Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: JAB <here@is.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Carbon capture more costly
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:46:42 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <vot4pj$m38u$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: JAB <here@is.invalid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:46:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2173a476ffae1616539255565c3e8cb5";
	logging-data="724254"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fHDKI0d5zOqr8D3RpYnC2"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jVMQTCnemZU85kPj7JmeDjxbCIs=
Bytes: 1524

Carbon capture more costly than switching to renewables, researchers
find

For most countries around the world, sourcing energy entirely from
wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower by 2050 would reduce their
energy needs and costs, improve air quality, and help slow climate
change, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology.

These benefits, the authors say, could be realized at a fraction of
the cost of implementing technologies that remove carbon dioxide (CO2)
from the air and capture it from stationary emitters like industrial
smokestacks

https://techxplore.com/news/2025-02-carbon-capture-renewables.html