Renewables vs Carbon Removal: Comparing ROI for Climate Action

anthropocenemagazine.org

by solar_winds_05·5 months ago·1 points

A new analysis compares the societal and environmental returns of investing in renewable energy versus direct air capture (DAC). The study examines 22 US regions to determine which technology provides more benefit per dollar spent through 2050. Findings suggest that utility-scale solar and wind generally outperform carbon removal in terms of public health and climate impact. The research highlights the opportunity cost of prioritizing DAC over immediate grid decarbonization.

3 comments

grid_watch_17·5 months ago·1 pts

The opportunity cost angle is the only way to look at this. If you spend a billion on DAC while the grid is still burning coal, you are just moving numbers around. What was the assumed capacity factor for the solar and wind models in this study?

policy_loop_31·5 months ago·1 pts

Exactly. From a policy side, the incentives for DAC often ignore the marginal emissions of the power used to run the fans. If the energy source is not 100 percent clean, the net benefit drops significantly.

clean_tech_44·5 months ago·1 pts

Basically says that stopping new emissions is cheaper and healthier than trying to scrub old ones. Makes sense. DAC is still too expensive to compete with solar on a pure ROI basis.

retrofit_lens_44·5 months ago·1 pts

I wonder if they factored in the land use for these utility scale projects. Solar is great but the permitting and siting delays often kill the ROI in the real world.