CCS is unproven, risky and expensive

Did you ever hear of Barendrecht? It’s a small town in the Netherlands. Besides that, the citizens believe that they will live soon in the biggest test laboratory of the world.
The federal goverment and Shell wants to store CO2 as a test under an area where 7600 families are living.
The citizens and the local goverment don’t like to be a test area. They are affraid for little earthquakes and that the CO2 will leak. And ofcourse they are affraid that the housprices are going down.
But there are more reasons against CCS. This is what Greenpeace says about CCS:

CCS not ready in time

Climate experts say the worst impacts of climate change can be averted by levelling off global warming pollution by 2015 and turning down the burner after that. But the earliest that CCS will be ready is 2030.

CCS wastes energy and resources

Capturing and storing carbon dioxide would be a major energy consumer, gobbling up anything from 10 to 40% of a power plant’s electricity output.

Demands for cooling water also increase dramatically. Power stations with capture technology could require 90% more freshwater than those without. CCS is expected to erase gains in power plant energy efficiency made over the past 50 years, and increase resource consumption by one-third.

Storing carbon underground is risky

It is uncertain whether there is sufficient suitable space underground to bury enough carbon to have any meaningful climate impact.

Humanity has no experience of safely storing anything forever. But locking up carbon dioxide underground in perpetuity is exactly what would need to be accomplished with CCS. A leakage rate of just 1% could potentially undermine any climate benefit.

CCS could well mean electricity price rises of between 21 and 91%.
Clean energy sources, such as wind power, provide electricity much more cheaply than coal-fired plants fitted with CCS will ever be able to. The funding to get CCS off the ground – including substantial sums of taxpayer’s money – comes at the expense of real solutions
In the US, for example, the Department of Energy has asked for the CCS programme budget to be raised to US $623.6 million.

CCS and liability: risky business

Large-scale CCS applications pose significant and new liability risks, including negative impacts on human health, damage to ecosystems, groundwater contamination such as the pollution of drinking water and increased greenhouse gas emissions from leakage.

So CCS looks like an enviromental friendly solution, but is it true?

Read the full article of Greenpeace here.