A report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis suggests that a carbon capture and storage project in Saskatchewan is not meeting its emissions reduction goals, raising doubts about the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the technology. The Boundary Dam project, which aimed to capture up to 90% of the coal-fired power plant’s carbon emissions, has only achieved an average capture rate of 57%. This falls short of the initial target and highlights concerns about the viability of keeping coal-fired power plants operational while relying on carbon capture technology.
The International CCS Knowledge Centre also noted that the project has not sustained the design rate beyond a capacity demonstration in 2015, attributing the limitations to technical issues and the demand for carbon dioxide from the energy industry for extracting oil. Despite improvements in the plant’s capture rate, it has not reached the million-tonne mark as originally projected. However, the Knowledge Centre spokesperson stated that nearly six million tonnes of carbon dioxide have been kept out of the atmosphere, and most of the captured CO2 is separated out, demonstrating some level of success.
SaskPower officials maintain that the facility is continuously improving, with recent performance reaching its peak in the first three months of 2024. They also highlight the valuable experience gained from the project, which can be applied to future carbon capture initiatives in various industries. However, analyst David Schissel argues that for carbon capture to deliver on its promises, it must function nearly flawlessly over an extended period. He questions the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the technology, especially in large-scale operations, suggesting that resources might be better allocated elsewhere to achieve emission reduction goals.
Other carbon capture projects, such as Shell’s Quest project near Edmonton, have also fallen short of their stated goals in terms of capture rates. Capital Power recently announced the discontinuation of its carbon capture project at the Genesee power plant, citing economic viability concerns. The high costs associated with carbon capture, estimated at $16 billion for the Alberta oilsands industry, raise further questions about the technology’s feasibility and long-term benefits. Schissel suggests that while carbon capture might be beneficial in certain scenarios, its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness on a large scale remain uncertain.
In conclusion, the ongoing challenges and limitations faced by the Boundary Dam project and other carbon capture initiatives raise doubts about the technology’s ability to significantly reduce emissions and the cost-effectiveness of its implementation. While some progress has been made in capturing carbon dioxide, the overall performance falls short of initial goals, prompting industry leaders to reconsider their investment in carbon capture projects. As the debate continues about the viability of carbon capture technology, stakeholders must evaluate alternative approaches to achieving emission reduction targets in a sustainable and economically feasible manner.
