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

Tesla (TSLA) sales crash in France even with new Model Y

Published

2 hours ago

June 2, 2025

admin

Tesla (TSLA) sales crash in France even with new Model Y

The French are saying “non, merci” to Tesla, as sales crashed to just 700 units in May – a level not seen in more than three years.

The Model Y changeover was clearly not the problem.

Last week, Tesla CEO Elon Musk claimed that the company has “no demand problem” and that even though Europe is its weakest market, “everyone is struggling in Europe, there’s no exception.”

We have already produced a report to demonstrate that this is not true, but we are now receiving more data from May, which highlights Tesla’s growing problems in Europe.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

France has just released its car registration data for May, confirming that the auto market is down 12%. However, Tesla’s sales were down even more than the rest of the market.

Tesla delivered only 721 vehicles in France in May – down 67% compared to the same period last year.

In Q1, Tesla blamed its poor performance on the lack of Model Y availability due to the design changeover, but it doesn’t have this excuse in Q2, which is now tracking below Q1 in Europe.

May was Tesla’s worst month of deliveries it has had in the last three years. It’s also even worse than any month of deliveries in the first quarter, despite the new Model Y now being in full production in Gigafactory Berlin and available in France.

Electrek’s Take

I’ll write a more comprehensive post about Tesla’s sales in Europe once we have data from more countries in May, but it’s not looking good.

Tesla blamed its terrible performance in Q1 on the Model Y changeover, but we are past that in Q2. Yet, April was worse than January, and now, it looks like May is going to be below February in the whole of Europe.

The only positive market so far is Norway, and that’s probably due to some of its large existing base of owners in the country updating to the new Model Y, but it will be interesting to see if it’s sustainable through out the rest of the year. I doubt it. Tesla benefited from the Model Y changeover, but I expect the brand damage will also be felt in the popular EV market.

This result in France in May is particularly interesting because it is even worse than April. I literally have to go back to Q2 2022 to find a quarter when Tesla had a worse second month of a quarter in France.

It is starting to look like demand collapse.

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

Environment

Tesla has no plan for HW3 owners 4 months after admitting it won’t support self-driving

Published

4 hours ago

June 2, 2025

admin

Tesla has no plan for HW3 owners 4 months after admitting it won't support self-driving

Tesla still has no plan to make things right for millions of car owners with its ‘HW3’ system, more than four months after it finally admitted that the hardware won’t support self-driving.

At this point, the automaker is just hoping they buy new cars.

We are approaching the 10th anniversary of Tesla’s promise and sale of self-driving capability that still doesn’t exist.

The Tesla FSD Timeline

In 2016, Tesla announced that all vehicles produced thereafter would become capable of “Full Self-Driving” with future software updates.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

At that time, Tesla was producing its vehicles with a new self-driving hardware suite called “HW2.5” – consisting of cameras, a radar, and a self-driving computer.

CEO Elon Musk warned at the time that the system might need an eventual computer upgrade to achieve full self-driving capability, which he said Tesla would provide for free.

In March 2019, Tesla began building cars with a new “HW3” computer and started upgrading HW2.5 cars to the new system.

In early 2023, Tesla still hadn’t delivered on its self-driving promises, but it started producing new cars with a new HW4 suite, which included a much more powerful computer and new cameras.

At the time, the automaker claimed that this new hardware suite would just enable Tesla to push self-driving capabilities further and that HW3 vehicles would still achieve “unsupervised self-driving capabilities” with upcoming software updates.

Tesla HW3 reaching its limit

A year later, we started to report that Tesla appeared to be reaching the limits of the HW3 computer.

It took almost another year before Musk finally admitted that HW3 will not be able to support full self-driving capabilities and that Tesla will need to upgrade the computers.

Musk said on January 29th:

I mean, I think the honest answer is that we’re going to have to upgrade people’s Hardware 3 computer for those that have bought full self-driving, and that is the honest answer and that’s going to be painful and difficult but we’ll get it done. Now I’m kind of glad that not that many people bought the FSD package.

We are now more than four months after this statement, and Tesla has yet to reveal a plan to make things right for HW3 owners, some of whom paid up to $15,000 for the FSD package, and some purchased it as long as nine years ago.

As we previously reported, the HW4 computer, as it exists, can’t be installed in HW3 vehicles. It doesn’t have the same camera connectors and overall format.

Tesla has previously talked about a new HW5 computer to be used in the Cybercab unveiled in October 2024, but it’s unclear if that new computer will be able to be retrofitted inside HW3 vehicles.

Electrek’s Take

I think that if Tesla had deployed FSD without selling it as “full self-driving” and promising capabilities, it would be a celebrated leading ADAS system.

Instead, it’s becoming one of the most significant liabilities ever.

Tesla has delivered millions of vehicles with HW3, which it said would all be capable of self-driving, and hundreds of thousands of those vehicle owners bought the FSD package.

Musk claims that Tesla only needs to replace the computers in the vehicles of those who bought FSD. That’s not true as Tesla promised that all vehicles delivered since 2016 would be capable of achieving full self-driving, and now that this is not true, it negatively affects the value.

Either way, even for those who bought FSD, Tesla has no plan for the retrofit yet. It’s a mess.

There are already several lawsuits related to Tesla’s self-driving claims that now include this situation with HW3, in addition to lawsuits specifically about the issue.

I think we are going to see billions of dollars in settlements over this, but it is going to take years. In the meantime, I doubt we can count on Tesla to do the right thing.

HW3 vehicles are barely getting any FSD updates now, and the current version is light years away from what was promised: unsupervised self-driving. Making things right should be Tesla’s top priority, but instead, Tesla is shifting its focus from delivering its promised capabilities in consumer vehicles to an internal fleet providing a ride-hailing service in a geo-fenced area with teleoperation support.

At this point, it is becoming ridiculous to believe that Tesla will deliver self-driving capabilities in almost 10-year-old vehicles, with or without hardware retrofit. It appears that Tesla is hoping that HW3 owners will change vehicles.

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

Environment

Nissan launches new, mid-size PHEV pickup that undercuts $20K Slate *

Published

11 hours ago

June 2, 2025

admin

Nissan launches new, mid-size PHEV pickup that undercuts K Slate *

Nissan’s New Chinese Frontier Costs Half of America’s Frontier

Zhengzhou Nissan has launched a new, plug-in pickup in the Chinese market called the Z9. It’s the same size as the Nissan Frontier Pro, offers over 35 miles of all-electric range, and pricing starts at just $16,600.

* in China.

Positioned as the electrified sibling of the domestically-built Nissan Frontier Pro, the Zhengzhou Nissan Z9 is essentially a Chinese-market version the Frontier Pro, and it’s spec’ed and priced accordingly, with the as-yet undisclosed price of the Frontier Pro expected to come in a bit higher than the Z9.

That’s less interesting. What’s more interesting is that the Z9 offers 35 miles (60 km) of range on the base, 17 kWh battery, at a price that significantly undercuts even the Slate EV’s $28,000 pre-$7,500 incentive price tag – and that incentive is far from a sure thing.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

What’s more, if you feel like spending a bit more, you can get a Zhengzhou Nissan Z9 equipped with a 32.85 kWh battery that’s good for almost 85 miles (135 km) of all-electric range. And even that extended-range model, at ¥168,900 (about $23,400) is still price-competitive with the Jeff Bezos-backed Slate EV.

In short, it’s bound to be a winner.

It’ll sell, but it won’t sell here

Nissan-Frontier-EV-pickup — US-market Nissan Frontier.

With excitement surrounding the Kia Tasman, Slate, and other, similarly affordable light-duty pickups building on the success of the Ford Maverick hybrid, it should come as no surprise that Nissan has international ambitions for its newest electrified pickup.

“In alignment with our ‘In China, For China, Toward the World’ strategy for electrification and smart transformation, Nissan will fully support ZNA’s ‘off-road strategy,’” explained Stephen Ma, Chairman of Nissan (China) Management Committee and President of Dongfeng Motor Co., Ltd. “We are working to strengthen our research and manufacturing capabilities, further advancing our presence in the core markets of pickups and off-road vehicles, with the ultimate goal of achieving global expansion.”

It’s exciting stuff, but with all the recent troubles it’s been experiencing, it’s doubtful that Nissan will bring either of its new, Chinese-built mid-size pickups to the US (electrified or otherwise).

“The mission of the new generation of Chinese automotive professionals is clear – to ensure that made-in-China cars are driven across the world. ZNA will utilize its dual-brand and dual-channel advantages to expand its global footprint,” Mr. Mao Limin, Executive Vice President of ZNA, at the Z9’s launch. “We aim to be one of the top exporters of pickups within three years and to reach a sales milestone of 100,000 units.”

That said, Nissan Hardbody fans shouldn’t lose hope quite yet. If Nissan is able to find a new savior in Toyota, a Taco-based BEV pickup with a new LEAF/Ariya-type front fascia might make more sense than you think.

Electrek’s Take

Zhengzhou Nissan at left, Frontier Pro at right; via Carscoops.

I’ve already written out my own comeback plans for Nissan, and this new Chinese truck doesn’t really fit into them. Like many of you, I’m of the belief that a PHEV isn’t an EV – but I do see their value as “lilypad” cars, and the two Lightning owners I know? Their last F-150s were hybrids.

SOURCES: Zhengzhou Nissan; side-by-side image via Carscoops.

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. The best part? No one will call you until after you’ve elected to move forward. Get started, hassle-free, by clicking here.

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