New study finds carbon capture ineffective and costly compar

[Oscar]

New study finds carbon capture ineffective and costly compared to investing in renewable energy

It would be cheaper to power the world with clean, renewable energy than to go all in on carbon capture and storage projects.

Global warming solutions - February 24, 2025

EXCERPT: "A Stanford study, published on February 9th, compared two extremes — one where 149 countries switch to powering their heat and electricity entirely with renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower) by 2050 and another where the same countries maintain their current fossil fuel use but both add carbon capture equipment to industrial smokestacks and use direct air capture (DAC) to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. It found that when energy costs, health impacts, and emissions are taken into account, the overall cost of investing in carbon capture and removal is about 9-12 times higher than the cost of switching to 100% renewable energy.

The cost difference is for a few reasons. For one, the study predicts that powering the world with clean, renewable energy sources would lower annual energy demand by 54%, causing home energy costs to decrease by close to 60%. Those energy savings come from increased efficiency of electric appliances and cars, as well as by eliminating the energy needs associated with extracting, refining, and transporting oil, gas, and coal. There are also social and cost benefits that come from reducing air pollution from fossil fuel plants – including preventing 5 million deaths per year. . . . "

[ https://environmentamerica.org/center/u ... le-energy/ ]