Renewables and nuclear ‘no substitute for CCS’, climate scientist warns

Renewables and nuclear power are no substitute for carbon capture and storage (CCS), if global warming is to be kept below two degrees Celsius, an Oxford climate scientist has warned.

In a research paper, Oxford University professor of geosystem science Myles Allen said meeting the legally binding target of keeping global warming below 2C will require “truly heroic levels of self-sacrifice” by future generations unless the cost of CCS can be brought below $200/tonne (£142/tonne).

Measures to reduce emissions, such as building low-carbon generation, will gradually become less cost-effective over time as cheaper and easier solutions are implemented, Allen argued, meaning “backstop” measures like CCS will become more economic.

“Early investment in carbon dioxide disposal is critical, because most of the cheapest options, like underground storage, will take decades to develop and gain public acceptance,” he said.

“Currently, of the billions being spent on combating climate change, only a tiny fraction is remotely relevant to these vital backstop technologies.”

Allen said achieving high economic growth, albeit with a low-carbon intensity, is essential: “Sacrificing economic growth to reduce emissions could even be counterproductive if it impairs the willingness and ability of future generations to reduce emissions to zero.”

CCS is often dismissed as a “distraction” from the need to reduce emissions now. However, Allen said, “focusing exclusively on short-term emission reduction may be distracting us from what really matters for peak warming”.

“It is time to divert some of our less productive subsidies into carbon dioxide disposal,” he added.

In December last year, world leaders at the COP21 climate change conference in Paris agreed to adopt an “ambitious and balanced” final deal, including a “legally-binding” agreement to keep global warming “well below 2C”.

The government had axed a £1 billion competition to develop CCS the previous month, citing concerns over the cost of the technology. The UK Energy Research Centre published a report in February suggesting that, without CCS, a second “dash for gas” is incompatible with the UK’s climate change targets.