I should have made it clearer -- by "actually" I mean "in a net negative way". Otherwise it's useless. It's not clear at all from the article, or from any other

I should have made it clearer -- by "actually" I mean "in a net negative way". Otherwise it's useless. It's not clear at all from the article, or from any other of these carbon capture schemes I read about (just yesterday there was one in the front page of HN -- and in fact, _that_ article[0] said that this method literally burned gas for heat), how they achieve this. Because the country this is installed in uses fossil fuels for its electricity. Not to mention all the logistics equipment (trucks) necessary to have this plant in operation. And burning fossil fuels to pull carbon out of the atmosphere is never going to make sense due to thermodynamics -- even at 100% efficiency, you'll only break even. Which makes me very suspicious that the biggest investors are always oil companies, as though they can burn all the fuel they extract from the ground and also capture all the carbon it emits. Which is not possible, but maybe they hope that with enough sleight of hand nobody will notice. [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/carbon-capture-2657738131 https://spectrum.ieee.org/carbon-capture-2657738131