Carbon Capture Hasn’t Taken Off—And Probably Never Will. The Reason: Renewables

The fight against climate change centers on reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One direct solution is carbon capture: extracting carbon dioxide from industrial smokestacks or ambient air. So why hasn’t it gained traction against renewable energy?

In short. Carbon capture technology removes pollution without changing its source. While promising in theory, a recent Stanford study shows it’s far costlier and less effective than transitioning directly to renewables.

Beyond improving air quality and slowing climate change, electrifying industries and relying solely on renewable energy would cut global energy demand by 54% and energy costs by 60% by 2050—compared to maintaining fossil fuel use with carbon capture.

The study. Researchers analyzed two extreme scenarios: A world powered entirely by renewables and electrification versus one that continues burning fossil fuels but reduces emissions through carbon capture and efficiency measures.

Surprisingly, replacing fossil fuels with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower proved the most cost-effective. These sources eliminate the need for fuel—the primary source of air pollutants—and reduce energy demand rather than increasing it.

More from Xataka On

Floating Solar Systems Seemed to Offer Endless Advantages—Until Someone Decided to Put Them to the Test

The cost factor. Shifting to clean energy and electrification wouldn’t only cut carbon emissions but also prevent five million pollution-related deaths annually. Because carbon capture consumes energy, a full renewable transition would save money, reducing energy consumption by 54% and energy costs by 60%.

The key is opportunity cost. Using renewables to power carbon capture means diverting that energy from replacing fossil fuels. “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 explains.

The bottom line. While carbon capture may seem like a viable solution, it ultimately prolongs reliance on inefficient, polluting fossil fuel infrastructure. It’s like trying to empty a bathtub without turning off the faucet. The real issue isn’t cleaning up emissions—it’s eliminating their source.

To effectively combat climate change, the study concludes, the world must move beyond mitigating pollution after the fact and fully commit to renewables. The evidence is clear: investing in clean energy is cheaper, safer, and better for both the environment and public health.

Image | Maxim Tolchinskiy (Unsplash)

Related | The Mojave Desert Has Housed the World’s Largest Solar Thermal Power Plant for More Than a Decade. It’s Going to Close After Frying Birds to Death