A recent Stanford University study has concluded that carbon capture and direct air capture should be abandoned in favor of replacing infrastructure with renewable wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower.
The study, conducted by researchers at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, argues that renewable power sources are cheaper, more energy-efficient, and healthier than investing in carbon capture technology in 149 countries.
“You can have the most efficient way of removing CO2 from the air, but that does not change the efficiency of combustion,” said lead study author Jacobson. “You’re keeping that inefficient energy infrastructure the same.”
“It’s much cheaper and more efficient just to replace the fossil source with electricity or heat provided by a renewable source.”
Stanford Study Compares Two Scenarios
For the Environmental Science & Technology study, the team projected two different “extreme” cases of energy infrastructure across 149 countries over the next 25 years.
- One scenario maintained an approximation of countries’ current reliance on fossil fuels with some renewables, nuclear, and biomass, while adding the infrastructure associated with carbon capture.
- The other implemented a complete switch to renewables, using wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower for all energy needs. This scenario also included improved public transit, increased biking, and telecommuting.
Additionally, the second scenario proposed that hydrogen used for air travel and shipping would be produced by water and electricity from renewables instead of fossil fuels.
Key Findings of the Study
The researchers compared annual energy costs, emissions, public health impacts, and social costs for both scenarios.
According to the findings:
- If the 149 countries eliminated fossil fuels and biomass combustion, end-use energy demand would drop by 54%.
- Annual energy costs would decline by nearly 60%.
- Avoiding fossil fuel use would prevent hundreds of millions of illnesses and 5 million deaths related to air pollution.
“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,” said Jacobson.
Renewable Energy More Cost-Effective Than Carbon Capture
The study builds on similar findings, including a University of Oxford study that warns against heavy dependence on carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reach the 2050 net zero energy targets set by the Paris Agreement.
CCS and Direct Air Capture (DAC) extract CO2 from the atmosphere using chemicals or filters, then store or bury it deep underground. Infrastructure like large towers and industrial plants is required for these processes, such as:
- The world’s largest carbon-capture plant in Iceland, built by Swiss company Climeworks.
- A newly opened large-scale carbon capture plant in the US by tech company Heirloom.
Although carbon capture is still in its early stages, it has been criticized for high costs and inefficiency.
In an opinion piece, Dezeen founder Marcus Fairs described CCS as a “smokescreen” used by oil and gas companies to justify continued fossil fuel extraction.
However, some argue that carbon capture is necessary for industries where renewable energy solutions are not yet viable. Research continues on improving the technology’s efficiency.
More on ArchUp:
