, Germany has lagged behind other countries. The lack of acceptance is the root cause of this problem. Learning from successful pilot projects such as those in Norway, innovation grants such as those in the US, a solid mitigation of risks and, simply, developing transparent communication could help to overcome these issues.

Larisch: The government aims to publish an extensive “Carbon Management Strategy” as early as mid-2023. What would you hope to see from this Strategy?

Fuss: For one thing, I’m hoping for precise targets to scale carbon removals. Furthermore, the government should underpin these targets with appropriate measures, so they can actually be achieved. Additionally, I think it’s important to not put all your eggs into one basket and instead aim for a broad portfolio of removal methods within a comprehensive, overall strategy — obviously not replacing, but operating alongside a consistent reduction in emissions towards net zero. After all, forests alone will not suffice in eliminating carbon dioxide, as the recent droughts, wildfires, bark beetle infestation, etc. have highlighted. Maintaining our biological carbon sinks will be a challenge in itself.