Renewable Energy Is a Less Costly, More Efficient Climate Solution Than Carbon Capture, Study Finds

The benefits of investing in clean energy, including solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower, make renewables a more cost-effective option compared to carbon capture technology, according to a new study.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, examined two scenarios across 149 countries through 2050: one in which the countries transition 100% of their business-as-usual energies into renewables, or wind-water-solar (WWS) sources, and another scenario in which policies invest in carbon capture (CC) and synthetic direct air carbon capture (SDACC). 

In the second scenario, the energy mix would still include fossil fuels and renewables, the same as the current combination of energy sources. Both scenarios accounted for the same improvements in energy efficiency, Clean Technica reported. The study authors compared the energy costs, public health impacts and changes in emissions of each scenario.

#RenewableEnergy vs. #CarbonCapture "If you spend $1 on carbon capture instead of on wind, water, and solar, you are increasing CO2, air pollution, energy requirements, energy costs, pipelines, and total social costs" @mzjacobson techxplore.com/news/2025-02…

[image or embed]

— Silicon Valley North – Citizens Climate Lobby (@cclsvn.bsky.social) February 17, 2025 at 12:58 PM

In the carbon capture scenario, countries would accrue $60 trillion to $80 trillion per year in social costs, or the costs related to energy, health and climate that are created with each additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions. Even if all carbon was captured and stored, this scenario would see a rise in non-carbon dioxide emissions, increased air pollution, higher energy needs and higher infrastructure costs.

By comparison, the WWS scenario accounted for a decrease in energy demand by about 54.4%, a decrease in annual energy costs of around 59.6% and a decline in annual social costs of 91.8%, the study found.

“If you spend $1 on carbon capture instead of on wind, water, and solar, you are increasing CO2, air pollution, energy requirements, energy costs, pipelines, and total social costs,” lead study author Mark Jacobson, lead author of the study and a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, said in a statement. 

New Study: Carbon Capture Is A Waste Of Money, & Counterproductive cleantechnica.com/2025/02/15/n… @cleantechnica.bsky.social

[image or embed]

— Mark Z. Jacobson (@mzjacobson.bsky.social) February 17, 2025 at 2:09 AM

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), which was not involved in the study, carbon capture is a technology that captures and stores carbon dioxide, typically from major polluting sites like power plants or industrial facilities. While carbon capture could help reduce emissions from heavily polluting sites, IEA noted that even with increasing deployment of carbon capture globally, the numbers remain far below what is necessary to reach net-zero emissions.

This new study takes the implementation of carbon capture to an extreme and finds even with nearly perfect carbon capture rates, the costs of investing in carbon capture over renewables would still be less beneficial than focusing on clean energy sources over fossil fuel dependence.

“It’s always an opportunity cost to use clean, renewable energy for direct air capture instead of replacing a fossil-fuel CO2 source, just like it’s an opportunity cost to use it for AI or bitcoin mining,” Jacobson said. “You’re preventing renewables from replacing fossil fuel sources because you’re creating more demand for those renewables.”

Further, investing in renewables rather than relying on fossil fuels coupled with carbon capture would lead to improved health outcomes, the study determined. As Stanford University reported, the WWS scenario would avoid 5 million deaths annually and hundreds of millions of other illnesses related to air pollution.

According to the authors, policies should stop promoting CC and SDACC and instead emphasize clean energy solutions.

“The only way to eliminate all air-pollutant and climate-warming gases and particles from energy is to eliminate combustion,” the authors wrote.