Dr. Lars Schernikau: Energy Economist, Commodity Trader, Author (recent book “The Unpopular Truth… about Electricity and the Future of Energy”)
Details inc the full Blog are available at www.unpopular-truth.com
1. Why CCUS sounds convincing but fails in practice
“Carbon” Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) is widely described as essential for meeting “climate targets”. Most “net-zero” plans assume large amounts of future CO₂ removal to offset emissions that cannot be eliminated.
The question is… does carbon dioxide removal actually work at scale?
The short answer is…no
In my blog post, I examine whether Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), “Carbon” Capture and Storage (CCS), “Carbon” Capture and Utilisation (CCU), or Direct Air Capture (DAC) actually deliver meaningful climate benefits in practice.
Making use of published data from the IEA, IPCC, BCG, McKinsey, and peer-reviewed literature, I show that CCUS requires large amounts of energy and capital, and delivers no measurable climate impact at scale as very little CO₂ is actually removed.
Before dismissing my conclusion as “harsh,” I invite you to read on (full blog here). Let’s look at what these terms really mean, what they aim to achieve, and what the data actually shows.
You can reading the full blog here: “Carbon” Capture Utilization & Storage (CCUS)
2. Why carbon dioxide removal exists
In its Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC states that “net-zero” emissions must be reached “as quickly as possible” to limit global warming. Unlike emissions-reduction measures, which limit how much CO₂ is released, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is defined as activities that remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it securely and long-term.
This distinction matters because “net-zero” cannot be reached through emissions reductions alone and therefore large future volumes of CO₂ removal are assumed. This is why CCS and DAC continue to attract policy attention and investment despite limited real-world results.
3. What are we really capturing?
Despite the name, “carbon capture” does not capture carbon. It captures carbon dioxide (CO₂), a big difference, but let’s ignore that for now…
Carbon itself is a solid element and a basic building block of life. Roughly a quarter of the human body is carbon, and almost all of it ultimately comes from atmospheric CO₂, if you wish the real building block of life. Plants absorb CO₂, animals and humans eat plants, and we exhale most of that carbon again.
Fact 1: CO₂ is not inherently a pollutant. It is a trace gas and a fundamental input to life.
4. CO₂ and warming: Diminishing “returns”
CO₂ makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Fact 2: CO₂ is a trace gas that acts as a minor greenhouse gas, with diminishing impact on temperatures
Water vapour and clouds account for most of the so called “greenhouse effect” that makes Earth a liveable planet. Crucially, CO₂’s warming effect decreases logarithmically. means that additional CO₂ translates into smaller and smaller temperature changes.
5. How much CO₂ has CCS actually removed?
After nearly 30 years, global CCS has captured less than 400 million tons of CO₂. Much of this was used for enhanced oil recovery, not permanent storage. Realistically, only 100-200 million tons were ever truly removed, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
Today, global CCS capacity is about 50 million tons per year, while global emissions (including CH4 at GWP20) are roughly 70 billion tons per year. CCS remains a million-tons technology, while climate plans assume billion-tons deployment.
That gap is not political. It is physical.
6. The energy penalty no one likes to discuss
Capturing CO₂ is energy-intensive.
Adding CCS to a modern coal power plant reduces efficiency by 25–30%. When additional fuel mining, transport, compression, and CO₂ handling are included, the plant requires about 40% more primary energy to deliver the same electricity.
Fact 3: For a modern coal-fired power plant with ~90% CCS, the all-in primary-energy requirement per delivered MWh is typically ~40% higher than without CCS
This includes additional coal consumption, capture and compression, increased mining, handling and transport of the extra coal, and CO₂ transport and injection for storage, assuming all CO₂ is permanently removed, which in practice is not the case.
In simple terms: more fuel is burned to hide the exhaust.
CCS does not “clean” energy systems. It makes them larger, more complex, and less efficient.
Fact 4: The “energy cost of CCS” for a coal-fired power station is about 1 MWh per 1 ton of CO₂
Considering the fuel multiplier for gas-fired power plants with CCS, we are looking at about 25% less, because gas-fired power stations tend to be more fuel efficient, despite the smaller CO₂ concentration in the exhaust stream.
Germany, for instance, plans to capture about 2 million tons of CO₂ per year…at that scale, the “climate impact” is negligible.
Australia’s flagship Gorgon CCS project was approved on the condition it would capture 80% of reservoir CO₂. In reality, it captured less than half that amount in 2024. These examples show the same pattern of high ambition, but poor delivery.
7. Using CO₂ doesn’t remove it
“Carbon” Capture and Utilisation (CCU) turns CO₂ into products, often fuels. But CO₂ is already fully oxidised. Turning it into fuel requires large amounts of additional energy, mainly hydrogen.
Producing fuels from CO₂ typically consumes 8–10+ MWh per tons of CO₂, and the CO₂ is released again when the fuel is burned.
The most common use today is enhanced oil recovery (EOR) which is economically sensible, energy-positive, and climatically questionable. EOR is a set of techniques used to extract oil that cannot be produced using normal primary or secondary methods.
Fact 5: CO₂ utilization to produce fuels represents an additional energy sink, and one that is more energy-intensive than CO₂ capture and storage CCS.
Fact 6: Producing fuels from CO₂ using hydrogen carries a total system-level energy cost of 8–10+ MWh per tonne of CO₂, and the CO₂ is ultimately still released into the atmosphere. The “energy cost” for producing and refining oil is significantly lower.
8. Direct air capture is like fighting physics…
Direct Air Capture tries to remove CO₂ from ambient air, where concentrations are just 0.04%.
That extreme dilution means enormous volumes of air must be moved. Most of the energy is spent moving air, not capturing CO₂. Even optimistic estimates suggest 2–4 MWh per tons.
Removing 1 billion tons per year would require roughly 8–15% of global electricity production.
DAC is technically possible but practically unscalable.
Fact 7: Enhanced Oil Recovery it the most common utilization of CO₂, with questionable “climate benefits” if any at all. However, it makes economic sense and is energy positive because it produces oil that would otherwise not be recoverable.
9. What is the climate impact?
Fact 9: Assuming that, during the past 30 year, CCUS removed about 200 million tons of CO₂ (that never resurfaced) from the atmosphere then, according to IPCCs MAGICC, 2100 temperatures reduced by ≈ 0.0001 °C
- Let’s round this up to zero as one cannot measure it, nor will it have any impact at all on extreme weather nor sea-levels
Even removing 1 billion tons per year for 75 years would reduce warming by only ~0.035°C which is below detectability, with no measurable impact on extreme weather or sea level rise and would only be true if IPCC models and assumptions are correct, which is in serious dispute.
10. The bottom line?
Carbon Dioxide Removal does not solve the climate problem at scale. It shifts emissions into complex engineered systems that must remain stable for centuries, while consuming vast amounts of energy and resources.
The climate benefits are negligible. The costs are enormous.
Those resources could instead deliver far greater benefit through efficiency, infrastructure, pollution control, health, education, and resilience.
That conclusion is not ideological…It follows directly from the data!
Continue reading the full blog here: “Carbon” Capture Utilization & Storage (CCUS)
Certainly a non solution. Technically, quite impractical. Which is why David Middleton quit pimping it after his employer wised up and got out. Adjacent, I also noticed that the regular “Hail King Permian” emotes have been Spending More Time With Their Families for well many months now….
Re: spending more time with family, related is that Maduro now has a lot of alone time.
Anyway, back to the article, it’s better to say that plants “consume” CO2 than absorb it. “Consume” puts the correct more positive connotation on the role of CO2 as plant food.
Bigoil:
Big Oil saw dollar signs from the Biden Administration regarding CCS and likely knew it made no sense [thus “wised up”].
As to the Permian, production & drilling rig counts will vary based on economics – the oil & gas will remain in place for whoever wants it. Recall the mid-2000-teens when the Saudis tried to bankrupt frackers: many did go under but the Big Oil just bought their assets for a huge discount, and patiently waited.
Agree that Permian oil will be extracted over geo time. So will fossil fuels from the last gasps of the GOM, North Sea, FSU, Venezuela, the very few “new ” fields, and so on.
We’re going to be going to Net Zero in an instant, relative to human history, no matter what we do about ACC. So, I’d rather have mature, renewable technologies up and humming way early. Maybe then we can avoid trying to refine the last few precious drops from pine trees, a la Japan in The Big One. Or even better, to produce off the little remaining resources left in a manner that won’t leave us a legacy of environmental blight, a la the FSU, Venezuela, and the US, (if current trends hold).
In addition any CO2 sequestered will lower the partial pressure in the atmosphere, which will result in the ocean replacing it back to the equilibrium level according to the temperature, according to Henry’s law. As the ocean reservoir of CO2 is much larger than the atmosphere, this is essentially permanent.
Correct.
The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is highly regulated by ocean temperature..
Its almost as if the oceans were by far the major source.. 😉
(click graph to un-blur)
“Carbon Dioxide Removal does not solve the PHONY climate problem
at scale.”fixed it
To add to the joy, the latest round in this form of madness has a plan to capture CO2 from a number of cement manufacturers in the Peak District (UK) and pipe it ~60 miles to the coast on the Wirral Peninsular, then compress it and pump it offshore to store in disused gas wells in the Irish Sea. Projected cost is ~£5Billion. What could go wrong??? The consultation document can be found here: https://peakcluster-consultation.co.uk/files/Peak%20Cluster%20Project%20Guide%20January%202026.pdf
In 2025 the IEA issued only a short update on CCUS compared to their previous reports because not a lot was happening. However they did say the largest project underway in the world was at a cement factory in Norway!
“Current trends are insufficient to align with a path to net zero by 2050” IEA ‘CCUS Update’ (April 2025)
With all that CO2 to get rid of, wouldn’t they be better-off simply building a Coca Cola bottling plant next door?
Why is soda pop and beer given a free pass on CO2 emissions?
Because flat beer would be like drinking a stale bottle of p1ss.
Maybe it would complement a plate of insects sautéed in castor oil?
Gonna have to take you at your word about that first thing.
But I wondered, is the stale kind a lot worse than the fresh variety?
The carbon they want to capture is your mind. Always ask, “who benefits?” Always follow the money. These thermodynamic crimes are a great way for elected representatives to fund those that payed to get them elected/reelected. A pig is always a pig, it can never become another animal.
It is not in it’s DNA.
Gasp. You mean a man cannot become a woman, too? It’s not in his DNA?
Wow. We need to get the word out.
/s
Some people get very upset when you point out that fact…
.. especially when you say that the word “trans” is actually an physical impossibility.
… and the word should be “pretend”
“The climate benefits are negligible.”
OK, but there is no good physical reason for having ever expected a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to drive ANY trend of ANY climate variable to begin with. The modelers know this from the math and physics of compressible flow.
More here, explained and demonstrated from the ERA5 hourly parameter “vertical integral of energy conversion.”
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
It is way past time to snap out of this manufactured illusion about CO2 and the “climate” – and especially about this pointless idea of artificial removal.
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
The problem is that gullible politicians will always leap on anything that sounds like a solution (even if it’s a non-problem) and throw money at it because they want to be seen to be doing something. Grifters know this well and keep the stream of crackpot ideas coming.
Ahhh, David…I’m trying to help all of us…
When you say “….no reason for…CO2…to drive ANY trend”, you will inherit the label of “denier” and your argument will be ignored by possible “converts”…who are badly needed in the face of assault by media lobby forces like CoveringClimateNow.org
I think a better approach is to say “…Well, the IPCC says CO2 forcing is 5.35Ln[C/Co] which works out to 3.6 watts since the Little Ice Age ended in 1850, and 6 watts for a CO2 doubling by about 2100…by which time cities will have converted to nuclear power due to the finding and development costs of petroleum reserves.
Plus, at surface, 1 degree is 5.5 watts higher IR emission and you can see from the attached ERA5 plot, such a few watts is basically irrelevant in the whole energy balance,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDurP-4gVrY
Plus, surface heating is rapidly moved to cooler higher altitudes where it is emitted to outer space…
https://youtu.be/I0OCzxUyMqQ?si=-ONt7rzlwGPvr-DS
So the whole CO2 warming meme is highly exaggerated in the press.” Then be ready with some blah blah about glaciers worldwide but well recorded in Switzerland, growing from about the 1300’s to the end of the Little Ice age about 1850…thank our good luck…
I recently had a similar conversation with an acquaintance at a party… Politics, Religion, and Climate Change are good topics to avoid at parties, lest you never be invited again…just sayin’. However, I changed to CC to avoid further Trump discussions. The person asked me to show him proof of what I was claiming. I said I’d send him something, since he obviously felt I was in the “denier” camp…
….I find your graphics presented here at WUWT and included in this comment to be very good indication to such a person that one is in the well-informed critical-thinking rational science group instead of being a thermo-holocaust “denier” simply to diss the “woke”….
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
This brings to mind lake Nyos in Cameroon that sequestered CO2 beneath it and when naturally released all at once killed 1500 people and all their cattle. Sufficient volume of CO2 replaced the oxygen and all breathing creatures suffocated.
No matter how you look at it, the earth will ultimately run out of fossil fuels but will also eventually develop fusion electrical power. Hopefully, the latter will precede the former. In the meantime, mankind should be wasting little precious technological resources “capturing” carbon. It’s a foolish waste of energy, as well as intellectual gain and will have absolutely zero influence at all on “climate change”. With sufficient low-cost fusion power, we can not only replace all wind turbines, solar panels, and fossil fuel powerplants, but also synthesize enough liquid fuels to fly airplanes, and even run transportation with liquid fuels with minor modifications of the vehicles.
Fusion power seems to have reached a turning point and has changed from an endless future to demonstration units in foreseeable time frames. That’s where research might be useful. “Carbon capture” has a useless future, unless it is used to produce liquid fuel from fusion power. Let’s get fusion first.
There has been no significant progress towards commercial nuclear fusion for decades. The “breakthroughs” trumpeted in the media are all press releases from nuclear fusion researchers looking for more funding. When I was in school, commercial nuclear fusion was 20 years in the future. Now it looks more than 50 years in the future, assuming that it is possible at all.
Fusion has several fundamental problems. The ability to contain high enough density plasma long enough is the first. Inertial containment is a bandaid. The erosion of the containing vessel is a torus/stellarator issue. The “ash problem” is simple but extremely difficult.
It is my personal opinion that all the methodologies we are now pursuing will ultimately prove incapable of supporting nuclear fusion. Only when we understand and can control gravity can density high enough, without walls, which solves the ash problem, can fusion will become the ultimate sustainable energy resource, that is, until new physics renders fusion obsolete.
Thank you WHS – I have commented numerous times before that gravity is the only means of controlling fusion known to man. That simple observation alone should put an end to further fantasies of “limitless fusion energy”.
Let’s improve nuclear fission energy along the path of Thorium-breeder reactors LFTRs that are low-pressure, high temperature scalable systems that are inherently safer than Uranium reactors
All of the issues were already solved, and a reactor assembled, right where we can all see it, about 4.5 billion years ago.
Gravity is indeed the solution.
There is no evidence that metallic machinery can ever do the job.
All we really need to do is come up with more and better ways to gather supply from any of the huge rivers of energy already flowing through the Universe.
Even the first fission reactors were of a configuration, design, and size, that were easily modified to produce and capture usable electric power at scale.
Nothing like any of that is true for the gigantic white elephant boondoggles that have been and are being built to study how to harness nuclear fusion energy.
We know two ways to create fusion energy so far (a million-mile-wide pile of hydrogen, or the fast and dirty method).
One way has us at such a distance from it in order to safely use it, that the power we can get is relatively low density, and the other is SO dirty that making power than way just does not seem like such a great idear.
But a little a day times hundreds of millions of years of days, has left a tidy fortune of stored chemical energy here and there on our planet.
We have barely even begun to start gathering it up. I am not so sure we will ever use it all, ever.
Sure, maybe we can lear how to do it better, but maybe not.
We are great at throwing away public funds though, so there is no danger that the effort will be abandoned.
I will bet real money that we will all go to our demise with no sign of any means to control gravity, even a little, even on the horizon.
Or I would, if I could figure a way to take my winnings with me.
But the thought is a useful illustration of the point I have long made: just because we can think of something, and spend money trying to achieve it, is no guarantee it is even possible, not only with currently available technology, but ever.
We may have cold fusion before we have power from the contraptions that have been touted as achieving one huge breakthrough after another. But I ain’t betting any money on that either, that is for sure.
The question is not, “can fusion power ever be harnessed to make cheap and plentiful electricity”, it is, “what can we do right now to make power”, since we need it for sure, not maybe.
And that we do know how to do.
We should be doing it.
What is going on these days is an insanity layer cake with mass delusion frosting .
Do we really need a fusion power cherry on top?
Or a Masters of Gravity pie-in-the-sky?
How about we stick to some nice old fashioned fission cookies, what recipes we already got…handy-like?
The world already uses Fusion power.
Fortunately it is a long way away !!
…and is only available for half the time (or less).
Fact 1: CO₂ is not inherently a pollutant. It is a trace gas and a fundamental input to life.
Correct. A pollutant is something that has immediate or near term negative impacts on human health (i.e., medical) or biology in the environment. Near term is not 20 or 50 years in the future.
If CO2 was a pollutant, holding your breath would kill you.
When a human exhales, the CO2 concentration is greater than 50x the level in the atmosphere.
From article:”Fact 2: CO₂ is a trace gas that acts as a minor greenhouse gas, with diminishing impact on temperatures”
I have yet to be shown evidence that adding CO2 to any volume of gas will cause that volumes temperature to increase.
The earth is kept warm by the energy in visible light from the sun. It is kept at a reasonably consistent temperature over the course of a year because of outgoing infrared radiation from the earth to outer space at night. If you have 2 totally transparent containers, one containing air with no CO2 in it, and the other with the same pressure of normal air which contains CO2, and expose them both to the outgoing radiation, I believe you will find that the temperature in the container with CO2 in the air will rise to a higher temperature than the other. It’s not the simple presence of the CO2 doing this it’s the fact that the CO2 absorbs some of the infrared energy passing through it.
About 50% of incoming radiation from the sun is infrared light. The warmth of sunlight is due to the near IR. H2O is the only greenhouse gas of importance. There is too little CO2 in the air to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Currently one cubic has meter of air has mass of 1,290 g and contains ca. 0.84 g of CO2 at STP.
At 21° C and 70% RH one cubic meter of air has a mass of 1,200 g and contains 14.3 g of H2O and 0.78 g of CO2. H2O Is about 98% of the greenhouse effect. We don’t have to worry about CO2 causing any global warming.
Here is an experiment showing that is not the case.
The atmosphere is not an enclose container..
Enclosed container analogies are irrelevant to what happens in the atmosphere.
I disagree in that either CO2 can do what it is said, cause warming or it can’t. It’s chemical and radiative capabilities are present everywhere all the time.
CO2 also radiates infra-red energy.
Any molecule that absorbs photons of a given energy level and range, also radiates them at those wavelengths.
Within that container of gas, molecules are zipping around very fast, and the average velocity of the molecules varies directly with temperature.
But there is a huge range of velocities within that collection of molecules.
Some are barely moving, and some are moving many times faster than average.
Those fast ones can emit photons from energy gathered by random collisions.
Or rather than “can emit”, I should say “do emit”.
Because it is not a maybe sort of proposition.
It is fundamental to the physics of those molecules.
It is over a hundred years since experiments were done that involved making little greenhouses out of materials both transparent to and opaque to IR radiation.
The results refute rather than confirm ideas that many people take as factual.
Venus and Mars both have atmospheres that are loaded with CO2.
Mars is very cold however, because the atmosphere is very rarified, and Venus is very hot, because the atmosphere is extremely dense.
Yes, distance from the fusion reactor is a factor, but the temperature differences between the two planets and between each of them and Earth, is exaggerated well beyond what effect distance would have if it was the only difference, IOW if all three had the same atmosphere.
Earth is the temperature it is because it is actually the planet Water.
At night the temperature at nearly every point on nearly every daily diurnal cycle, falls right down to or very closely approaches the dew point.
And this temperature is reached long before dawn brings a warming for that daytime period.
IOW, the planet has a great amount of excess cooling capacity that is going unused, but can be and is used when imbalances happen, that is, when things get a little hotter during the day.
The amount of moisture in the air controls the temperature of Earth/Water.
And always will.
CO2 has a bit part.
It is mainly why there is life.
You know, Mr. Johnson, you can always do that experiment for real, and show us all the results.
After all, it does not exactly sound like it would take a huge amount of time, money, or effort.
I am not so sure getting the result you claim would be obtained, would mean much regarding the Earths atmosphere, but we can debate that post-facto.
There is a reason the interwebs is not replete with videos of Warmistas doing simple demonstration such as the one you describe.
And that reason is, the results are not what you think they would be, not what you say they would be.
Obviously, anyone can make up any little anecdote they can imagine and assert the result without ever actually doing the experiment or demonstration.
But what you describe is spectacularly unconvincing as a thought experiment.
Using the standard of evidence you put forth in the assertion, anyone can get the opposite result by simply saying “No, wrong”, and maintain your self-same high standard of evidence-based proof.
Carbon capture and storage: A solution in search of a problem.
End of discussion.
Or A NON-solution.. to a NON-problem. 🙂
I am calling for a doubling down of spending on capturing CO2 chemically, and also on every other jackass idea in the net zero economic suicide pact.
Why give up now, when so much has been spent, so much sacrificed, so many real problems ignored, and so very little to show for it?
Tripling or quadrupling the spending could do so much to magnify the pain, while also multiplying the nonexistant results tremendously!
In for a penny, in for a pound, eh, so why ease up now when total economic collapse is finally within sight? Do we really want to give up now, when absolutely nothing measurable has been accomplished, and at such cost in effort, treasure, and credibility?
And while we are at it, let’s do a better job attributing bla… er, responsibility to the political factions who have done it all. Let’s be extra clear about the ‘all’ part as well.
We want to make it very clear, when the bat guano hits the wind turbine, so to speak, exactly which side of the political spectrum has done all this, and which side has been vocally against it from the get go. This is important, so the public never forgets who was behind it all.
The public will rightly want to know which end of the political spectrum gets an anchor around it’s neck that will sink it for generations, perhaps even centuries to come!
And of course, which specific individuals are most directly responsible for what has been done, that they shall never, ever be forgotten, and that they shall be recorded in history, and receive the attribution they so richly deserve!
There is plenty more money that can be spent, and industries to be shut down!
Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes!
Once that conclusion is reached, any further discussion of proceeding in that direction is moot.
Only true believers and shysters continue down discarded paths.
Hmmm, if only we could find a natural system that has been crafted by billions of years of evolution to accomplish such a task…
I reckon I’ll mull it over while I have a walk around the woods out back.
Fact – CCUS is DUMB.
You have a way with letters that mean words!
Very nice, really important stuff.
Since the early 1980’s our company Sidel Systems has been applying the technology of Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery in large commercial greenhouses. The heat recovery left the cooled exhaust as CO2, and we then tested the exhaust for any harmful unburnt gas matter. With a propery tuned burner this CO2 was ready to be sucked out of the chimney and distributed throughout these greenhouse ranges, providing the plants with CO2 enrichment (fertilizer), the best fertilizer ever. It would increase fruit size and quantity or in the case of flowers, the number of stems and flowers.This Flue Gas Heat Recovery technology greatly increased these growers profit margines by reducing their natural gas bills by 10 to 15% and at the same time increasing the crops production and profits. Some greenhouse growers also realized that by adding more CO2 (liquid) into these growing zones was financially worthwhile.
So why are there some companies who want to capture the CO2 at some facilities and cool the gaseous CO2 till it becomes a liquid, and then pump it through pipelines to a location where it then gets pumped deep into the ground? Money?
AI is coming and this industry isneeding a lot of electricity produced at power plants. What is planned for all this CO2 in the combusted exhaust? My suggestion is lets build greenhouses and create hundreds of jobs at each location growing food for the nation and the world.
Taking all this CO2 and pumping it down a hole in the ground costs a lot of money, and this CO2 has to be monitored to ensure it cant leak out, and this monitoring forever costs money.
What is the wise thing to do? Would this be a good “story tip” to be further investigated because whoreally wants to see all this combusted natural gas get wasted?
Waste Is Not waste If It Has A Purpose, and this combusted exhaust has a purpose. It can be transformed into good paying full time jobs and money.
It’s research time.
You evidently have a lot to learn about the climate crisis emergency, doomsday panic mongering, and firehoses of government funding.
There is no money for sensible things when all is well.
Mother Nature has many efficient CCUS systems. On land there are huge variety of plants. Trees capture CO2 and turn into wood. Trees can last for hundreds of years.
In the oceans plants ranging from alga to seaweeds use enormous CO2. Many of these plants are eaten by animals. Some species of whales consume phytoplankton and zooplankton and can live for many decades. Shellfish are a huge sink for CO2.
Most of the CO2 absorbed by oceans is converted to bicarbonate and carbonate anions. The are used to make shells and corals.
Mothers Nature’s systems are very efficient. Despite the production of colossal amounts CO2 from the use of fossil fuels, a cubic meter of air contains only a mere 0.80 g CO2.
Mother Nature’s CCUS systems are free.
Carbon capture? Ya mean farming? Yeah, world needs more farmers.