A Stanford study, published on February 9th, compared two extremes — one where 149 countries switch to powering their heat and electricity entirely with renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower) by 2050 and another where the same countries maintain their current fossil fuel use but both add carbon capture equipment to industrial smokestacks and use direct air capture (DAC) to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. It found that when energy costs, health impacts, and emissions are taken into account, the overall cost of investing in carbon capture and removal is about 9-12 times higher than the cost of switching to 100% renewable energy.
The cost difference is for a few reasons. For one, the study predicts that powering the world with clean, renewable energy sources would lower annual energy demand by 54%, causing home energy costs to decrease by close to 60%. Those energy savings come from increased efficiency of electric appliances and cars, as well as by eliminating the energy needs associated with extracting, refining, and transporting oil, gas, and coal. There are also social and cost benefits that come from reducing air pollution from fossil fuel plants – including preventing 5 million deaths per year.
The carbon capture scenario does not produce the same energy savings and health benefits. Old, dirty combustion infrastructure is inefficient, expensive, and causes harmful air pollution. Carbon capture and direct air capture, even if deployed safely across the world, would help lower carbon emissions but would not address those secondary issues.
The authors’ final conclusion is striking: policy promoting carbon capture as a climate solution “should be abandoned.” Even when carbon capture is powered by 100% renewable energy, they argue, there is an opportunity cost to not using that same clean energy to just replace fossil fuel generators.
There may be a role for technologies like direct air capture down the line, after the world has cut emissions close to zero, but for now they remain an expensive and inefficient way to lower emissions. Reports like this one along with growing concerns about carbon capture and storage’s potential health and safety risks underline that certainly right now, carbon capture and removal is not worth the investment. Every dollar spent on expensive carbon capture schemes is one that is not spent on taking the critical steps needed to replace fossil fuels with the abundant, cheap, and clean energy from the wind and sun.
