For most countries around the world, sourcing energy entirely from wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower by 2050 would reduce their energy needs and costs, improve air quality, and help slow climate change, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology.
Expensive or not, we’re well past the point where it’s optional. Even if 100% of new carbon emissions stopped today, let alone by 2050, we’d need to continue developing carbon capture technologies to take out what we’ve already put in the atmosphere. Not every part of the fixing process needs to be profitable.
Expensive or not, the cheapest option is renewables. Coal plants in Australia have closed down, unable to compete with solar and wind. We now export our coal to China
I agree with what you’re saying, but developing the technology right now is quite counterproductive. The stopping of carbon emissions needs to happen first, and it needs to happen quickly. Every bit of energy spent on carbon capture projects would be better spent implementing renewable processes.
Furthermore, the technology currently functions as an accountability sink for heavy polluters. It allows them to hand-waive away the entire problem of emissions since there is this “panacea” just around the corner, thus slowing down actual meaningful climate action.
Carbon capture needs to be discredited as a solution until its purpose stops being the continuation of the status quo.
I’m confused about this idea that cdr isn’t possible today.
https://undergroundforest.nl/english/