Do carbon capture technologies actually work?

11 Tem 02:21

There are generally three types of carbon capture techniques: post-combustion (capture from flue gas), pre-combustion (fuel-based), and direct air capture (DAC). Most CCS projects currently focus on post-combustion, meaning they target emissions directly at the source. As you mentioned, there are systems that only capture emissions from the stack, and this actually makes a lot of sense because direct air capture is currently far less efficient and more expensive than cleaning up an entire factory’s emissions. DAC systems are still at the "amazing technology, but where’s the money?" stage. As for efficiency, most projects claim 80-90% capture efficiency as a benchmark, but it’s unclear how much of that goes into actual filtration versus storage in the ground. This becomes especially murky in distributed systems—when applied across many small facilities—where costs rise and additional emissions (due to energy intensity) come into play. For example, Norway’s Sleipner project did yield real benefits, but scaling it up would require both political will and billions in investment. The biggest issue is whether CCS is a real solution or just a delay tactic. It’s tempting to trust companies that say, "Let’s keep burning fossil fuels because this technology will save us." Instead of using CCS as an excuse to avoid shifting to real alternatives like renewables and nuclear, it would be smarter to optimize existing systems. Not to mention, underground storage carries long-term leakage risks—an earthquake or a bad drilling job could send all that "captured" CO2 right back into the atmosphere.