UK project trials carbon capture at sea to help tackle climate change

CNN - Apr 29th, 2025

The global push towards carbon capture technologies is gaining momentum, with a notable focus on innovative approaches like the SeaCURE project in the UK. The initiative aims to capture carbon dioxide from seawater, leveraging the ocean's role as a major carbon sink. Led by Professor Paul Halloran from the University of Exeter, the project has constructed a pilot plant processing 3,000 liters of seawater per minute, with the potential to remove an estimated 100 tons of CO2 annually. SeaCURE demonstrates an alternative to air carbon capture, potentially offering cost advantages due to the higher concentration of carbon in seawater.

The implications of this technology are significant, as it could play a crucial role in mitigating climate change impacts by reducing ocean acidification and protecting marine ecosystems. However, challenges remain, including the potential ecological effects of discharging low-carbon seawater and the need for scalable and sustainable energy solutions. As interest in Direct Ocean Capture grows, SeaCURE's success could inspire further investment and research, positioning it as a pivotal player in the global effort to combat carbon emissions and climate change.

Climate Change Environmental Impact Carbon Capture University Of Exeter Sea Cure Paul Halloran Global Ccs Institute Carbon Dioxide Removal Seawater Carbon Capture Direct Ocean Capture

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the SeaCURE project and the broader context of carbon capture technologies. It effectively balances the potential benefits and challenges, offering a range of expert opinions to support its claims. While the article is generally accurate and timely, some claims lack direct verification, and the transparency of data sources could be improved. The language and structure are clear, making the article accessible to a general audience. However, the inclusion of more interactive elements and a deeper exploration of controversial aspects could enhance reader engagement and provoke more meaningful discussion. Overall, the article serves as a valuable resource for those interested in environmental technologies and climate change solutions, but it could benefit from additional evidence and context in certain areas.

Accuracy

The story generally presents accurate information about the SeaCURE project and the broader context of carbon capture. Specific details about the SeaCURE pilot plant, such as its capacity to process 3,000 liters of seawater per minute and its goal to remove 100 tons of CO2 annually, are confirmed by multiple sources. However, some claims, such as the market growth figures for carbon capture and the UK government's funding amount, lack direct verification from available sources. Additionally, the operational timeline of the SeaCURE project has some discrepancies, with newer sources suggesting a different start date than reported in the article.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view of the carbon capture topic by presenting both the potential benefits and the challenges associated with the technology. It acknowledges the controversy surrounding carbon capture, such as its cost and the argument that it might distract from reducing emissions. The inclusion of expert opinions from both proponents and critics, such as Paul Halloran and Stuart Haszeldine, helps to ensure a range of perspectives are represented. However, the article could have further explored opposing viewpoints or alternative solutions to carbon capture.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the complex topic of carbon capture. The language is accessible and avoids overly technical jargon, making it understandable for a general audience. The use of analogies, such as the sponge comparison, helps to clarify complex processes. However, some sections could benefit from additional explanations, particularly when discussing technical aspects of the SeaCURE technology and its environmental impacts.

Source quality

The article references credible experts and institutions, such as the University of Exeter and the Global CCS Institute, which lends authority to the content. However, it lacks direct citations or links to the reports and studies mentioned, such as the market growth figures from Fortune Business Insights. This omission makes it difficult for readers to independently verify some of the claims. The reliance on expert opinions is beneficial, but the absence of direct source attribution for some data points affects the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article provides a reasonable amount of context about the SeaCURE project and carbon capture technologies. However, it lacks transparency in detailing the methodology behind some of the claims, such as the projected market growth and the specifics of the UK government's funding. The article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest that the experts might have, nor does it explain the basis for some of the projections and assessments made. This lack of transparency can impact the reader's ability to fully trust the information presented.