Solar - Wind - Batteries are less costly, more efficient than Carbon Capture

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has been promoted for the past 5 years as the fossil fuel energy sector’s Moon shot. Its promise has been to address global heating and enable a lesser form of global clean energy solutions needed now to get humans off an addiction to oil, gas and coal in various energy formats.

It is an equally important objective in promoting CCS project solutions for some vested interests at preserving their business-as-usual dirty energy investments. It is also a bulwark from a global economy moving off fossil fuels out of necessity, while discovering the social and economic benefits in the electrification.

Carbon capture and storage has been a favorite promise from old-energy stakeholders to provide an answer to global heating with a solution that further preserves legacy fossil fuel market dependences and the profits of sector investor interests. It was simply a false promise, but hopeful, promoted by vested fossil fuel interests in the hope they could have their cake and eat it too when facing mounting public, scientific, and regulatory pressures to clean up their energy act and soon.

So far, billions of dollars have been invested, and years later, Carbon Capture ventures and experiments have failed to bail out the fossil fuel energy sector as some had hoped.

Carbon Capture’s Notable Points of Failures:

: Approximately 80% of projects aimed at commercializing CCS technology have ended in failure. In the power sector, the failure rate is even higher, with close to 90% of proposed global carbon capture capacity failing at the implementation stage or being suspended early.
: Many CCS projects have struggled to achieve profitability, even with substantial government support. For example, the Petra Nova project in Texas, once considered a flagship CCS initiative, faced numerous technical setbacks and financial disappointments before being mothballed.
: CCS projects have encountered various technical problems, including difficulties in capturing the promised amount of CO2 and concerns about the long-term storage of captured carbon.
: The sheer scale of global CO2 emissions (37 billion tons annually) makes it challenging to implement CCS at a meaningful level. The cost, energy requirements, and infrastructure needed for large-scale carbon capture operations are prohibitive.

In short, the promise and commercial viability of CCS has largely failed to deliver on its climate mitigation expectations, yet alone provides the fossil fuel sector an unjustified lifeline. CCS, with heavy public funding and private investments, repeatedly has demonstrated a track record of operating failures and commercial underperformance.

Yes, despite billions of dollars and years invested in various forms of the CCS technology (with substantial support from the fossil fuel and government sectors), CCS projects have just not succeeded in achieving their twin goals of climate mitigation and business as usual for dirty energy interests.

CCS carbon capture technology, according to a new study published in Environmental Science and Technology, examined two scenarios across 149 countries through 2050 to determine the effectiveness of CSS tech and which included to key categories of analysis:

one in which the countries transition 100% of their business-as-usual dirty energy sources replaced by wind-water-solar (WWS) clean energy sources, and
the another scenario, in which carbon capture (CC) and synthetic direct air carbon capture (SDACC) were linked to business-as-usual dirty energy sources. In the second scenario, the dirty energy mix linked top carbon capture mitigation measures included coal, gas, and oil fossil fuel energy sources.

Both scenarios accounted for the same improvements in energy efficiency, Clean Technica reported. The study compared the energy costs, public health impacts, and changes in emissions with each scenario.

The study examined the two scenarios across 149 countries through 2050: one in which the countries transition 100% of their business-as-usual energies into renewables, or wind-water-solar (WWS) sources, and another scenario in which policies invest in carbon capture (CC) and synthetic direct air carbon capture (SDACC).

The benefits of investing in clean energy, including solar, wind, hydropower, coupled to battery storage make these zero emissions renewable energy combinations proven clean energy options available today to most countries. They represent no less than the most cost-effective, reliable and resilient, climate-mitigating energy options on the path to pollution-free energy, and a global clean energy economy.