[mikewarot]

How can they capture 92% of the CO2 generated by burning coal for less energy created by burning it, creating steam, running the steam through a turbine which then runs a generator, through a switching yard, and out to the world? The Carnot limit is far less than half, and yet this can get most of the Carbon back, with a balance of almost half of the energy? I did the math on this in the thread about this last week, and it seems like over-unity, a big red flag.

The need for the worlds supply of gallium and a lot of silver and other chemicals signals more red flags.

HN Story 8 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28873458

My response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28874831

[colechristensen]

The carbon output isn't pure carbon, but carbon oxides. Some of the oxygen is stripped from CO2 and the result is carbon-oxygen solids which are apparently industrially useful.

[ashtonkem]

The problem is that if you turn around and use those carbon materials in industry, then you really haven’t captured the carbon at all. All that would accomplish is playing an emissions shell game, allowing fossil fuel consumers to shift the emissions to someone else.

For carbon capture to be useful from a climate perspective, we have to actually lock away the consumed carbon somewhere where it can’t enter the fast carbon cycle.

[colechristensen]

Depends on what you do with the thing when you're done with it. Dumping it in a landfill after a decade would indeed by carbon capture.