A new analysis from Stanford University reveals that carbon capture technologies come with significantly higher costs than transitioning to renewable energy. Published in Environmental Science & Technology, the study examines the global energy, health, and climate impacts of carbon capture compared to a renewable-based energy system.
Led by professor Mark Z. Jacobson, the research shows that meeting global energy and heating needs with renewables is both more economical and environmentally beneficial than large-scale deployment of carbon capture technologies. Across the 149 countries analyzed, shifting to wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower could reduce energy costs by 60% and cut end-use energy consumption by more than 54%.
Carbon capture vs renewable electrification
The study compares two radically different pathways: one fully powered by renewables, with efficiency improvements and sustainable mobility, and another that maintains fossil fuel use alongside carbon capture.
The findings are clear. Each dollar invested in direct air capture or industrial carbon capture results in higher costs than the same investment in solar, wind, or hydro plants. Additionally, carbon capture increases energy demand, while electrification reduces it.
How carbon capture and storage works
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is designed to intercept CO₂ emissions before they enter the atmosphere. It is typically applied in power plants and industrial facilities. CO₂ can be captured before combustion, after combustion, or directly from the air—a method known as direct air capture (DAC).
The process involves filtering CO₂ using chemical solvents or absorbent materials. Once isolated, the gas is compressed, transported, and injected into deep underground formations for long-term storage. These geological reservoirs may include depleted oil fields or saline aquifers.
However, CCS requires significant energy and complex infrastructure. According to the Stanford team, it remains less effective than directly replacing fossil fuels with renewables.
The real costs of carbon capture
Between the construction of capture facilities, their energy use, and the infrastructure needed, carbon capture proves inefficient and costly. Even when powered by renewables, it diverts clean electricity that could otherwise replace fossil energy. The authors stress the importance of opportunity cost—using renewables to capture CO₂ means those resources can’t be used to eliminate emissions at the source.
Health and environmental benefits of the renewable transition
Ending combustion could eliminate energy-related air pollution, preventing up to 5 million premature deaths annually. The economic benefit of these health gains is estimated at $33.8 trillion per year globally. The impact would be most profound in countries like India, China, and regions of West Africa, where pollution has the greatest public health burden.
Stanford’s energy model simulates demand and supply across 29 world regions, every 30 seconds, over a three-year period. The WWS (wind, water, solar) scenario includes complementary renewable sources, storage solutions like batteries, green hydrogen, and pumped hydro, as well as smart demand management. The installed capacity is oversized by 9.5% to ensure grid reliability even under adverse weather conditions.
According to the researchers, climate policies that support carbon capture are counterproductive. “The only way to completely eliminate pollutants and greenhouse gases is to eliminate combustion,” the authors write. Their data points to renewable electrification as the most efficient, safe, and cost-effective route to global decarbonization.
The full research paper is available for download at this link.