Storing millions of tons of greenhouse gas under the North Sea: dangerous or smart?

Heleen de Coninck, professor of innovation and climate, Eindhoven University of Technology

‘The plans to capture the emissions of major polluters in this way have been in place for about fifteen years. We would rather see no emissions, but the development of a sustainable energy supply was too slow. Incidentally, the Porthos project of the port of Rotterdam has been in preparation for some time and will start with storage under sea in 2024 (about 2.5 million tons of CO₂ per year, a total of 37 million tons, red†

‘The intention is that the CO₂ pumped into depleted gas fields, more than a kilometer below the seabed. It basically stays there permanently. There are already about 25 of these storage sites worldwide, which store a total of approximately 40 million tons of CO . each year₂ disappears, a quarter of the Dutch CO₂emissions. It is therefore fairly well-known technology, although no gas field is the same. The risk is never zero, but if you regulate it properly, geologists say it can be done safely and that the CO₂ is slowly absorbed into the rock. In Japan there was once an earthquake near such a storage site and it was unharmed.

‘During the Climate Summit in Glasgow, we agreed that global warming must remain below 1.5 degrees in order to prevent the disastrous consequences of more climate change. For this, the world must have net zero CO . by 2050₂emissions, and should be halved by 2030. In the Netherlands we have to be even faster, to give poor countries more time. The storage of CO₂ can reduce emissions relatively quickly, although you have to be careful that this is not at the expense of truly sustainable solutions. Every ton we keep out of the air limits climate change.’

Marc Davidson, professor of philosophy of sustainability and the environment, Radboud University Nijmegen:

‘The UN climate panel IPCC will soon require us to achieve zero emissions. Then we cannot rule out any solution, not even nuclear energy. If we measure the CO₂ Don’t put it in the ground, it’ll be in the air. That is even worse, because underground it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.

‘A common criticism is that CCS, such as storing CO₂ in the face of the earth, is an unknown technique. That will always be the case if it is not seriously tried once.

‘But CCS (carbon capture and storage† red.) should not be at the expense of other climate policies. We are still burdening future generations with CO₂-storage under the sea. If that were to leak out in the coming centuries, you wrongly counted on emission reductions. Therefore, CCS should not supplant measures that are completely risk-free for future generations, such as saving energy and limiting our meat consumption. But politicians prefer to take measures that do not require us to change our behaviour; Like nuclear energy, CCS is typically a ‘measure behind the socket’. And where CO₂storage on land still suffered from nimby objections, this is not an issue in the North Sea. With only a ‘technological fixWe’re really not going to make it though.

‘Finally, I have my reservations about subsidizing technology by the government. After all, this is quite at odds with the principle that ‘the polluter pays’. Why do we subsidize companies to clean up their mess? I think they better pay for it themselves. Moreover, the money that the government spends on this is at the expense of other projects.’

Marjan Minnesma, director of Urgenda:

‘Normally I would say: we should only invest in measures that reduce CO₂reducing emissions instead of hiding them. The industry is finally developing ‘clean techniques’† such as running on hydrogen and sustainable electricity, but those processes will not be ready within five years. Emissions will therefore not suddenly decrease in the coming years. Then it is better to put it underground, because if CO₂ into the air, it contributes to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So that amplifies the greenhouse effect. If you put it underground, it won’t bother you. It is a last resort for the next five to ten years, a necessary evil pending real solutions. In the meantime, we have to work on that.

‘It is crucial that the gas is hermetically sealed for hundreds of thousands of years. If successful, the gas could become a carbonate, a mineral that we could potentially use. This measure is a kind of diversionary manoeuvre. If you had asked me ten or fifteen years ago, I would have refused. Invest in real solutions. But we’ve lost that time.’

Ed Nijpels, chairman of the Climate Agreement Progress Consultation:

‘This is a good idea and the discussion about it surprises me, because the agreements on storing CO₂ have already been made in the Climate Agreement. If we want to achieve the climate goals, there is no escaping this technology. It is not the best solution, but it is the only solution to achieve zero emissions by 2050.

‘I see CCS mainly as an intermediate step. Research is already underway on CCU: carbon capture and usage† This technique is aimed at CO₂ to be used as raw material. This is partly already possible, for example in Arnhem and Rotterdam, crops are grown in greenhouses with CO₂† The goal is the CO₂-scaling up usage in the future.

‘It is a three-stage rocket: the first priority is to strive for zero emissions. We won’t make it. We must try to use the emissions that do exist. That’s priority two. But the technology for CO₂ to be used on a large scale is not that far yet. Until then, we have to ensure that we use CO₂can save emissions for later use – priority three. The downside is that we don’t yet know how long that will take. And I understand the fears of environmental movements, who say that CO₂storage puts too little pressure on companies to reduce their emissions. It does not stimulate industry innovation.

‘The fact that the government subsidizes the storage is not at odds with the principle of ‘the polluter pays’. After all, the polluter already pays: not only the European tax, the so-called ETS, but also an additional tax that has been introduced by the Netherlands. Moreover, in the current coalition agreement, an increase in the additional levy is planned. The comparison with the storage of nuclear waste is completely wrong. Nuclear waste is radioactive, CO₂ is stored for the purpose of using it as a resource later. People who don’t want to see that have to go back to primary school.’