[tinco]

For it to be truly sustainable the carbon needs to be stored in a way that humans wouldn't get at out of greed ever again. So it would need to be in some useless form like maybe diamonds or something.

A ton of CO2 is produced by about $150 worth of fuel (oil). So if you can do carbon capture for less than $150/tCO2 it would make more sense to sell the fuel and capture more carbon.

[nephanth]

In terms of energy, you'll always need more to recapture than burning that fuel will give you (cuz entropy)

So if money = energy (which is a wrong assumption), buying that barrel would always be a loss

[adrianN]

If you capture the carbon for example as carbon dioxide instead of methane "cuz entropy" need not apply.

[tinco]

Unless that barrel is a higher value to you than the energy required to create the barrel would otherwise be.

[nomel]

> So if you can do carbon capture for less than $150/tCO2 it would make more sense to sell the fuel and capture more carbon.

How does this math work?

If it's $149 to recapture, who's paying for this $149? Is the person buying $150 worth of fuel now paying for it also, at ($150 + recapture cost)/gallon?

[tinco]

The $1 profit goes towards paying for capturing carbon. Every 150 barrels of captured fuel you sell, you make $75 profit you could spend on either not selling a barrel, or some more efficient way of reducing our climate impact like maybe buying a solar panel or sponsoring a windmill.

Or what the sibling suggests, you keep the money as profit / funds for growing the business so you displace traditional oil and you prevent the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that way.

[blackoil]

I believe the idea is to sell captured carbon to be used as fuel. So we are net 0.

[aziaziazi]

That would be valid once we stop extracting carbons from other sources (oil, gaz, coil…). Since that won’t happen at a global scale soon, burning the captured carbon won’t stop the carbonification of the air/water.