Latest Carbon Capture Study Questions Opportunity Costs and Effectiveness of Deploying The Technology

Canadian oil sands providers have teamed together to form the Pathways Alliance, aiming to create a pipeline network to capture, transport and sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) permanently underground. So far, the Alliance is a bunch of slide decks and talking. That may change soon with the new federal government tabling legislation to fast-track priority projects. That may involve federal subsidies to make the project more than just talking points. Anyway you look at it, Pathways is a project costing tens of billions of dollars, with the amount of CO2 captured from oil sands production sites, a mere fraction of total global carbon emissions.

Why then go to all this expense and trouble? Researchers from the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and the Stanford School of Engineering decided to test the efficacy of building and running carbon capture projects.

In their study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology this month, the authors question large-scale carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as good investments, describing them as far more expensive and environmentally harmful than if governments and businesses invested in renewable and zero-emission energy sources for electricity, manufacturing, heating and cooling.

The research shows that renewable and zero-emission technologies cost a fraction of what would be expended by investments in CCS projects, whether direct air capture (DAC) or emissions captured at the source from smokestacks and manufacturing sites.

The research concludes that when a choice is between CCS technology back-ending fossil-fuel power generation versus building new renewables, including wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power, the latter represents a better bang for the buck. Mark Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford, states the following:

“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.”

As well, the study concludes it is a poor use of renewable energy technology to power CCS projects to continue to support the fossil fuel industry, preventing its demise.

Jacobson is the lead author of the study comparing annual energy costs, emissions, public health impacts and social costs in 149 countries over 25 years, between all-in-renewables and fossil fuels with CCS.

1. The all-in-renewables model uses the full range of renewable and zero-emission technologies available for power generation. It also incorporates advances in energy efficiency for buildings and housing to reduce per-unit demand. Green hydrogen, fuel cells and batteries replace fossil fuels for transportation and manufacturing.
2. The fossil fuels with CCS model would include a supplementary mix of renewables, nuclear and biomass energy production sources. Energy efficiency would be deployed at the same rate as in the first model. CCS projects would capture and store carbon from power plants, factories and manufacturing sites, while DAC projects would capture emissions from transportation, buildings, housing and ambient air.

Running the numbers for the above two shows that countries eliminating fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy by 2050 reduce their energy demand by 54.4%, with energy costs declining by nearly 60%. In addition, eliminating fossil fuels leads to 5 million fewer deaths and 100 million fewer suffering from diseases attributed to carbon pollution. In sum, eliminating combustion, the source of pollution from fossil fuels, would reduce combined annual energy, health, and climate costs for countries deploying an all-in-renewables strategy by 91.8%.

Jacobson notes that there is no upside to continuing to burn fossil fuels to produce energy because even the most efficient method of removing CO2 from the air cannot eliminate the inefficiencies and damage caused by using coal, oil, and natural gas to produce energy. He concludes that, “It’s much cheaper and more efficient just to replace the fossil source with electricity or heat provided by a renewable source.” 

So, as much as CCS and DAC are touted as environmental saviours in the fight to mitigate climate change, only eliminating combustion will remove the threat of global warming. What large-scale CCS and DAC do is help keep fossil fuel companies in business and their shareholders happy while the planet and humanity are victimized.