Carbon capture more costly than switching to renewables, researchers find

17 comments

1. Tiresome who would have thought moment.

2. No shit sherlock.

3. Honestly, who’s running these studies? That’s utterly obvious. Carbon capture has only been considered as an option in hard to abate sectors, never as an alternative to electrification and renewables.

4. Burn fossils -> produce emissions -> build renewables -> build CCS

   Vs

   Build renewables

   We needed research for this?

5. Not to mention carbon capture is a grift.

6. Is that a surprise?

7. continuing to use fossil fuels and not making them pay for carbon always is

8. It’s no surprise that the cheapest way to reduce atmospheric CO2 is to stop releasing more than 36 billion tons of it into the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels. Carbon capture is just an industry smoke-screen to convince lawmakers that it’s okay to keep burning them for now, and we’ll just clean it up later.

9. Planting trees is cheap.

10. Personally I hate CCS today, not the concept, or even doing advanced research in the topic.

    But it is in no way practical, consumes more energy than was created in the combustion of the initial carbon, can’t scale – and every “solution” being harped as some solution only addresses one aspect.

    Maybe in 25 or 50 years, if we have developed essentially free energy, and there is basically direct to dense carbon process… can we consider trying to touch the hundreds of billions of tons we have released into the atmosphere and oceans.

    There are literally thousands of better and more effective uses of our time, talent and dollars to address GW than CCS.

11. Could have guessed this was another Jacobson study from the title. He’s absolutely perfected his grift. 

12. We knew this, why are we republishing results.

13. I’m surprised people aren’t talking about enhanced weathering here. It’s fairly cheap to put ground basalt on farmland because you actually increase the yield of crops more than a cost just to spread the basalt . And then you also get a ton of atmospheric CO2 capture as well. So it basically costs you less than nothing.

14. Fun fact… you have to do both. Unless you want to stop eating meat. Lol

15. Study finds that one of the most stable molecules (outside of noble gases) is happy to remain a gas at atmospheric conditions.

    In other news, trees are found to eat this molecule.

16. Carbon capture has a place in the O&G upstream industry; for as long as the commodity is being extracted.

    However, as O&G becomes less desirable, this tech will eventually become unnecessary…

    All models point to a world that has weened off O&G by 2042.

    So IMO, let them do it…

17. How is planting trees and bio engineering plants to more rapidly grow and absorb carbon more costly??

Comments are closed.