Is carbon capture tech more viable than renewable energy? Stanford study has an answer – EQ

In Short : A Stanford study concludes that renewable energy is more effective than carbon capture technology for reducing emissions. The research reveals that carbon capture captures only 10-11% of emissions, while wind, solar, and other renewables offer faster, more cost-effective solutions. The study urges governments to prioritize renewables over costly and inefficient carbon capture technologies in addressing climate change.

In Detail : New Delhi – There’s a topical study from Stanford University in which researchers mapped out the functional costs of carbon capture technologies, which are used to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air in a bid to reduce emissions. The point of the study published on 9 February was to see how economically viable it was to install and utilise carbon capture technologies to reduce CO2 emissions in the world. Their answer? Not that viable.

The study found, through two modelled scenarios, that it would be cheaper for the world to switch 100 percent to renewable energy sources by 2050 rather than to continue with fossil fuels and install carbon capture technologies to sequester the CO2 emitted.

The authors of the study argue that at their current stage, carbon capture technologies are expensive and energy intensive and that money can instead be spent on transitioning to renewable energy. The side benefits of switching to renewable energy include a reduction in pollution, overall energy costs, and reduction in illnesses and other health effects from fossil-fuel related pollution.

But carbon capture technologies, on the other hand, even if powered by renewable energy sources, would still be more expensive and wouldn’t even have these side benefits. The choice, according to the authors, is very clear in this case.