The elimination of air pollution is a better plan to slow down the overheating of the earth than to alleviate warming gases to the planet after their manufacture, according to In search of Stanford.
Experts analysis Energy costs, emissions and health impacts of so-called carbon capture technologyconcluding that a widespread switch towards renewable energies would be the best scenario.
“If you spend $ 1 for carbon capture rather than wind, water and solarYou are increasing CO2, air pollution, energy needs, energy costs, pipelines and total social costs, “said Professor Mark Jacobson, the main study author in Stanford’s report.
Carbon capture, or direct air capture, works by collecting smoke from factory chimneys or by pulling CO2 from the atmosphere with special filters and by pumping it safely thousands of feet underground, passing by storage sites. Under the Biden administration, the government has invested $ 1.2 billion – part of greater funding and prompted Effort – to vacuum the air gas with giant filter machines. And Nestle is among the companies that transform carbon dioxide into useful baking soda after having collected it.
But Stanford’s conclusions could be verification of reality for the long -term viability of the technologyAdding to the probable support of the lukewarm government under President Donald Trump. The Associated Press reported This new policy could provide less help for efforts. But state incentives and climatic objectives could keep relevant technology, added AP history.
Stanford’s search provides two extreme scenarios in 149 countries over a quarter of a century.
A plan had a complete passage in the sun, wind, geothermal and hydroelect worse extreme weather report and other problems associated with our world of warming, by Nasa and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This scenario also included better public and clean transport hydrogen Use of fuel cells.
In the second example, countries continued their current dependence on fossil fuels, with renewable energy consumption and other energy saving measures carried out in the hypothetical first case. But in this situation, the 149 countries have implemented a large -scale carbon capture, all by Stanford.
University research Obliged by favorable results, for example n ° 1. By 2050, countries could reduce “energy use needs” by 54%. Electricity costs would drop by 60%. In addition, hundreds of millions of diseases and 5 million dead per year “linked to air pollution” could be avoided. This included hearth fires in Nixing wood, kerosene lamps and gas power plants.
“You can have the most effective way to remove CO2 from the air, but that does not change the effectiveness of combustion. You keep this ineffective energy infrastructure”, Jacobson said In the Summary of Stanford. “It is much cheaper and more efficient just to replace the fossil source with electricity or heat provided by a renewable source.”
TCD picks »Spotlight Quince
The quince bestsellers offer affordable and lasting luxury for all
For its part, the capacity of the carbon capture to identify the air is attractive. The MIT indicated that the filters derive nearly 45 million tonnes of air pollution from the fire ducts each year. This is equivalent to the exhaust of 10 million cars, according to to the report.
But Stanford results Do not leave much room for common ground. Experts have said that plans that include both renewable energies and carbon capture “do not distinguish between good and bad solutions”, adding that policies promoting carbon capture “should be abandoned”.
The reduction in energy consumption was one of the two scenarios, and this is something that anyone can participate immediately. By disconnection Unsted chargers and devices every day, you can reduce pollution while saving up to $ 165 per year in energy costs.
Join our Free newsletter For weekly updates to the latest innovations Improve our lives And make our futureAnd don’t miss This cool list Easy ways to help you while helping the planet.
