The global push to reduce carbon emissions and accelerate the transition to clean energy continues to grow. In this context, coal has often been portrayed as potentially “clean” through the help of technologies like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). CCS is often introduced as a solution that can capture and store carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, supposedly making coal more environmentally friendly.
But the key question remains: can coal truly be clean?
What is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)?
Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS, is a technology designed to capture carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation and industrial processes. Once captured, the CO₂ is compressed and injected into underground geological formations where it is expected to stay trapped for long periods.
While this process may appear promising on paper, the real-world performance and effectiveness of CCS in significantly reducing emissions remain widely debated.
Limited Effectiveness of CCS Technologies
According to a report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), no current CCS technology has consistently managed to capture more than 80 percent of carbon emissions. Some projects have captured as little as 15 percent.
This means that a significant portion of emissions still escapes into the atmosphere even when CCS is in use. Given this fact, CCS cannot be considered a reliable or comprehensive solution to climate change.
Moreover, CCS technologies are known for being extremely expensive to build and operate. These high costs make many CCS projects economically unfeasible, especially when compared to the rapidly declining costs of renewable energy alternatives.
Risk of Carbon Leakage and Its Impact
One of the most concerning risks associated with CCS is the potential for CO₂ leakage from underground storage sites. If stored carbon leaks back to the surface, it can contaminate groundwater and pose serious health risks to nearby communities.
Studies have shown that even a minor leakage rate of 1 percent every 10 years could significantly contribute to global warming. Preventing such leaks requires continuous monitoring, long-term maintenance, and strong regulatory enforcement.
These requirements present a significant challenge, particularly in developing countries like Indonesia where regulatory oversight and technological capacity are still developing.
Global CCS Projects: A Track Record of Failure
Several high-profile CCS projects around the world have struggled to meet their goals, with many facing technical issues, cost overruns, or complete shutdowns.
1. Gorgon CCS Project, Australia
Billed as one of the world’s largest CCS initiatives, the Gorgon project failed to meet its CO₂ capture targets. It required additional funding between USD 100 to 184 million to compensate for a shortfall of 5.23 million tons of unsequestered CO₂.
2. In Salah Project, Algeria
This project was discontinued in 2011 due to unexpected ground movement that raised the risk of carbon leakage. The incident highlighted the unpredictability of underground storage and its long-term safety concerns.
3. Sleipner Project, Norway
Although often cited as a successful CCS model, the Sleipner project experienced faster-than-expected migration of injected CO₂ to upper geological layers. This created new environmental risks and demonstrated the difficulty of accurately modeling carbon behavior underground.
Global Impact Remains Marginal
IEEFA’s report reveals that the combined total carbon captured by 13 major CCS or CCUS projects globally amounts to just 39 million tons per year. This figure represents only about 0.01 percent of total global emissions in 2021, a negligible impact in the face of the climate crisis.
CCS as a Delay Tactic, Not a Climate Solution
Despite being marketed as a climate solution, CCS often serves as a tool for delaying meaningful change. Fossil fuel companies use the promise of CCS to justify continued operation of coal plants, extending the life of polluting infrastructure rather than replacing it with clean alternatives.
This narrative of “clean coal” can be considered a form of greenwashing – a strategy where companies make misleading claims about the environmental benefits of their products or operations, without achieving real emissions reductions.
Indonesia’s Renewable Energy Potential: A Missed Opportunity?
Indonesia has abundant renewable energy resources that remain largely untapped. The country’s continued reliance on coal hampers the development of a cleaner, more sustainable energy system.
Some of Indonesia’s promising renewable energy sources include:
Geothermal Energy: Indonesia has one of the world’s largest geothermal reserves.
Solar Energy: With year-round sunlight, Indonesia is well-positioned to harness solar power across its islands.
Hydropower and Wind: Many regions in Indonesia have significant potential for small-scale hydropower and wind energy projects.
Investing in renewable energy not only provides cleaner power but also boosts job creation, strengthens energy security, and supports long-term climate goals.
Conclusion: The Need to Move Beyond Coal
In light of the evidence, the claim that coal can be made clean through CCS is, at best, highly questionable. The technology has not proven itself to be consistently effective, is expensive, and poses environmental and safety risks that have yet to be resolved.
Rather than investing in unproven and risky technologies that extend the use of fossil fuels, countries like Indonesia should accelerate the shift toward renewable energy. Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower offer real, scalable solutions to reduce emissions, build energy resilience, and ensure a healthier environment for future generations.
Delaying the clean energy transition through reliance on CCS will only deepen our dependence on coal and worsen the climate crisis. It is time for governments, industries, and communities to embrace genuine solutions – not distractions – and invest in the sustainable energy systems our planet urgently needs.
