Researchers concluded in a new Stanford-backed study that the use of the Earth will be more expensive and harmful to the Earth than simply a decisive transfer to renewable energy.
Carbon capture technologies are often deployed in high-emission facilities such as refineries and power plants, and are increasingly used by the fossil fuel industry to manage emissions.
However, the use of the technology has been subject to increasing scrutiny and criticism, with some climate experts saying that capturing carbon has become an excuse for large polluters to continue their oil and gas expansion.
Also on AF: China's continued decline in fuel demand in EV BOOM
Discover Stanford University Researchpublished this month, has increased attention to technology.
“If you spend $1 on carbon capture, instead of wind, water and solar, you'll increase carbon dioxide, air pollution, energy demand, energy, energy, energy, if you spend $1 on carbon capture, not on wind, water and solar energy, you'll increase carbon dioxide, air pollution, energy, energy, Cost, pipeline and total social costs.” In the statement.
Jacobson notes that carbon capture technology will remain a more expensive option: “Even a zero-emission energy system powers the technology that extracts carbon dioxide.”
although There are some carbon capture systems This may be about the net value of emissions, and most require additional equipment to improve its efficiency in capturing carbon dioxide. These additions effectively make the process energy-intensive.
The same is true for Direct Capture (DAC)This technology is increasingly popular with net negative systems because it can be powered by solar energy.
But according to Stanford University research, the technology will ultimately affect the use of renewable energy in a larger energy transition.
“This is always an opportunity to use clean, renewable energy for direct capture rather than replacing fossil fuel carbon dioxide sources, just like the opportunity cost of using it for AI or Bitcoin mining,” Jacobson added.
“You are preventing renewable energy from changing its fossil fuel sources because you have more demand for these renewable energy sources.”
Huge cost difference
The study’s larger and more importantly, the cost of transitioning to renewable energy varies greatly from the use of carbon capture technology.
Researchers claim that even a comprehensive overhaul of existing energy systems will be much cheaper for those who benefit renewable energy.
In the chart shared with the study, the researchers show that the complete turnover with renewable energy (wind or WWS) is $10 trillion. However, when the impact of relevant emissions on public health and the global climate, the cost of increasing carbon capture by 6 to 8 times is also considered.
The researchers noted that the scenarios they studied, including the case of fully transfer to renewable energy, were “unrealistic extremes”, but that approach is for “climate related to investing money in carbon capture and direct air capture, health Methods related to social costs are necessary”.
They noted that these solutions did not take into account the removal of carbon, such as isolation techniques in wetlands, forests, soils and oceans.
Fossil fuels – Greater Evil
Although Stanford’s research raises annoying questions about the efficacy of carbon capture, it remains inconsistent with the views of institutions such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), which sees technology as an essential tool to reach zero emissions. .
IEA Already said Achieving net worth of zero will require the world to use “all ways available”, while also pointing out that carbon capture is critical to managing emissions in difficult-to-soak industries such as steel and cement.
At the other end of the debate, climate activists view carbon capture as “A huge waste of money” This could ultimately drive the funds needed to strike climate change with the industry driving it. These concerns have attracted credibility in recent months, during which fossil fuel giants (such as BP) Chasing billions of dollars in climate subsidieswhile giving up transitioning to clean energy.
Both sides agree that the world needs to stop using fossil fuels without further delay. The IEA has been saying in 2021 – oil and gas need to be stopped immediately.
A recent study also suggests that the continued expansion of fossil fuel sources may be proposed $5.57 trillion worth of assets (including human capital) are in danger.
The authors of the Stanford University study reiterated concerns about the continued use of fossil fuels, suggesting that combustion is a key reason for the higher costs associated with carbon capture.
Stanford University researchers say they could reduce end-use energy demand by more than 54% if the 149 countries they studied eliminate fossil fuels and biomass combustion.
They added that annual energy costs will fall by nearly 60%.
“You can have the most efficient way to remove carbon dioxide from the air, but that won’t change the efficiency of combustion. “You’re going to maintain an inefficient energy infrastructure,” Jacobson said. ”
“It’s much cheaper and more effective just by replacing fossil sources with electricity or heat provided by renewable energy.”
Please read also:
Spend on global energy transition where needed
Energy emissions are set to peak, but are “not timely” to achieve climate goals
Blooming solar energy “touches” its renewable energy targets for 2030
The hottest January ever expanded with stripes violating 1.5c threshold
Floods or droughts: Climate change worsens global floods
Continuous rise in methane emissions worrisome senior scientists
Oil and gas industry net zero track: S&P Global
Green investment is hampered by poor demand for low-carbon products
