New Study: Carbon Capture Is A Waste Of Money, & Counterproductive

Join daily news updates from CleanTechnica on e mail. Or follow us on Google News!

It’s a straightforward argument to grasp and to make: sure, we’d like extra clear vitality, however we additionally have to take carbon dioxide out of the air with carbon seize know-how. The issue is that you may have rather more impression for each greenback spent on the previous than with each greenback spent on the latter. Some individuals say, “but we can put money into both.” I by no means fairly get that argument. When you’ve got $100 million to place into carbon seize and storage, then simply use that $100 million for extra renewables to retire extra fossil gasoline energy crops! It’s good when prime scientists again this up, even when, as I mentioned, it’s baffling to me how this has turn into an advanced matter.

“For most countries around the world, sourcing energy entirely from wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower by 2050 would reduce their energy needs and costs, improve air quality, and help slow climate change, according to a Feb. 9 study in Environmental Science & Technology,” Josie Garthwaite of Stanford University writes earlier than slamming the door on one of many greatest local weather distractions of the century. “These benefits, the authors say, could be realized at a fraction of the cost of implementing technologies that remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air and capture it from stationary emitters like industrial smokestacks.”

Even if you happen to energy carbon seize and storage techniques with renewable vitality, that comes at a possibility price and also you’re higher off simply utilizing that renewable vitality to displace or flip off fossil energy crops. Why spend cash and vitality on eradicating some CO2 from a smokestack when you possibly can simply flip that smokestack off utterly with that very same vitality and cash (or much less)?

“If you spend $1 on carbon capture instead of on wind, water, and solar, you are increasing CO₂air pollution, energy requirements, energy costs, pipelines, and total social costs,” mentioned lead examine writer of the brand new examine Mark Jacobsona professor of civil and environmental engineering within the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and Stanford School of Engineeringand an occasional author and podcast visitor right here on CleanTechnica.

One thing that warms my coronary heart is that Jacobson then goes after one among my pet peeves. “It’s always an opportunity cost to use clean, renewable energy for direct air capture instead of replacing a fossil-fuel CO₂ source, just like it’s an opportunity cost to use it for AI or bitcoin mining. You’re preventing renewables from replacing fossil fuel sources because you’re creating more demand for those renewables.” Growth! Precisely! I can’t stand the arguments that you may energy bitcoin mining with renewables, and even AI knowledge facilities. It’s simply an try and stuff an ideological desire for one thing right into a actuality that doesn’t sting an excessive amount of. Once you improve vitality demand by a number of terawatt-hours and say that’s effective as a result of these will likely be powered utterly (or partly, which is even worse) by renewables, you might be ignoring that you simply’re taking photo voltaic panels and wind generators from the market that would have been (or would have been) used to show off fossil gasoline energy crops, which successfully means rising world heating emissions.

Right here’s some extra info:

“Jacobson and co-authors in contrast the annual vitality prices, emissions, public well being impacts, and social costs related to implementing both of two extremes throughout all sectors in 149 nations over the following 25 years.

“One excessive would see a whole change to make use of warmth and electrical energy generated by wind, photo voltaic, geothermal, and hydropower for all vitality wants, in addition to some advances in vitality effectivity; cuts to vitality demand via improved public transit, elevated biking, and telecommuting; and commercialization of hydrogen gasoline cells for long-distance air journey and delivery. For this case, the researchers assume hydrogen could be produced utilizing water and electrical energy from renewable sources, not with fossil fuels, which is the way in which most hydrogen is made immediately.

“The opposite excessive would see nations keep their present reliance on fossil fuels with some renewables, nuclear, and biomass — whereas enhancing vitality effectivity by the identical quantity as within the all-renewable case. On this second excessive, all 149 nations would additionally add gear to seize carbon dioxide from industrial flues and use know-how often called artificial direct air carbon seize to tug CO₂ from ambient air.

“Comparing these two ‘unrealistically extreme cases,’ the authors write, distills the climate, health, and social costs associated with investing money in carbon capture and direct air capture that might otherwise go toward electrification and wind, water, and solar power. Neither case considers the potential costs or benefits of efforts to enhance carbon sequestration in natural carbon sinks like wetlands, forests, soil, and oceans.”

Simply shut down the fossil gasoline crops and don’t waste energy on nonsense, in order that extra photo voltaic and wind energy crops can be utilized to close down fossil gasoline energy crops. Typically easy logic and explanations are greatest as a result of there’s nothing that beats them.

Jacobson additionally factors out that, guess what, whenever you shut down the ability plant as an alternative of solely eradicating the CO2, you additionally eradicate the air air pollution and water air pollution the ability plant creates. Extra advantages!

This isn’t rocket science, individuals. However if you happen to do wish to dive extra into the science of all of it, take a look at the full scientific paper.