Hacker News Reader

Carbon capture is such an red herring it's not even funny. For years carbon dioxide intense industries have been talking about it in order to avoid clamp downs on their factories/power plants. When it comes down to it, it just isn't a fiscally viable technology.

View on HN

Just because it is not fiscally viable currently, does not mean that it cannot be in the future.

It will always be more expensive to remove a trace gas, economically and on an energy basis, than emitting it in the first place. We would need MORE renewables to remove the CO2 from the air. It is just ridiculous to spend more energy than what was generated from burning fuel to remove its CO2 from the air.

100%. A common misconception with carbon removal is that it's somehow an alternative for reducing emissions.

It's not. The planet needs to go carbon neutral full stop. We need tons of work to be done there. And....even when we do, there's still way too much carbon dioxide already on the air. That's where carbon removal comes in.

That ship has sailed 50 years ago. It takes 20-30 years to replace cars on the road or powerstations.

Anything that cannot be massproduced today is a fool's errand

now they're changing tactics by bushing "blue" hydrogen. It dovetails nicely with the carbon sequestration spin

Reply on news.ycombinator.com