"Which no one has demonstrated workably or economically." This is false. There are several tests of capture underway, where it's working at least within other

"Which no one has demonstrated workably or economically." This is false. There are several tests of capture underway, where it's working at least within other parameters. [1] As for economic viability, that may or may not come with scale and integration. The bigger question is obviously the long term implications of storing CO2 (i.e. will it leak) etc.. "It's insane to dig up coal and oil, burn it for energy, then spend MORE energy capturing all that CO" No, if sequestration can be viable, it would be 'insane' to ignore it. If it increased the cost of burning natural gas by 2x, it'd still be cheaper than anything else. It'd be irresponsible to ignore possible vectors of innovation. Why would you build solar equipment with unreliable output at 7 cents kww instead a reliable natural gas / sequestered operation with 3 cents kwh? "Much simpler to leave the coal/oil buried and get your energy from other sources." There is no plan to going to get all of our energy needs from wind and solar, so I don't know what you mean by 'simpler'. Carbon fuels are by far our best source of power, if we can capture CO2 efficiently, than we should. The apparent 'anti sequestration' attitude that seems to prevailing here in HN is naive. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-carbon-storage/japan-carbon-capture-site-shows-promise-for-industrial-use-idUSKBN1HQ0WZ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-carbon-storage/japa...