Carbon capture can make sense.

Not sure how you can spin that as some sort of capitalist shenanigans when in reality, a lot of universities and start ups created stuff with very little funding.

It's even simpler to see how stupid it is. It costs more energy to capture the carbon and store it than is gained by burning it in the first place. It's literally more energy efficient to just not burn it at all.

I'm with you. Also, it seems like it would be much more efficient to do carbon capture at the source, where the fuel is being used, like a power plant, where the concentrations are relatively high, compared to atmospheric capture where CO2 is less than 0.1%.

We would need clean energy production to cover demand and then have the capacity to produce excess energy for it to ever be anything to consider at all, we are nowhere close to that.

We'll actually HAVE to do it at one point but yeah, it will take a good 30-50% of the world's energy budget for decades to centuries to do so.

However, until we're on 100% nuclear / renewable, you're just generating 100 carbon for every 30 you capture. That's where the stupidity lies. Even if you use renewable energy to power your capture plant, it still be more efficient to just route that energy directly into the grid where it would then avoid someone else having to generate the carbon to use the energy.

SI unit right there

Wonder what my physics teacher will say in the next exam when I calculate with it. What's the abreviation?

Problem is not energy even, it's that they are not transforming CO2, meaning that is still there, simply temporarily stored. It is not a solution. It can be part of a solution. But currently there are better and cheaper overall solutions