{"id":4249,"date":"2022-05-30T22:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-05-30T22:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/?p=4249"},"modified":"2022-05-19T07:50:41","modified_gmt":"2022-05-19T07:50:41","slug":"relying-on-carbon-capture-to-solve-the-climate-crisis-risks-pushing-our-problems-into-the-next-generations-path","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/relying-on-carbon-capture-to-solve-the-climate-crisis-risks-pushing-our-problems-into-the-next-generations-path\/","title":{"rendered":"Relying on carbon capture to solve the climate crisis risks pushing our problems into the next generation\u2019s path"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n Models suggest that CCS tech alone won\u2019t be enough to avert climate disaster.\n Marcin Jozwiak\/Pixabay<\/a><\/span>\n <\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n\nAvit K Bhowmik<\/a>, Stockholm University<\/a><\/em> and Neil Grant<\/a>, Imperial College London<\/a><\/em><\/span>\n\n

As the latest report from the UN\u2019s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes clear<\/a> makes clear, the 2020s must be a decade of transformation<\/a> if we are to stand any chance of achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

Carbon capture and storage<\/a> (CCS) is widely anticipated to play a key role in this transformation by helping to cut carbon emissions worldwide. But relying on CCS may overshadow solutions<\/a> that focus on reducing our energy demand and making behavioural changes<\/a> that put sustainability first.<\/p>\n\n

Over the coming years, global greenhouse gas emissions need to fall rapidly in accordance with the Carbon Law<\/a>, a relatively simple equation developed by scientists to achieve decarbonisation: halving emissions by 2030, then continuing to halve them every decade until 2050 to reach a level that can be stored by \u201cnatural carbon sinks<\/a>\u201d such as forests, pastures and peatlands.<\/p>\n\n

Current strategies to rapidly cut emissions have proved inadequate<\/a>. Many governments are now looking to CCS technologies that capture and store carbon dioxide (CO\u2082) released by burning fossil fuels and other industrial processes. CCS also includes systems that capture CO\u2082<\/a> from burning organic matter (BECCS) or directly from the atmosphere.<\/p>\n\n

CCS may be a critical technology to cut emissions in some sectors. For example, cement production is currently responsible for 8%<\/a> of global CO\u2082 emissions. Of this, 60% are \u201cprocess emissions\u201d, meaning they can\u2019t be avoided, even if fossil fuels stop being used in the cement manufacturing process entirely. This is where CCS can step in to capture that carbon.<\/p>\n\n

Yet CCS has been struggling<\/a> to get off the ground, with more than 80% of projects ending in failure thanks to complicated infrastructure and a lack of policy support. Relying on CCS too much could therefore be risky. <\/p>\n\n

Model evidence<\/h2>\n\n

Along with the Exponential Roadmap Initiative<\/a> team, author Avit Bhowmik has modelled<\/a> different ways in which we might be able to limit global warming to 1.5\u00b0C by 2100. <\/p>\n\n

Together, we\u2019ve mapped greenhouse gas emissions across six sectors \u2013 energy, industry, buildings, transport, food, and agriculture and forestry \u2013 to assess whether existing solutions<\/a>, including circular business models<\/a>, renewable energy<\/a> tech, and low-carbon heating and cooling systems<\/a>, can eliminate emissions without using CCS.<\/p>\n\n

We found that if solutions that don\u2019t rely on CCS were implemented within Carbon Law guidelines, global emissions could be cut from 54 billion metric tonnes in 2020 to 34 billion metric tonnes in 2030. <\/p>\n\n

With the accelerating development<\/a> of renewable energy, energy sector emissions could be reduced by three billion metric tonnes by 2030. In the buildings sector<\/a>, automating energy usage and retrofitting buildings could cut emissions by five billion metric tonnes by 2030. And electric vehicles, digital carpooling services and remote meeting<\/a> platforms could cut another 3.5 billion metric tonnes from the transport sector.<\/p>\n\n

\n \"A\n
\n Food forests can help trap and store more carbon.<\/span>\n Zack Dowell\/Flickr<\/a>, CC BY-NC-SA<\/a><\/span>\n <\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n\n

What\u2019s more, adding nature-based solutions such as managing cattle grazing<\/a> and rebuilding forests<\/a> could not only rapidly reduce emissions by preventing land degradation, but could also add 9.1 billion metric tonnes of capacity to carbon sinks. For example, creating \u201cfood forests<\/a>\u201d \u2013 layered forests with crops built in \u2013 could sequester up to one billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases annually. <\/p>\n\n

If we manage to put these plans into practice, we\u2019d be able to achieve net zero emissions<\/a> in the next two decades and significantly reduce our reliance on CCS. But that\u2019s only half of the story.<\/p>\n\n

Renewable power<\/h2>\n\n

The cost of renewables has plummeted over the past decade. Wind and solar power are now the cheapest forms of electricity in most parts of the world. But economic models have struggled to keep pace, sometimes using overly pessimistic renewables costs. New research<\/a> by author Neil Grant and colleagues explores what happens when these cost assumptions are updated to reflect the amazing progress of the past decade.<\/p>\n\n

We found that cheap renewables reduce the need for technologies such as CCS, with the economic value of CCS falling by 15-96% by 2050. However, this effect varies strongly across sectors. <\/p>\n\n

\n \"Two\n
\n Renewables continue to drop in price.<\/span>\n GPA Photo Archive\/Flickr<\/a>, CC BY-NC-SA<\/a><\/span>\n <\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n\n

For example, while cheap renewables slash the value of CCS in electricity and hydrogen production by 61-96%, CCS remains valuable in cement production and CO\u2082 removal, where its value only falls 15-36%. It seems like targeting CCS where it\u2019s most needed could be a better strategy: less \u201cspray and pray\u201d, more \u201cselect and perfect\u201d.<\/p>\n\n

Discounting climate<\/h2>\n\n

Models of a low-carbon future<\/a> need to decide how to spread the effort of tackling climate change over the next century. They often use \u201cdiscount rates<\/a>\u201d to achieve this. Discount rates determine how a dollar\u2019s worth of action today \u2013 for example, a dollar spent installing a wind turbine \u2013 compares to a dollar\u2019s worth of action in the future. <\/p>\n\n

A higher discount rate means it\u2019s cheaper to spend the dollar in the future, creating an incentive to delay that action. The problem is that many models still use relatively high discount rates of 4-5%. This leads to a tendency to do less now \u2013 and compensate for it later.<\/p>\n\n

Neil\u2019s research<\/a> shows that when lower discount rates of 1% are used \u2013 to reflect the importance of future generations\u2019 wellbeing \u2013 the value of CCS plummets across sectors. In particular, the value of BECCS<\/a> is cut by more than half. Avoiding this means BECCS, while still a useful tool, becomes much less valuable.<\/p>\n\n

While capturing carbon will be essential in tackling the climate crisis, it shouldn\u2019t be used to delay action now. We should update our models to better consider the needs of future generations when designing climate policy, since large-scale reliance on carbon capture might be a dangerous game to play.\"The<\/p>\n\n

Avit K Bhowmik<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Risk and Environmental Studies, Stockholm University<\/a><\/em> and Neil Grant<\/a>, PhD Candidate in Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Models suggest that CCS tech alone won\u2019t be enough to avert climate disaster. Marcin Jozwiak\/Pixabay Avit K Bhowmik,…\n","protected":false},"author":74,"featured_media":4250,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[146,321,120,474],"class_list":{"0":"post-4249","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-earth","8":"tag-carbon","9":"tag-carbon-capture","10":"tag-climate-change","11":"tag-the-conversation","12":"cs-entry","13":"cs-video-wrap"},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4249","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/74"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4249"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4249\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4251,"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4249\/revisions\/4251"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4250"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modernsciences.org\/staging\/4414\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}