A recent study by Stanford University in the United States published in Environmental Science & Technology showed that a comprehensive shift to clean energy sources such as wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, and hydropower by 2050 will not only significantly reduce energy costs, but also reduce air pollution and mitigate climate change. In contrast, the economic and social costs of relying on carbon capture technologies such as industrial flues or direct air carbon capture are higher.
Investing money in carbon capture instead of renewable energy will lead to higher carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution and energy demand, the study says. Even if carbon capture technology were powered by clean energy, its opportunity cost would still be too high because that energy could be used to directly replace fossil fuels.
The study compared two extreme scenarios: one is to completely switch to renewable energy and improve energy efficiency; the other is to maintain the existing fossil fuel mix while adding carbon capture technology. The results show that the full adoption of renewable energy can reduce final energy demand by more than 54%, reduce annual energy costs by nearly 60%, and avoid millions of diseases and deaths caused by air pollution every year.
In addition, electrification can significantly improve energy efficiency, such as electric heat pumps and electric vehicles that are more efficient than traditional equipment without the additional energy consumption of fossil fuel extraction and transportation. In contrast, carbon capture technology cannot change the inefficiency of fossil fuel combustion and is far less economical than direct replacement with renewable energy.
The study highlights that policies that support both renewables and carbon capture fail to differentiate between better and worse solutions, and recommends abandoning the promotion of carbon capture technology and instead fully phasing out fossil fuel combustion to achieve true zero emissions.