Renewables More Cost Effective Than Direct Or Indirect Carbon Capture

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

Carbon seize — oh, how rapturously its advocates sing its praises. Simply construct carbon capture services and — Shazam! — people can use all of the coal, oil, and methane they need endlessly and a day! The glaciers will refreeze, ocean ranges will recede, drought stricken areas will flourish, and we are able to all get again to life the way in which it was 100 years in the past. “What a beautiful world this will be; what a glorious time to be free,” Donald Fagen would possibly say. It’s a form of magic realism that may be very interesting — and wrong.

Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford College, and his colleagues, have a unique perspective. In a analysis paper revealed February 9, 2025, within the journal Environmental Science and Technologyhe writes:

“Air air pollution, international warming, and power insecurity are three main issues dealing with the world. This examine first examines whether or not 149 international locations can transition 100% of their business-as-usual (BAU) all-sector power to electrical energy and warmth obtained from 100% wind-water-solar (WWS) sources to resolve these issues. WWS eliminates energy-related air air pollution deaths and CO2-equivalent emissions whereas decreasing end-use power wants by ∼54.4%, annual power prices by ∼59.6%, and annual social (power plus well being plus local weather) prices by ∼91.8% amongst nations, giving power and social value payback occasions of 5.9 and 0.78 years, respectively.

“Conversely, ‘all-of-the-above’ policies promoting carbon capture (CC) and/or synthetic (as opposed to natural) direct air carbon capture (SDACC) to reduce or offset CO2 emissions trigger, with full penetration of CC/SDACC across 149 countries, $60–80 trillion/y in social cost, or 9.1–12.1 times the WWS social cost and only 1.1–25.6% lower social cost than BAU. Even when all CO2 is stored, CC and SDACC increase air pollution, CO2-equivalent emissions (due to capture inefficiencies and not capturing non-CO2 greenhouse gases), energy needs, and equipment costs relative to WWS. Sensitivity tests reinforce this finding. Although full penetration is extreme, any CC/SDACC level increases social cost and emissions substantially versus WWS. Thus, policies promoting CC and SDACC should be abandoned.” (Emphasis added.)

“If you spend $1 on carbon capture instead of on wind, water, and solar, you are increasing CO2, air pollution, energy requirements, energy costs, pipelines, and total social costs,” Jacobson said. This holds true even when zero-emission power methods energy the know-how deployed to extract carbon dioxide. “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,” he stated.

Carbon Seize And Its Prices

Jacobson and his co-authors in contrast the annual power prices, emissions, public well being impacts, and social prices related to implementing both of two extremes throughout all sectors in 149 international locations over the subsequent 25 years. One excessive would see an entire swap to utilizing warmth and electrical energy generated by wind, photo voltaic, geothermal, and hydropower for all power wants, in addition to some advances in power effectivity; decreases in power demand by improved public transit, elevated biking, and telecommuting; and commercialization of hydrogen gasoline cells for long-distance air journey and delivery. For the needs of this examine, the researchers assumed 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 in the present day.

The opposite excessive would see international locations preserve their present reliance on fossil fuels with some renewables, nuclear, and biomass whereas enhancing power effectivity by the identical quantity as within the all-renewable case. On this second case, all 149 international locations would additionally add tools to seize carbon dioxide from industrial flues and use know-how generally known as artificial direct air carbon seize to tug CO2 from ambient air. Evaluating these two “unrealistically extreme cases” distills the local weather, well being, and social prices related to investing cash in carbon seize and direct air seize that may in any other case go towards electrification and wind, water, and solar energy. Neither case considers the potential prices or advantages of efforts to boost carbon sequestration in pure carbon sinks like wetlands, forests, soil, and oceans.

The researchers discovered that if the 149 international locations studied had been in a position to efficiently remove fossil fuels and biomass combustion by renewables and effectivity beneficial properties, by 2050 they may cut back their end-use power wants by greater than 54%. Annual power prices would decline by practically 60%. A whole lot of hundreds of thousands of sicknesses and 5 million deaths per yr associated to air air pollution from power — whether or not from wood-burning cook dinner stoves and kerosene lamps, or from methane-fired producing stations — could be prevented. “When you add wind turbines to replace a coal plant, you’re eliminating not only the CO₂ but also the pollution from the coal,” stated Jacobson, who can also be a senior fellow on the Woods Institute for the Atmosphere at Stanford.

Widespread electrification reduces power demand partially as a result of electrical warmth pumps and automobiles are extra environment friendly than gasoline heaters and home equipment, standard air conditioners, and inner combustion engines, Jacobson stated. Different power financial savings come from eliminating power wanted to extract, transport, and refine oil, gasoline, coal, and uranium. “You can have the most efficient way of removing CO₂ from the air, but that does not change the efficiency of combustion. You’re keeping that inefficient energy infrastructure the same,” stated Jacobson. “It’s much cheaper and more efficient just to replace the fossil source with electricity or heat provided by a renewable source.”

Widespread Sense And The Local weather

Jacobson is specializing in some generally understood rules. If you’re in a single place, you can’t be in one other. A greenback spent on A is a greenback that can not be spent on B. The time we spend doing one factor makes it inconceivable to spend that point doing one thing else. Local weather insurance policies that promote enlargement of renewables in addition to carbon seize and direct air seize to take care of emissions from fossil fuels and biomass “do not distinguish between good and poor solutions,” and any coverage selling carbon seize and direct air seize “should be abandoned,” the authors write within the examine. “The only way to eliminate all air pollutant and climate warming gases and particles from energy is to eliminate combustion.” (Emphasis added.)

On BlueskyJacobson posted, “Carbon capture and synthetic direct air carbon capture both increase CO2, so claims by the @ipcc.bsky.social and others that we ‘need’ CC/SDACC are misleading and false because they fail to explain CC/SDACC have no ability to reduce net CO2, and they increase social cost. It is simply not true that either carbon capture or synthetic (not natural) direct air capture reduces CO2 when the whole system, not just the capture equipment, is considered. Time to act wiser on climate and abandon policies promoting, on climate grounds, CC and DAC.”

Framing The Debate

Just lately, we revealed the ideas of Mike Hulmea professor of human geography on the College of Cambridge, who says utilizing phrases like 1.5°C isn’t serving to to maneuver the local weather debate ahead as a result of they’re simply an abstraction. He suggests re-framing the talk in phrases that matter to folks — issues just like the well being advantages of decarbonization and the decrease value of renewables in comparison with enterprise as traditional. Jacobson is saying a lot the identical factor along with his deal with well being and cash. Within the remaining evaluation, cash is usually what will get folks’s consideration, so it’s good to border the dialog round economics. The upshot is that it’s foolish to fund new nuclear energy crops that take 20 years to construct and price 4 occasions as a lot as was initially budgeted to finish. Renewables will be up and operating in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the fee. In terms of well being impacts, most individuals are in favor of residing an extended, disease-free life.

A few years in the past, I used to be making an attempt to stop smoking. I used to be residing proof of the reality of Mark Twain’s quip, “Quitting smoking is easy. I’ve done it a thousand times.” I went to a clinic that promised to interrupt folks of the filthy behavior utilizing quite a lot of emotional triggers. One requested us to calculate how a lot we had spent in our lifetimes on cigarettes. For me, the reply was about $12,000, and I believed to myself, “That’s not a lot, considering how much pleasure I have gotten from smoking.” One other requested us to calculate what number of puffs of tobacco smoke we had inhaled. The reply for me was within the hundreds of thousands. A tiny mild bulb lit up in my head and I heard myself say, “Oh, this is not good.” That was the turning level. Inside two weeks, I used to be freed from my habit to the filthy weed.

Numerous issues have an effect on folks otherwise, so you will need to have as many levers as attainable when making an attempt to persuade associates, household, and our elected officers to do the correct factor for the surroundings. Cash and well being are two biggies that may inspire us to assist a transfer away from fossil fuels. If we try this, there shall be no need for carbon capture of any kind and the cash saved will be put to higher use so all of us can get pleasure from a sustainable surroundings in the present day and for a lot of tomorrows to come back.