Carbon Capture Fallacy Summary

The Carbon Capture Fallacy The Scientific American article titled The Carbon Capture Fallacy by David Biello focuses on the viability of coal-powered plants capturing carbon in order to reduce their emissions. The article largely tells the story of the Kemper County Energy Facility located in eastern Mississippi. It opens by describing the gigantic structure with its sprawling pipes and towers. While Biello devotes time to describe the carbon capture and storage (CCS) method, he also talks about the effectiveness, practicality, and economics behind carbon capture. The author mentions that a large portion of the stored carbon is sold off to oil companies the use the carbon dioxide to pump out oils from wells; Biello criticizes this process

Likewise, Biello did a good job in presenting the challenge regarding carbon dioxide and carbon capture. For instance, the article opens up with a much more anecdotal and picturesque scene that allows the reader to get a sense of the scope of the project without actually going into any of the details. The author then goes on to describe the problem with CO¬2 emissions and how prevalent they are in our society. This introductory section is important because it provides the readers with a bit of background that makes later sections understandable. The description of the physical plant (he calls it a “Labyrinth”) is engaging but it also vilifies the facility and almost shows its absurdity. Biello elaborates on Kemper’s absurdity by presenting the economic costs of its construction; it is taking too long to build, become too complex to manage, and is several billions of dollars overbudget. As a result, Biello has not even talked about the short-comings of carbon capture and yet the readers already to not have a positive image of the

A significant portion of the capture carbon is sold to oil companies that use the gas to pump out oil from deep within wells. Thus, the CCS process results in a contradiction: reducing emissions from coal only to produce greater emissions from oil. I thought that Biello could have devoted a little more time to explaining this transaction. He only devotes four paragraphs and less than half a page to the oil paradox, yet I feel like it completely undermines the whole CCS process. In my opinion, a more critical approach to this section would have helped greater support Biello’s overarching argument. Despite this, I do think he did a good job concluding with the economic limitations of CCS. While not everyone can understand capturing carbon, everyone can understand the power and constraints of money. Finishing the article this way really highlights on why carbon capture may not be the ultimate solution to global