Renewable energy outperforms direct air capture

A shifting paradigm in carbon management

For years, the scientific community and policymakers have debated the best strategy to balance the global carbon budget. On one hand, we have the accelerating transition to clean energy - solar panels, wind turbines, and grid-scale storage. On the other, the technological promise of direct air capture (DAC): machines engineered to scrub carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. A major peer-reviewed study published on May 4, 2026, in Communications Sustainability has now provided one of the most rigorous comparisons to date - and the findings could fundamentally reshape how governments and investors prioritize climate spending.

Led by Yannai Kashtan at PSE Healthy Energy in California, in collaboration with researchers at Boston University School of Public Health and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the study is unambiguous: across nearly every U.S. grid region modelled, and for every year projected through 2050, each dollar spent on renewable energy deployment delivers more combined climate and public health benefit than the same dollar invested in carbon capture technology - except under an extreme technological breakthrough scenario.

Think of the atmosphere as a giant bathtub overflowing with water. Carbon emissions are the tap running full blast, while carbon removal technologies are a small sponge trying to soak up the spill. This research suggests that instead of building a bigger, more expensive sponge, we are far better off simply turning off the tap. By comparing the full lifecycle impacts of wind and solar against those of DAC across 22 U.S. grid regions, researchers found that the energy required to operate carbon scrubbers often creates its own set of environmental burdens - whereas building out a green power grid provides immediate, compounding benefits across the board.

"The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations" by Daniel Yergin

A Pulitzer Prize-winning author maps the global energy transition, geopolitics of fossil fuels, and the road to a low-carbon economy. Essential context for anyone following climate policy.

Buy now

What the study actually measured

To understand the findings, it helps to understand the methodology. The research team modelled a cost-per-tonne comparison: for every dollar of climate and health investment, which technology delivers the greatest reduction in CO₂-equivalent emissions and the greatest improvement in public health outcomes?

The team evaluated three DAC cost scenarios - current commercial, optimistic near-term, and extreme breakthrough - and mapped these against the projected performance of solar and wind across the 22 regional electricity grids that make up the U.S. power system. Crucially, they didn't just count carbon. They also quantified the social cost of co-pollutants: the fine particles, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur compounds that fossil fuel combustion releases alongside CO₂, and which cause measurable harm to human health.

This dual-metric approach - combining climate value and public health value - is what makes the study particularly significant for policymakers who must weigh the full societal return on every dollar of climate finance.

The efficiency gap between prevention and removal

The core of the study lies in its analysis of energy efficiency. Direct air capture is an extraordinarily energy-intensive process: it takes a tremendous amount of electricity and heat to separate CO₂ from ambient air, concentrate it, and prepare it for underground geological storage.

Under current commercial conditions, this amounts to approximately 5,500 kilowatt-hours of energy and around $1,000 per tonne of CO₂ captured. When that electricity is drawn from a grid still heavily reliant on fossil fuels - as is the case across much of the United States - the net benefit of the DAC process is significantly diminished. In the most pessimistic grid scenario, the technology can actually produce more greenhouse gases and health harms than it prevents. The researchers point out that if that same renewable electricity were used instead to displace coal or gas-fired generation, the total reduction in carbon emissions would be substantially greater.

This efficiency gap narrows under more optimistic projections, but does not fully close. Even when DAC's energy use is assumed to fall by more than two-thirds - to around 1,500 kWh per tonne - and its cost drops by half to approximately $500 per tonne, renewables still deliver more climate and health benefits per dollar in most modelled scenarios.

Solar and wind have already achieved massive economies of scale, making them the cheapest form of new electricity generation in history in many regions. This economic reality, paired with the immediate displacement of carbon-heavy fuels, creates a structural advantage that only an extreme "breakthrough" scenario for DAC - with energy requirements dropping to 800 kWh and costs falling as low as $100 per tonne - could meaningfully challenge.

Public health and the hidden costs of carbon

Beyond the straightforward measurement of CO₂ tonnes, the study highlights a critical factor too often overlooked in climate discussions: public health.

When we build wind turbines and solar farms, we aren't just reducing greenhouse gases. We are simultaneously eliminating dangerous co-pollutants - sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) - that are released whenever fossil fuels are burned. These pollutants are responsible for millions of premature deaths globally each year due to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and their impacts fall disproportionately on frontline and lower-income communities located near power plants and industrial facilities.

Direct air capture, while it removes CO₂, does nothing to address these local air quality issues. In fact, if a DAC facility is powered by a grid that still burns fossil fuels, it can indirectly worsen local air pollution in the communities near those power plants - even while pursuing a global carbon reduction goal on paper. The study's authors argue that the public health co-benefits of a renewable transition compound its climate value in ways that cost-per-tonne analyses of carbon alone cannot capture. When these health gains are quantified in economic terms, the case for prioritising renewables over DAC becomes even more pronounced.

"Speed & Scale: An Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now" by John Doerr

Venture capitalist John Doerr lays out a data-driven OKR framework for reaching net-zero by 2050, covering clean energy, electrification, and carbon removal in plain terms.

Buy now

The role of DAC in a net-zero future

This research does not argue that carbon removal technology has no place in the future. Rather, it insists that its role must be carefully and honestly defined.

Most climate pathways from the IPCC acknowledge that some level of negative emissions will be necessary to reach net-zero, particularly to offset emissions from hard-to-abate sectors like heavy industry, shipping, and aviation - areas where electrification remains technically or economically difficult in the near term. In that context, DAC and other carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies have a legitimate, if limited, part to play.

The study's sharper warning, however, is against a particular temptation: using DAC as a justification for slowing down the phase-out of fossil fuels. This is the moral hazard of carbon removal. If the narrative takes hold that we can simply vacuum the carbon out of the sky later, we risk losing the political and economic urgency needed to transform our energy systems today - precisely when the window for meaningful action is at its narrowest.

The researchers are explicit: DAC should complement decarbonisation, never substitute for it.

What this means for climate investment decisions

For governments allocating public climate finance, and for private investors navigating an increasingly complex energy transition landscape, the study offers a practical signal.

Renewable energy deployment - particularly utility-scale solar and wind - remains the highest-return climate investment available at scale. It is proven, cost-competitive, deployable rapidly, and delivers benefits that extend well beyond the carbon balance sheet into public health, energy security, and economic development.

Direct air capture deserves continued research and targeted deployment for hard-to-abate residual emissions - but should not be treated as an equivalent or interchangeable substitute for the energy transition. Investing heavily in DAC as a primary decarbonisation strategy, particularly while grids remain fossil-dependent, is likely to deliver significantly less value per dollar than the same capital deployed into clean energy infrastructure.

The most powerful climate technology we currently possess, the data suggest, isn't a complex carbon-scrubbing machine. It's the simple, elegant, and increasingly affordable power of the sun and the wind. Leaning into these proven solutions creates a world that is not only cooler, but cleaner and healthier - for everyone.

Frequently asked questions

Is direct air capture better than renewable energy for the climate? According to a 2026 study in Communications Sustainability, no - in nearly every U.S. grid region and through 2050, renewable energy delivers more climate and public health benefit per dollar than direct air capture under current and near-term projected conditions.

How much energy does direct air capture use? Under current commercial conditions, DAC requires approximately 5,500 kWh of energy per tonne of CO₂ captured, at a cost of around $1,000 per tonne. Even under optimistic improvement scenarios, this falls to roughly 1,500 kWh and $500 per tonne - still less cost-effective than renewables in most modelled scenarios.

Does direct air capture have any role in reaching net-zero? Yes, but a limited one. Most IPCC climate pathways include some negative emissions to offset hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy industry. However, researchers caution against using DAC as a reason to slow the transition away from fossil fuels.

Why do renewables also improve public health? Replacing fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind eliminates co-pollutants - including fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides - that cause respiratory and cardiovascular disease. These public health benefits add significant economic value on top of the climate benefits.