[cogman10]

The economics of a natural carbon market will never work out. There is simply too much carbon available for too low of a price.

The carbon capture market NEEDS to have public funding/intervention to make it profitable.

Now, carbon capture will be important if we want to have a chance of undoing atmospheric CO2, but IMO, while now it the time to invest in research it's not the time to deploy. More public/government funds need to be pushed towards limiting CO2 output and eliminating sources of CO2.

The notion of carbon capture is much the same as having urine capture in a swimming pool. There is no way it won't cost more energy to remove than it produced when released.

[seventhtiger]

Urine capture would work great if it's attached to every person.

Even with renewable energy and electric transportation, if we could keep using oil but not produce CO2, then we should. Cheap energy is lifting humanity out of poverty.

[adrianN]

You're assuming that the carbon capture process is cheaper than the shrinking price advantage of fossil fuels over renewables.

[seventhtiger]

I'm not. I'm just leaving room for an equilibrium that includes oil.

I don't believe we'll be able to take cheap sources of power offline without affecting the bottom line for the developing world. Poor countries can't make the choice to regulate themselves into worse conditions.

Centralizing carbon capture at power plants can be cost effective. The tech is almost within reach. It will vastly increase the amount of available energy in the world.