Quantcast
ZME Science
  • CoronavirusNEW
  • News
  • Environment
    • Climate
    • Animals
    • Renewable Energy
    • Eco tips
    • Environmental Issues
    • Green Living
  • Health
    • Alternative Medicine
    • Anatomy
    • Diseases
    • Genetics
    • Mind & Brain
    • Nutrition
  • Future
  • Space
  • Feature
    • Feature Post
    • Art
    • Great Pics
    • Design
    • Fossil Friday
    • AstroPicture
    • GeoPicture
    • Did you know?
    • Offbeat
  • More
    • About
    • The Team
    • Advertise
    • Contribute
    • Our stance on climate change
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact
No Result
View All Result
ZME Science

No Result
View All Result
ZME Science
No Result
View All Result
Home Environment Climate

Carbon capture could be worse than initially thought, study shows

Using carbon capture only reduces a small fraction of the emissions

Fermin Koop by Fermin Koop
October 28, 2019
in Climate, Environment, News, Science

As the climate crisis worsens, the use of carbon capture has been suggested as an alternative to reduce emissions levels in the atmosphere. But capturing carbon from the air or preventing it from getting there could actually cause more harm than good, according to a new study.

Credit: Wikipedia Commons

All climate scenarios for the future now contemplate the use of carbon capture, trapping emissions and storing them away from the atmosphere. But, for researcher Mark Jacobson, technology reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions and usually increases air pollution.

“Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social cost perspective, than replacing a coal or gas plant with a wind farm because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and always has a capture equipment cost,” Jacobson said.

The researcher looked at public data from a coal with carbon capture electric power plant and a plant that removes carbon from the air directly. In both cases, the electricity needed to run the carbon capture came from natural gas. He calculated the net CO2 reduction and total cost of the carbon capture process in each case.

ADVERTISEMENT

Estimates of carbon capture say it can remediate 85-90 percent of carbon emissions. Once he calculated the emissions associated with the plants, the scientist converted them to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide in order to compare the data with the standard estimate. In both cases, the equipment captured the equivalent of only 10-11% of the emissions they produced, averaged over 20 years.

Jacobson also looked at the social cost of carbon capture, including air pollution, potential health problems, economic costs and overall contributions to climate change. He concluded that those are always similar to or higher than operating a fossil fuel plant without carbon capture and higher than not capturing carbon from the air at all.

Even when the capture equipment is powered by renewable electricity, the study concluded that it is always better to use renewable electricity instead to replace coal or natural gas electricity or to do nothing, from a social cost perspective. It then argued the best solution is to instead focus on renewable options.

ADVERTISEMENT

The research was based on data from two real carbon capture plants, which both run on natural gas. The first is a coal plant with carbon capture equipment. The second plant is not attached to any energy-producing counterpart. Instead, it pulls existing carbon dioxide from the air using a chemical process.

Get more science news like this...

Join the ZME newsletter for amazing science news, features, and exclusive scoops. More than 40,000 subscribers can't be wrong.

   

“Not only does carbon capture hardly work at existing plants, but there’s no way it can actually improve to be better than replacing coal or gas with wind or solar directly,” said Jacobson. “The latter will always be better, no matter what, in terms of the social cost. You can’t just ignore health costs or climate costs.”

Experts propose that carbon capture could be useful in the future to lower atmospheric carbon levels. Even assuming these technologies run on renewables, Jacobson maintains that the smarter investment is in options that are currently disconnected from the fossil fuel industry, such as reforestation.

The study appeared in the journal Energy and Environmental Science.

Tags: carbon captureclimate changeemissions
Fermin Koop

Fermin Koop

Fermin Koop is a reporter from Buenos Aires, Argentina. He holds an MSc from Reading University (UK) on Environment and Development and is specialized in environment and climate change news.

Follow ZME on social media

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Coronavirus
  • News
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Future
  • Space
  • Feature
  • More

© 2007-2019 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Coronavirus
  • News
  • Environment
    • Climate
    • Animals
    • Renewable Energy
    • Eco tips
    • Environmental Issues
    • Green Living
  • Health
    • Alternative Medicine
    • Anatomy
    • Diseases
    • Genetics
    • Mind & Brain
    • Nutrition
  • Future
  • Space
  • Feature
    • Feature Post
    • Art
    • Great Pics
    • Design
    • Fossil Friday
    • AstroPicture
    • GeoPicture
    • Did you know?
    • Offbeat
  • More
    • About
    • The Team
    • Advertise
    • Contribute
    • Our stance on climate change
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact

© 2007-2019 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.