Google announced investment in 400-megawatt natural gas power plant with carbon capture near Decatur, Illinois, developed by Low Carbon Infrastructure and co-located with Archer-Daniels-Midland ethanol facility—claiming 90% CO2 capture while purchasing majority electricity for nearby data centers despite CCS facility track record showing 50-64% underperformance versus targets and site’s storage well experiencing 2024 shutdown after brine migration into unauthorized zones.
The plant will inject captured CO2 into the same geological formations used by ADM’s ethanol operations—the first long-term CO2 storage well in the US, typically receiving 2,000 metric tons daily before EPA-mandated halt when monitoring well corrosion allowed salty brine containing dissolved CO2 to migrate beyond permitted boundaries.
Recent study of 13 CCS facilities representing 55% of captured carbon globally shows consistent underperformance: ExxonMobil Wyoming natural gas facility captures 36% less than expected, while analogous 115MW Canadian power plant achieved only 50% of promised capture rates, raising questions about Google’s 90% target feasibility.
Google’s data center electricity requirements create procurement challenges as AI infrastructure scales. Hyperscalers face pressure to meet renewable energy commitments while ensuring reliable baseload power for facilities operating 24/7.
Natural gas with carbon capture positions as compromise: dispatchable power available regardless of weather conditions (unlike solar/wind intermittency), with claimed emissions profile approaching renewable sources if capture systems perform as designed.
However, the investment timing reveals infrastructure reality—renewable capacity addition cannot match AI data center growth pace. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta collectively announced over 50GW of data center capacity expansions through 2027. Wind and solar projects require 3-7 years from planning to operation. Natural gas plants complete construction in 18-36 months.
Carbon capture allows hyperscalers claiming progress toward net-zero commitments while utilizing fossil fuel infrastructure meeting immediate power needs. This strategy assumes CCS technology delivers promised performance—an assumption recent operational data contradicts.
The cited study examining 13 facilities representing 55% of global captured carbon reveals systemic underperformance. ExxonMobil’s Wyoming facility capturing 36% below target and Canada’s 115MW power plant achieving 50% of promised rates establish pattern questioning vendor claims.
Google’s 90% capture target exceeds industry averages. If comparable facilities achieve 50-64% of projections, Google’s plant might realistically capture 45-60% of CO2 rather than stated 90%. This gap matters significantly for emissions accounting and renewable energy credit calculations.
The operational challenges stem from technical complexity: chemical solvents capturing CO2 degrade over time requiring replacement, compression systems for CO2 injection consume 15-30% of power plant output reducing net electricity generation, and capture equipment requires frequent maintenance causing downtime reducing annual capture rates below design specifications.
For investors evaluating carbon capture as a climate solution or business opportunity, historical underperformance indicates technology remains pilot-scale rather than proven commercial deployment. Venture funding flowing to CCS startups assumes breakthrough innovations will overcome limitations—but Google’s investment relies on existing technology with documented shortcomings.
The 2024 EPA-mandated shutdown at ADM’s Decatur site directly impacts Google’s project viability. Injecting captured CO2 into formations experiencing brine migration raises permanence questions central to carbon accounting.
Carbon capture climate benefit depends on permanent sequestration. If stored CO2 migrates through corroded monitoring wells or permeable geological layers, eventual atmospheric release negates capture efforts. The “unauthorized zones” terminology indicates stored carbon reached unintended geological formations—potentially pathways to surface over decades.
ADM attributed leakage to monitoring well corrosion and resumed injections after remediation. However, corrosion patterns emerge over time across multiple wells, suggesting ongoing monitoring and maintenance requirements beyond initial well construction. The long-term cost and risk of managing storage integrity affects project economics and climate benefit verification.
For Google’s plant sharing the same storage formation, the ADM incident provides a real-world test of geological suitability. If storage integrity requires continuous remediation and risk management, operational costs increase while confidence in permanent sequestration decreases.
Even perfect carbon capture at power generation doesn’t address supply chain emissions. Natural gas extraction, processing, and pipeline transportation generate methane leaks—a greenhouse gas 84x more potent than CO2 over a 20-year timeframe.
Research indicating 2% leakage rates place natural gas carbon intensity on par with coal fundamentally challenges the “clean gas with carbon capture” narrative. If Google’s project captures 90% of combustion emissions but upstream leakage equals avoided emissions, net climate benefit approaches zero.
Measuring methane leakage requires monitoring across the entire supply chain from wellhead through transmission pipelines. EPA estimates 1.4% leakage from US natural gas systems, but independent studies using satellite detection and atmospheric sampling suggest 2-3% rates in major production basins.
This complexity creates carbon accounting uncertainty. Google can measure CO2 captured at plant boundaries with reasonable accuracy, but calculating lifecycle emissions requires data from gas suppliers potentially lacking comprehensive monitoring systems. The climate impact calculation becomes an estimate rather than a verified measurement.
Low Carbon Infrastructure as Project Developer
Low Carbon Infrastructure develops the plant, though financial structure (equity investment, offtake agreement, or other arrangement) remains undisclosed. The company’s role as developer rather than operator affects risk allocation and performance guarantees.
If Low Carbon Infrastructure receives fixed payments for delivered electricity regardless of capture performance, they lack incentive to prioritize capture system operation over power generation when conflicts arise. If payment depends on verified carbon capture, financial incentives align with climate objectives but increase project risk given CCS operational challenges.
Google’s willingness to invest despite mixed CCS track record signals either: superior confidence in Low Carbon Infrastructure’s technical approach versus industry baseline, strategic necessity given data center power requirements overriding climate concerns, or public commitment to carbon capture despite private recognition of implementation challenges.
Google’s capital allocated to natural gas with carbon capture represents alternative foregone: advanced nuclear (small modular reactors), geothermal with extended drilling, offshore wind with storage, or solar with battery systems enabling 24/7 operation.
Each alternative involves tradeoffs. Nuclear provides baseload power without combustion emissions but faces regulatory delays, cost overruns, and public opposition. Geothermal requires site-specific geology and drilling technology advances. Offshore wind with storage demands substantial capital but delivers zero-emission operation after construction.
The 400MW scale suggests immediate availability prioritization over long-term optimal solution. Natural gas plants complete construction faster than alternatives, addressing near-term data center power requirements at expense of climate commitment integrity if capture systems underperform.
For climate tech investors, Google’s decision provides a market signal: hyperscalers will purchase carbon capture capacity despite operational uncertainties because alternatives cannot meet deployment timelines. This demand visibility could support venture funding for CCS improvements, though technology risk remains whether additional capital solves fundamental engineering challenges.
Corporate Climate Commitment Implications
Google, like Microsoft and Amazon, made net-zero commitments requiring emissions reduction or offsetting. Natural gas with carbon capture enables meeting targets on paper while utilizing fossil infrastructure—if capture systems perform as claimed.
The gap between stated 90% capture and industry 50% actual performance creates accounting risk. If third-party verification determines actual capture significantly below projections, Google’s emissions reporting requires adjustment, potentially affecting climate commitment achievement timing and credibility.
Investors evaluating corporate climate commitments should scrutinize power purchase agreements and carbon accounting methodologies. Stated targets backed by technologies with poor operational track records create greenwashing risk where companies claim progress based on design specifications rather than verified performance.
The Illinois project’s outcome matters beyond Google’s individual emissions. If high-profile deployment achieves stated capture rates, it validates CCS as a viable decarbonization pathway. If performance mirrors industry underperformance patterns, it reinforces skepticism about carbon capture as climate solution versus delay tactic enabling continued fossil fuel utilization.
