A new, low-cost method for capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial facilities relies on a simple physical phenomenon—the same one that causes bubbles to fizz when popping a bottle of Champagne or cracking open a bottle of seltzer.

The process, called pressure-induced carbon capture (PICC), uses water and pressure to pull carbon dioxide out of exhaust gases before it reaches the atmosphere, offering a cleaner and far less expensive alternative to traditional chemical methods.

Co-inventors Dr. Mark Holtzapple, professor of chemical engineering at Texas A&M University, and Jonathan Feinstein of ExcelThermic Enterprises have filed patents for licensing the technology to power plants, hydrogen facilities, cement kilns, steel blast furnaces and other industrial emitters worldwide. Holtzapple said PICC is a practical solution to an urgent problem because fossil fuel combustion—which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—remains an important component of the global energy mix.

“Our invention is a cost-effective way to address one of the greatest challenges facing humanity,” Holtzapple said. “We can capture carbon dioxide from flue gas using only water and pressure, which makes the process simple, clean and less expensive than competing technologies.”

Traditional carbon capture systems rely on strong chemicals called amines that bind with carbon dioxide to remove it from exhaust gases. Amines struggle to pull more than 90% of the carbon dioxide out of the flue gas, Holtzapple said. Also, the amines are expensive and degrade when exposed to flue gases. Furthermore, permitting 10% of the carbon dioxide to escape into the environment is no longer tenable, he said.

In contrast, PICC uses physical absorption. Because PICC uses no chemical bonds, carbon dioxide pops back out of the water at reduced pressures just as easily as it dissolves in water at high pressure.

“Everybody knows that high-pressure carbon dioxide dissolves in water, and that when you open a bottle of Coca-Cola or beer you see that carbon dioxide bubble back out,” Holtzapple said. Once released, the carbon dioxide can be safely stored or utilized.

How the system works

In operation, flue gas from combusting coal, natural gas or biomass—like forest waste, crop residues or municipal solid waste—is first cooled and compressed. The high-pressure gas is then piped into an absorption column, where cold water flows downward while the gas moves upward through a structured packing that maximizes contact between the two streams. As the nearly clean gas reaches the top of the column, it contacts fresh water entering at the top. There, the last traces of carbon dioxide dissolve into the water, with clean gas releasing into the environment.

The water exiting the bottom of the column contains dissolved carbon dioxide and is transferred to a series of vessels, each operating at lower and lower pressures, where the carbon dioxide progressively bubbles out. Holtzapple said the released carbon dioxide is then ready for compression and injection into underground geological formations, such as saline aquifers, where it is permanently stored.

A lower cost path to near-total capture

Economic analyses show that PICC can capture and compress 99% of carbon dioxide emissions for $26 per metric ton. Other current technologies capture about 90% and cost $50 to $100 per metric ton, Holtzapple said.

Additionally, by adding a small amount of lime—an alkali—to the water, PICC captures 100% of carbon dioxide for an average cost less than $28 per metric ton. At that level of capture, even the carbon dioxide from the combustion air is removed, Holtzapple said.

“Without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, PICC allows us to use abundant fossil fuels on which our civilization is built. Furthermore, by coupling PICC to biomass combustion, we can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere cost effectively,” he said.

Honorable Mentions

There are so many good TVs available, we can’t add them all to our top list. Here are some great options that either missed the cut or got knocked off our top list by their replacements.

Hisense U8QG: The U8QG is a great buy at its lowest price (around $1,000 for a 65-inch model) and a solid pick above that price, especially if you want eye-searing brightness above all else. I noticed some SDR color accuracy issues (some images looked way too red) and found it difficult to keep it from wildly over-brightening some content. Thankfully, you can always turn it down, and its nuclear power plant is paired with excellent black levels, deep contrast, and plenty of features. I actually prefer last year’s similarly punchy U8N, but it’s getting harder to find in stock.

TCL QM7K (2025): I’ve had a love/hate relationship with the QM7K. Part of TCL’s new Precise Dimming series, its opulent black levels and contrast reach toward OLED heights, matched by good brightness for some spectacular moments. The problem? My review model’s colors were off-kilter, with an odd green tint in select black and grayscale content. Thankfully, I confirmed that TCL’s latest firmware update fixed the issue. The TV’s picture processing and colors still don’t catch premium TVs, and this is the second year in a row I’ve found a troubling performance issue with the QM7. You shouldn’t buy it at full price, but if you can get the 65-inch model for $1,000 or less, it’s a pretty enticing choice.

Samsung S95D: Samsung’s previous S95 matte-screen marvel is still a fabulous QD-OLED TV that would be adored in virtually any TV room. We like the newer version better, which begs fewer compromises when it comes to deep black levels, but if you can find the previous version on a killer deal, you won’t be sorry.

Hisense U7N: If you’re after a TV at similar pricing to the QM6K but with some extra eye tingle, last year’s Hisense U7N offers a serious brightness boost over our top pick and still ranks among our favorite options for your money. Its blooming control and screen uniformity aren’t as refined as the QM6K’s but it’s got plenty of features, including great gaming credentials and a streamlined Google TV interface. It’s still a great buy while stock lasts, especially at $700 or less.

Sony A95L: Sony finally replaced this sweet screen with the 2025 Bravia 8 II, which offers similarly incredible picture processing and upscaling alongside enhanced colors and higher HDR brightness. That shouldn’t deter you from considering the A95L (9/10, WIRED Recommends) at a lower price. With fabulously immersive image quality and an intuitive Google TV interface, this is a premium package that’s very enticing on a good sale.

Sony Bravia 7: The Bravia 7 is a gorgeous display, offering brilliant brightness, naturalistic colors, and suave finesse in the subtle details. Its biggest knock is very poor off-axis viewing, which could be tough to swallow at its high list price. Otherwise, it’s worth considering for fans of that Sony glow, especially since Sony seems to be discounting its best QLED TVs much more liberally than its OLED models.

Other TVs We’ve Tested

Samsung The Frame Pro: I put the Frame Pro through our full review process and came away both in limbo due to software issues and (so far) unimpressed with the performance. The matte screen looks slick when displaying art, especially if you purchase one of the add-on frames (a frame for the Frame?) from Samsung or Deco TV Frames. Picture performance was otherwise middling at best. It’s much brighter than the traditional Frame, and the colors pop, but its edge-lit mini LED system does not look good with dark 4K HDR content, even in the day. Moreover, I had trouble with its very sluggish operating system (which others have reported) and stuttering Blu-ray playback. We’re awaiting a second model, which we hope relieves the software issues, but steer clear for now.

TCL QM7: There’s only one thing holding back 2024’s beautifully balanced QM7: a software glitch. During my review, I experienced an issue where adjusting SDR backlight levels affected HDR, which can lead to severe brightness limitations. While TCL fixed the issue in a firmware update for me, I never got confirmation on a broader OTA fix. Most folks probably won’t have this issue, so the QM7 is still worth considering, but make sure and check it before throwing out the box.

TVs We’re Testing Next

Samsung S90F: The follow-up to our favorite gaming TV could be among the best OLED values of the season (it usually is). I’ll be long-term testing it over several weeks, so I should find every nook and cranny for an in-depth evaluation.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.

Compare Top 5 Lip Balms

Honorable Mentions

Eos 24H Moisture Super Balm for $6: I’ve been a fan of Eos’s egg-shaped balms since middle school. The 24H Moisture Super Balm feels like the grown-up version. There are some solid ingredients like shea butter, avocado oil, and castor seed oil. It’s also free of parabens, phthalates, silicones, and synthetic dyes. It’s glossy, cushiony, and comes in delicious scents like Coconut Milk, Mango Melonade, and Watermelon Frosé. The one catch is that it’s not fragrance-free, so those with sensitive lips may not love it. The texture is also sticky, meaning your hair will find its way onto your mouth on a breezy day. And despite the 24-hour moisture claim, expect to reapply every hour or two.

Burt’s Bees Beeswax Lip Balm for $4: If you’re ingredient-conscious, Burt’s Bees has probably been in your tote at some point. The original formula blends beeswax, coconut oil, sunflower seed oil, and peppermint oil. There’s no petroleum or parabens, and you can find it just about everywhere. That said, the beeswax forms a solid barrier but is not the most hydrating, especially during the dead of winter. The balm coats but doesn’t penetrate, which means it won’t do much for lips that are already cracked. The peppermint oil can also be a little too spicy for sensitive lips. Still, if you’re in a pinch and standing in front of the CVS self-checkout, it’s a smarter purchase than Blistex (more on that later).

Glossier Balm Dotcom for $16: The Glossier Balm Dotcom walked so the Laneige Lip Sleeping Mask could run. It’s a multipurpose salve that blends lanolin, castor oil, and beeswax for ultimate moisture retention. Plus, it comes in a handful of sheer tints that play well with no-makeup makeup days. But the thick, waxy texture can feel a bit clumpy, especially if you’re layering over flaky lips.

Photograph: Boutayna Chokrane

Goop Beauty Nourishing Lip Repair Mask for $30: This buttery lip mask from Goop is loaded with ceramides to help restore your lip barrier, along with fig seed oil and acai fruit that smells just as tropical as it sounds. While it’s free from silicones, parabens, and synthetic fragrances, those botanical oils and fruit extracts can still trigger a reaction. Patch test first. Also, at $30 for just 0.3 fluid ounces, it’s not the most cost-effective balm on my list.

Omorovicza Budapest Perfecting Lip Balm for $46: Omorovicza’s Perfecting Lip Balm’s texture leans gritty, almost like a lip polish or a micro-exfoliator. There are some goodies in here, like hyaluronic acid and omega fatty acids. But, there are also some unnecessary (potentially irritating) extras—eucalyptus oil, perfume, and benzyl alcohol.

Avoid These Lip Balms

Nivea Dewy Lip Care with Hyaluronic Acid: Nivea’s Dewy Lip Care with Hyaluronic Acid is packed with emollients, humectants, and antioxidants—like shea butter, glycerin, and vitamin E (to name a few)—that sound promising. Unfortunately, there are also a couple of unnecessary additives, particularly geranoil fragrance and “flavor,” which could include any mix of synthetic or natural compounds. Nivea’s tinted balms aren’t much better; they leave a greasy film and rely on synthetic pigments for shimmer and color. There are many better balms available that provide lasting hydration without the excessive shine.

Blistex Lip Medex: It gives you that instant tingle thanks to menthol and camphor, plus a cocktail of synthetic flavors and fragrances, but that sting is a red flag. A general note: “Medicated” lip balms often do more harm than good.

Carmex Classic Lip Balm: For similar reasons to Blistex, skip Carmex. It contains camphor and benzocaine, which are ingredients that can irritate the skin and make cracked lips worse over time.

Frequently Asked Questions

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.