Investing in carbon capture instead of renewable energy is to throw money

The fight against climate change is fundamentally based on reducing the amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. One of the most direct solutions is carbon capture: extract the co₂ from industrial fireplaces or ambient air. So why don’t you finish taking off in front of renewables?

Short. Carbon capture technologies are equipment that is placed in industries or outdoors to eliminate pollution without modifying the source. Although it sounds promising, A recent Stanford study It shows that carbon capture is in the long run much more expensive and less effective than direct transition to renewable energy.

In addition to improving air quality and stopping climate change, for most countries of the world, electrifying the industry and obtain Energy, compared to a total bet for carbon capture that maintained the consumption of fossil fuels.

The study. The researchers compared two extreme scenarios: a world that bets 100% for renewable energies and electrification; and a world that continues to burn fossil fuels, but tries to reduce its impact with carbon capture and improvements in energy efficiency.

In contrast to intuition, the most profitable option is by far completely replacing fossil fuels by sources such as wind, sun, geothermia and hydroelectric energy. Because They directly eliminate the use of fuelswhich is the main source of pollutants in the air, and because they reduce energy demand instead of continuing to increase it.

More profitable. Clean sources and electrification would not only directly reduce carbon dioxide, avoiding five million deaths a year caused by pollution. Since carbon capture consumes energy, the first scenario would also involve economic savings compared to the other scenario, reducing energy consumption by 54% and energy costs by 60%.

The key is the opportunity cost. Using renewable energy to feed carbon capture systems prevents those same energies from being used to replace polluting sources. “If you spend a dollar in carbon capture instead of renewables, you are increasing carbon dioxide, air pollution, energy requirements, energy costs, pipelines and total social costs,” Explains the main author of the studyMark Jacobson.

Conclusion. What the study points out is that, although carbon capture may seem an attractive technical solution, in practice it maintains the inefficient and polluting infrastructure of combustion. How to try to empty a bathtub without closing the tap. The substantive problem is not solved: the use of fossil fuels.

The researchers conclude that, to face the climatic crisis effectively, it is much more beneficial to abandon the idea of ​​cleaning the air after polluting and betting on a total transformation towards renewable energies. The evidence says that investing in clean energy is not only cheaper, but also the safest option for the environment and global health.

Image | Pixabay

In Xataka | The big business in which CO2 is becoming captured and burying it underground