Feb 19, 2025 08:00:00

Study finds that carbon capture is more costly than switching to renewable energy

In order to curb climate change, efforts are being made around the world to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One of these efforts is a technology called '

carbon capture ,' which captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it underground. A study comparing carbon capture with other clean energy sources revealed that carbon capture is expensive compared to its effectiveness.

Energy, Health, and Climate Costs of Carbon-Capture and Direct-Air-Capture versus 100%-Wind-Water-Solar Climate Policies in 149 Countries | Environmental Science & Technology
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c10686

Carbon capture more costly than switching to renewables, researchers find
https://techxplore.com/news/2025-02-carbon-capture-renewables.html

Mark Jacobson of Stanford University and his colleagues considered two 'extreme cases' and, assuming that 149 countries selected for their study chose one of them and implemented measures to combat global warming, compared the annual energy costs, emissions, impacts on public health, and societal costs for each case.

The first extreme case imagines governments switching completely to wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric heat and electricity for all their energy needs, along with some improvements in energy efficiency, improving public transport, increasing cycling instead of driving, reducing energy demand by working from home, and commercialising hydrogen fuel cells for long-distance air travel and transport.

The other extreme case is one in which governments maintain their reliance on fossil fuels but use a mix of renewables, nuclear and biomass, and improve energy efficiency to the same extent as renewables. In this case, it is assumed that all 149 countries add carbon capture capacity and capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

By comparing these two 'unrealistic extreme cases', Jacobson and his colleagues argue they have extracted the climate, health and social costs associated with investing in carbon capture with money that might be spent on electrification, wind, hydro or solar power.

If 149 countries choose the first option and succeed in eliminating fossil fuel and biomass combustion by 2050 through renewable energy and efficiency, they would reduce final consumption energy demand by about 54.4%, annual energy costs by about 59.6%, and annual social costs (energy + health + climate) by about 91.8%.

Conversely, promoting carbon capture to reduce or offset carbon dioxide emissions would likely increase energy demand and capital costs compared to the alternative case, even if all the carbon dioxide was stored.

Based on their results, Jacobson et al. argue that policies promoting carbon capture should be abandoned, because any carbon capture approach would result in significantly higher social costs and carbon dioxide emissions than wind, hydro, or electricity.

'Adding wind turbines to replace coal plants not only removes carbon dioxide but also the pollution from the coal,' Jacobson said. 'All of this comes at a fraction of the cost of installing the technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.'