>If you look around this thread, you'll see plenty of people suggesting exactly that - that it's actually better to focus on carbon capture, that it's more doab

>If you look around this thread, you'll see plenty of people suggesting exactly that - that it's actually better to focus on carbon capture, that it's more doable than reduction etc. If we assume a carbon capture cost of $600 per ton and storage costs of $400 per ton, then the total cost of getting rid of one ton is $1000 just to keep the math simple. 1 kWh of coal power emits 1kg of CO2. This means that your power bill wouldn't double or triple, it would quadruple even in countries like Germany where electricity prices are already high. Even if you believe in capture, you will have to quit coal and go with gas simply because that one only triples the price of electricity. You will also have to get the energy from somewhere. In fact, most of the cost of the carbon capture and storage will be in generating renewable energy to run the capture process to begin with. So what these people are implying isn't that we are going with renewables, no, the power generation of fossil fuels will be a tiny fraction of the total power generation.