Carbon capture is expected to play a pivotal role in the race to net zero emissions. But not everyone agrees

Published

4 years ago

July 20, 2021

admin

A detail of the pilot carbon dioxide (CO2) capture plant is pictured at Amager Bakke waste incinerator in Copenhagen on June 24, 2021.

IDA GULDBAEK ARENTSEN | AFP | Getty Images

LONDON — Carbon capture technology is often held up as a source of hope in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, featuring prominently in countries’ climate plans as well as the net-zero strategies of some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies.

The topic is divisive, however, with climate researchers, campaigners and environmental advocacy groups arguing that carbon capture technology is not a solution.

The world is confronting a climate emergency, and policymakers and chief executives are under intensifying pressure to deliver on promises made as part of the landmark Paris Agreement. The accord, ratified by nearly 200 countries in 2015, is seen as critically important in averting the worst effects of climate change.

Carbon capture, utilization and storage — often shortened to carbon capture technology or CCUS — refers to a suite of technologies designed to capture carbon dioxide from high-emitting activities such as power generation or industrial facilities, that use either fossil fuels or biomass for fuel.

The captured carbon dioxide, which can also be captured directly from the atmosphere, is then compressed and transported via pipeline, ship, rail or truck to be used in a range of applications or permanently stored underground.

There are a number of reasons why carbon capture is a false climate solution. The first and most fundamental of those reasons is that it is not necessary.

Carroll Muffett

Chief executive at the Center for International Environmental Law

Proponents of these technologies believe they can play an important and diverse role in meeting global energy and climate goals.

Carroll Muffett, chief executive at the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), is not one of them. “There are a number of reasons why carbon capture is a false climate solution. The first and most fundamental of those reasons is that it is not necessary,” he told CNBC via telephone.

“If you look at the history of carbon capture and storage, what you see is nearly two decades of a solution in search of a cure.”

‘Unproven scalability’

Some CCS and CCUS facilities have been operating since the 1970s and 1980s when natural gas processing plants in south Texas began capturing carbon dioxide and supplying the emissions to local oil producers for enhanced oil recovery operations. The first one was set up in 1972.

It wasn’t until several years later that carbon capture technology would be studied for climate mitigation purposes. Now, there are 21 large-scale CCUS commercial projects in operation worldwide and plans for at least 40 new commercial facilities have been announced in recent years.

A report published by CIEL earlier this month concluded that these technologies are not only “ineffective, uneconomic and unsafe,” but they also prolong reliance on the fossil fuel industry and distract from a much-needed pivot to renewable alternatives.

Employees near the CO2 compressor site at the Hawiyah Natural Gas Liquids Recovery Plant, operated by Saudi Aramco, in Hawiyah, Saudi Arabia, on Monday, June 28, 2021. The Hawiyah Natural Gas Liquids Recovery Plant is designed to process 4.0 billion standard cubic feet per day of sweet gas as pilot project for Carbon Capture Technology (CCUS) to prove the possibility of capturing C02 and lowering emissions from such facilities.

Maya Siddiqui | Bloomberg | Getty Images

“The unproven scalability of CCS technologies and their prohibitive costs mean they cannot play any significant role in the rapid reduction of global emissions necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C,” the CIEL said, referring to a key aim of the Paris Agreement to limit a rise in the earth’s temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

“Despite the existence of the technology for decades and billions of dollars in government subsidies to date, deployment of CCS at scale still faces insurmountable challenges of feasibility, effectiveness, and expense,” the CIEL added.

Earlier this year, campaigners at Global Witness and Friends of the Earth Scotland commissioned climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre in Manchester, U.K. to assess the role fossil fuel-related CCS plays in the energy system.

The peer-reviewed study found that carbon capture and storage technologies still face numerous barriers to short-term deployment and, even if these could be overcome, the technology “would only start to deliver too late.” Researchers also found that it was incapable of operating with zero emissions, constituted a distraction from the rapid growth of renewable energy “and has a history of over-promising and under-delivering.”

In short, the study said reliance on CCS is “not a solution” to confronting the world’s climate challenge.

Carbon capture is ‘a rarity’ in Washington

Not everyone is convinced by these arguments, however. The International Energy Agency, an influential intergovernmental group, says that while carbon capture technology has not yet lived up to its promise, it can still offer “significant strategic value” in the transition to net zero.

“CCUS is a really important part of this portfolio of technologies that we consider,” Samantha McCulloch, head of CCUS technology at the IEA, told CNBC via video call.

The IEA has identified four key strategic roles for the technologies: Addressing emissions from energy infrastructure, tackling hard-to-abate emissions from heavy industry (cement, steel and chemicals, among others), natural gas-based hydrogen production and carbon removal.

For these four reasons, McCulloch said it would be fair to describe CCUS as a climate solution.

At present, CCUS facilities around the world have the capacity to capture more than 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. The IEA believes plans to build many more facilities could double the level of CO2 captured globally.

“It is contributing but not to a scale that we envisage will be needed in terms of a net-zero pathway,” McCulloch said. “The encouraging news, I think, is that there has been very significant momentum behind the technology in recent years and this is really reflecting that without CCUS it will be very difficult — if not impossible — to meet net-zero goals.”

Electricity pylons are seen in front of the cooling towers of the coal-fired power station of German energy giant RWE in Weisweiler, western Germany, on January 26, 2021.

INA FASSBENDER | AFP | Getty Images

Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S. oil and gas trade lobby group, believes the future looks bright for carbon capture and utilization storage.

The group noted in a blog post on July 2 that CCUS was a rare example of something that is liked by “just about everyone” in Washington – Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike.

Where do we go from here?

“Frankly, tackling climate change is not the same as trying to bring the fossil fuel industry to its knees,” Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, told CNBC via telephone.

“If the fossil fuel companies can help us get to net zero then why wouldn’t we want them to do that? I think too many environmental groups have conflated their dislike of oil and gas companies with the challenge of tackling climate change.”

When asked why carbon capture and storage schemes should be in countries’ climate plans given the criticism they receive, Ward replied: “Because if we are going to get to net zero by 2050, we have to throw every technology at this problem … People who argue that you can start ruling out technologies because you don’t like them are those who, I think, haven’t understood the scale of the challenge we face.”

The CIEL’s Muffett rejected this suggestion, saying proponents of carbon capture technologies are increasingly reliant on this kind of “all of the above” argument. “The answer to it is surprisingly easy: It is that we have a decade to cut global emissions in half and we have just a few decades to eliminate them entirely,” Muffett said.

“If on any reasonable examination of CCS, it costs massive amounts of money but doesn’t actually reduce emissions in any meaningful way, and further entrenches fossil fuel infrastructure, the question is: In what way is that contributing to the solution as opposed to diverting time and energy and resources away from the solutions that will work?”

Environment

E-quipment highlight: Komatsu PC20E-6 electric mini excavator

Published

6 hours ago

August 31, 2025

admin

E-quipment highlight: Komatsu PC20E-6 electric mini excavator

Komatsu electric mini offers ‘realistic working day’ operation

Japanese equipment giant Komatsu has added a not-so-giant electric excavator to its growing lineup of battery-powered construction equipment. The new Komatsu PC20E-6 electric mini excavator promises a full day of work from a single charge.

Komatsu says the design of its latest mini excavator was informed by data sourced from more than 40,000 working days of comparably-sized diesel excavators. The company found that, in 90% of its global customers’ mini excavator deployments, these vehicles are in active use for less than 3.5 hours per day.

“This defined the target for the required, reliable working time with the excavator,” reads the Komatsu web copy. “This result makes it possible for Komatsu to offer an attractively priced machine with a performance that exactly matches the requirements.”

Keeping costs down are relatively conservative specs. Komatsu chose to power the PC20E-6 with a 23.2 kWh battery pack sending electrons to an 11 kW (~15 hp), high-torque electric motors. Not exactly super impressive on paper, but the machine has an operating weight of 2,190 kg and enough juice for up to four (4) hours of continuous operation.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

More than enough, in other words, to have completed 90% of of those 40,000 work days the company analyzed.

Getting it done

PC20E-6 electric mini excavator; via Komatsu.

If, for some reason, that four hours’ runtime isn’t enough, an on-board charging option for 230V and 3kW charging power compatible with various plug adapters is standard, with an external DC quick charger for 400V and 12 kW charging as optional. In either case, it won’t be long before the machine is back at work.

To help the later adopters sleep well about their battery-powered investments, the PC20E-6 ships with Komatsu’s E-Support maintenance program, which includes free scheduled maintenance by a Komatsu-trained technician, a 3 year/2,000 hour warranty on the machine, plus a 5 year/10,000 hour warranty on the electric driveline. The company says the battery should last 10 years.

“The Komatsu E-Support customer program is included free of charge with every market-ready electric mini excavator and offers exclusive machine support,” said Emanuele Viel, Group Manager Utility at Komatsu Europe. “The bottom line is that the risk for the end customer is significantly reduced, especially when it comes to exploring the electrification advances in the industry.”

Komatsu hasn’t released official pricing quite yet, but has revealed that the P20E-6 will begin series production this October.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Komatsu.

If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Environment

Tesla unexpectedly ends contract at Giga Texas, letting go 82 people

Published

9 hours ago

August 31, 2025

admin

Tesla unexpectedly ends contract at Giga Texas, letting go 82 people

Tesla has unexpectedly terminated a contractor’s contract at Gigafactory Texas, resulting in the layoff of 82 workers who were supporting the automaker’s production at the giant factory in Austin.

MPW Industrial Services Inc., an Ohio-based industrial service provider specializing in cleaning and facility management, has issued a new WARN notice, confirming that it will lay off 82 workers in Texas due to Tesla unexpectedly ending its contract with the company.

Here are the details from the WARN notice:

State / agency: Texas Workforce Commission (TWC).
Notice date: August 27, 2025.
Employees affected: 82
Likely effective date: September 1, 2025
Context from the filing/letter: layoffs tied to an unexpected termination of a major customer contract (Tesla—Gigafactory Texas, 1 Tesla Road); positions include 61 technicians, 7 team leads, 7 supervisors, 7 managers; no bumping rights; workers not union-represented.

In April 2024, Tesla initiated waves of layoffs at the plant, resulting in the dismissal of more than 2,000 employees in Austin, Texas.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Since then, Tesla’s sales have been in a steady decline. While the automaker is expected to have a strong quarter in the US in Q3 due to the end of the tax credit, sales are expected to decline further in Q4 and the first half of 2026.

Many industry watchers have expected Tesla to initiate further layoffs due to the situation.

Electrek’s Take

We may be seeing the beginnings of a new wave of layoffs at Tesla, as the automaker typically starts with contractors.

To be fair, Tesla could also potentially end the contract unexpectedly for other reasons, but the timing does align with the need to cut costs and staff ahead of an inevitable downturn in US EV sales.

I think it’s inevitable that we start seeing some layoffs. I think Tesla will have to slow down production in the US to avoid creating an oversupply, especially in Q4-Q1.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Environment

After e-bike fury, suburban pearl-clutchers set their ire on golf carts

Published

11 hours ago

August 31, 2025

admin

After e-bike fury, suburban pearl-clutchers set their ire on golf carts

First, it was e-bikes, offering an efficient, effective, and low-cost way for teens and just about everyone to zip around town, yet drawing the temper of suburban traditionalists. Now golf carts are the new public enemy number one in suburbia, at least if you ask the growing number of online groups where residents complain about these small electric vehicles “clogging” their streets.

But beyond the hand-wringing, golf carts and their more sophisticated cousins known as Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) or Low Speed Vehicles (LSVs), are quietly becoming a popular alternative to cars for short trips around US cities and suburbs.

While most people still associate golf carts with retirement communities in Florida or slow rides across 18 holes, street-legal versions have been around for the last few decades.

But these aren’t your grandpa’s bare-bones carts, complete with a golf pencil clip. Many now come with DOT seat belts, lights, turn signals, mirrors, backup cameras, and speed limiters that allow them to operate legally on roads up to 35 mph, as long as they meet all the federal requirements for Low-Speed Vehicles (LSVs).

Advertisement – scroll for more content

That means such vehicles are legally allowed to operate like cars, trucks, bicycles, or motorcycles on the vast majority of residential streets and a surprising portion of urban grids. In other words, for grabbing groceries, school drop-offs, or cruising to a friend’s house, they’re a practical, cheaper, and far greener substitute for firing up a 5,000-pound SUV.

The Club Car Cru adds extra luxury to the concept of an LSV

Golf carts have been slowly taking off for years, but the pandemic accelerated the trend. Sales of golf carts and LSVs spiked as families looked for safe, outdoor transportation and an easy way to get around their neighborhoods. Now, in cities all over the country, the sight of parents driving their kids to school or running errands in a cart is increasingly common. In some towns, petitions have even popped up with hundreds of residents asking for local ordinances to legalize them on more streets, according to the Daily Mail.

Of course, not everyone is thrilled. There’s growing backlash against the increase in golf carts on streets, with many residents calling them a “plague” and complaining that they’re taking up space on the roads, in parking lots, or creating unsafe conditions. While rare, there have been serious accidents too, with a handful of tragic cases highlighting the dangers of mixing small, lightweight carts with full-size vehicles. Critics argue that carts lack the crash protection of cars and don’t always fall under homeowners’ insurance policies if an accident happens.

But for every critic, there’s a supporter pointing out that golf carts take cars off the road, save money on fuel, and are no more dangerous than scooters or e-bikes – modes of transport that already share the streets. And major golf cart makers have been happy to respond to the demand with boosted sales and new models. Companies like E-Z-GO, Club Car, WAEV, Kandi, and others are all rushing new models to the market as more suburban commuters discover that their next electric vehicle might just cost a fraction of what they thought it would – and come with a better breeze, too.

The GEM microcars are classic LSVs that have brought smiles to families’ faces for decades

Electrek’s Take

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say it’s like the Karens are just following me around to poo-poo on any alternative vehicle I happen to drive that week. They’ve hit all my favorites. Pretty soon, they’ll be coming for my electric tractors, too!

But seriously, this feels like déjà vu. The same arguments we’ve heard for years against e-bikes are now being recycled against golf carts: too unsafe, too disruptive, too “different” from the car-centric status quo.

But the reality is, again, quite the same as e-bikes. These are small electric vehicles that make a ton of sense and are totally street legal, at least when they’re built correctly to conform to the proper laws.

They come with a lot of the same benefits, too. They’re cheap to operate, easy to park, perfect for short trips, and they prevent larger cars from needlessly clogging residential streets. Will they ruffle feathers among the kind of folks who have had one too many frisbees land in their yard? Perhaps. But much like e-bikes, their popularity is only going one direction – up.

I leave you with a few images of perhaps my favorite of all, the Kandi Mini. The nay-sayers can pull it from my cold, dead, golf