
Study casts doubt on carbon capture - bemmu
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-carbon-capture.html
======
sawaruna
>"All sorts of scenarios have been developed under the assumption that carbon
capture actually reduces substantial amounts of carbon. However, this research
finds that it reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it
usually increases air pollution," said Jacobson, who is a professor of civil
and environmental engineering. "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. Wind replacing
fossil fuels always reduces air pollution and never has a capture equipment
cost."

Isn't the idea to use both renewable energy sources AND co2 capture where
possible? I'm not sure I've heard capture proposed as a replacement for
renewable energy and that we should just continue using fossil fuels while
capturing co2.

>This research is based on data from two real carbon capture plants, which
both run on natural gas.

This is related to the last point. Assuming capture plants were run using
renewable energy, I'm not sure if there is a net environmental negative from
using both together.

------
karmakaze
Studies today seem like the internet, you can find anything you look for.
Publish or perish.

The effectiveness or efficiency of carbon capture at present isn't the point.
It's to develop the technology and means of running it for environmental
benefit. Only once it's effective would we choose to run it on a large scale.
And employing both alternative energy and carbon capture is the best course of
action.

