The downside

The enormous gas and diesel powered generator that provides electricity and compresses the gas, and the flare that burns off the impurities, together release a total of 900 000 tons of CO2 per year — as much as the volume of gas buried under the seabed each year.

The CCS technology could one day be expanded to other industries.

"The main markets for carbon capture storage are the large stationary sources of CO2 such as coal-power plants, natural gas refining, fertilisers and petrochemical plants, and iron, steel and cement plants," Kaarstad said.

The idea of CCS is, however, a hotly debated idea, even among environmentalists.

Greenpeace, which published a report in early May entitled "False hope. Why carbon capture and storage won't save the climate," is spearheading the opposition.

Its list of complaints is long.

It says an efficient and affordable version of the technology will not be ready in time to contribute to the global CO2 emissions reductions the UN-based International Panel on Climate Change says must start by 2015 in order to limit global warming to a two-degree increase.

The method also consumes a lot of energy, it is expensive and there is always the risk of leaks, it argues.

Greenpeace considers the research on carbon capture and storage a waste of limited scientific and financial resources and says it would prefer to see more focus on energy efficiency and renewable energies.

"The real solutions to stopping dangerous climate change lie in renewable energy and energy efficiency that can start protecting the climate today," it wrote in its report.

"Technically accessible renewable energy sources — such as wind, wave and solar — are capable of providing six times more energy than the world currently consumes — forever," it said.

But other environmentalists are more positive.

Not all bad

"We estimate that carbon capture and storage represents 30 percent of the tools available to reduce emissions, or 50 percent in rich countries," Frederic Hauge, the head of the Norwegian environmental group Bellona, told AFP.

"Those who criticise CCS don't take the fight against global warming seriously," he added.

"We are so dependent on fossil fuels that there is no other solution to tide us over until renewable energies are more widespread. As it stands today, gas- and coal-fired plants release 100 percent of their CO2, so anything that can bring this number down is good," he said.

According to experts, the future of the method depends on its cost.

Carbon capture and storage currently costs around €60 per avoided ton of CO2, but that cost would have to be at least halved to make it a viable alternative to industries, which can currently buy CO2 emissions rights for around €25 per ton.

"We need to get the cost down for the technology and to have a higher CO2 price, and, not only that, to have more certainty about how long we will have a high carbon price," Kaarstad said.

"Then things will sort themselves out by themselves," he said.