Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and Environment reveals alarming economic impact of reliance on CCS



A new report from the University of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and Environment reveals the economic risks associated with over-reliance on society. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) As countries prepare for discussion at the conference COP28 Summit In Dubai. The study, titled “Assessing the relative costs of high- and low-CCS pathways to 1.5 degrees,” found that compared to pathways based on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electrification, the Additional costs have been estimated and potential damages have been identified.achieve net zero emissions By 2050.
Key findings of the Oxford report:
Huge economic disparity: A CCS-heavy pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050 is projected to cost at least $30 trillion more per year than a low-CCS pathway. That’s about $1 trillion. This significant cost difference raises concerns about the economic viability of CCS-centric decarbonization plans.
Stagnant CCS deployment costs: Unlike renewable technologies such as solar, wind and batteries, which have seen significant cost reductions, the report highlights that CCS deployment costs have not declined over the past 40 years. I am. This stagnant cost trend raises questions about the economic viability and scalability of CCS.
Competitive disadvantage for governments: The report suggests that high levels of investment in CCS may not be financially justified, so governments prioritize CCS in their national decarbonization plans. may face a competitive disadvantage.
Dr Rupert Way, emeritus research fellow at Oxford Smith School, warned against relying on CCS as a blanket solution, highlighting the potential economic damage and adding $1 trillion a year. is estimated. He emphasized the need to reserve CCS for critical use cases in hard-to-abate sectors, given the unabated growing cost advantage of renewable energy over fossil fuels. ing.
The report also challenges expectations that CCS costs will decline in line with renewable technologies, citing a lack of technical learning in the CCS process despite decades of use. There is.
Social and ecological impacts: Choosing the low CCS route is not only economically viable, but also socially and ecologically friendly. The report highlights that a low CCS pathway would require significantly less land use for energy crops, avoiding potential threats to essential resources such as food and water. Over-reliance on biomass in combination with CCS can exacerbate risks to human rights, biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Slow CCS development: The report notes that CCS development has not kept up with the scale envisioned in the low CCS pathway. Even though global CO2 capture and storage has doubled in the past decade, a low CCS pathway would require scaling up 13 times by 2030, while a high CCS pathway would require a scale-up of 85 A double increase is required. The report calls on governments to increase investment in CCS, highlighting the need for specific industries and the potential for negative emissions.
Study author Richard Black, honorary fellow at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London, stresses the urgent need for governments to take serious action on CCS. He advocates for increased investment, clear prioritization of critical use cases, and recognition that CCS is not a comprehensive solution. Black emphasizes that decarbonization strategies centered around renewable energy and reducing fossil fuel use are economically sound and achievable.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *