Energy, Health, and Climate Costs of Carbon-Capture and Direct-Air-Capture versus 100%-Wind-Water-Solar Climate Policies in 149 Countries
Mark Z. Jacobson, Danning Fu, Daniel J. Sambor, Andreas Mühlbauer
Abstract
Air pollution, global warming, and energy insecurity are three major problems facing the world. This study first examines whether 149 countries can transition 100% of their business-as-usual (BAU) all-sector energy to electricity and heat obtained from 100% wind-water-solar (WWS) sources to solve these problems. WWS eliminates energy-related air pollution deaths and CO 2 -equivalent emissions while reducing end-use energy needs by ∼54.4%, annual energy costs by ∼59.6%, and annual social (energy plus health plus climate) costs by ∼91.8% among nations, giving energy- and social-cost payback times of 5.9 and 0.78 years, respectively. Conversely, “all-of-the-above” policies promoting carbon capture (CC) and/or synthetic (as opposed to natural) direct air carbon capture (SDACC) to reduce or offset CO 2 emissions trigger, with full penetration of CC/SDACC across 149 countries, $60–80 trillion/y in social cost, or 9.1–12.1 times the WWS social cost and only 1.1–25.6% lower social cost than BAU. Even when all CO 2 is stored, CC and SDACC increase air pollution, CO 2 -equivalent emissions (due to capture inefficiencies and not capturing non-CO 2 greenhouse gases), energy needs, and equipment costs relative to WWS. Sensitivity tests reinforce this finding. Although full penetration is extreme, any CC/SDACC level increases social cost and emissions substantially versus WWS. Thus, policies promoting CC and SDACC should be abandoned.