Safe underground carbon storage would have much less effect than claimed, analysis finds

Noting that this analysis assumes CO2 is a cause of warming, rather than being mostly an effect of it, it leaves questions about spending huge sums plus time, effort and resources on such projects. Suitable or ‘safe’ geology is found to be a limiting factor not given much attention to date. In any case the alleged benefits of not being a fraction of a degree warmer aren’t obvious even if achievable (unlikely), and could be overridden by nature’s own carbon cycle anyway.
– – –
For the first time, a study maps safe areas that can practically be used for underground carbon storage, and estimates that using them all would only cut warming by 0.7°C, says Phys.org.

The result is almost ten times lower than previous estimates of around 6°C, which considered the total global potential for geological storage, including in risky zones, where storing carbon could trigger earthquakes and contaminate drinking water supplies.

The researchers say the study shows that geological storage is a scarce, finite resource, and warn that countries must use it in a highly targeted way.

Storing carbon deep underground has been presented as an almost limitless solution to the climate crisis. [Talkshop comment – the alleged crisis]. The study led by IIASA researchers, in collaboration with an international team of colleagues, and published in Nature, shows that the reality is far more limited than previously thought.

The team has estimated a prudent global limit of around 1,460 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) that can be safely stored in geologic formations—an amount almost ten times smaller than estimates proposed by industry that have not considered risks to people and the environment.

Carbon storage is widely seen as essential for achieving climate goals, whether by capturing emissions from factories and power plants or removing CO₂ from the atmosphere.

According to lead author Matthew Gidden, a senior researcher in the IIASA Energy, Climate, and Environment Program and at the Center for Global Sustainability at the University of Maryland, U.S., the study’s findings highlight the need for caution:

With this study, we can conclude that carbon storage should be treated as an exhaustible, intergenerational resource, requiring responsible management. Hard choices must be made about which countries, which sectors, and even which generations are able to utilize it. It’s critical that countries make clear in their climate action plans how they plan to use carbon storage in order to collectively achieve long-term climate goals while minimizing harm to human health, biodiversity, and sustainable development.”

. . .
The team also examined what these storage limits mean for the planet’s ability to cool down after overshooting temperature goals, finding that if the total available geological storage capacity would be exclusively used for CO2 removal and no further emissions would be produced by other activities at that point, a maximum 0.7°C warming reversal would be possible before available safe storage sites would be exhausted.

Full article here.