Well said. > Otherwise when you zoom out and look at the whole energy system, you're just "digging a hole and filling it back in again" (I mean this both therm

Well said. > Otherwise when you zoom out and look at the whole energy system, you're just "digging a hole and filling it back in again" (I mean this both thermodynamically and economically), plus adding unavoidable inefficiency losses at every step. So in reality the entire chain would be generating negative net energy for society. Such a futile energy system isn't a workable solution, obviously. That is true in the abstract but there is yet more nuance that is important to consider. Capturing co2 doesn't have to consume as much energy as is released when it's emitted. Although, many methods, like everything revolving around trees and biomass do have this negative net energy property. There are chemical ones that don't if I'm not mistaken[1]. There is also the unreliability of most renewable energy sources. While we haven't solved all the energy storage problems. There might still be periods where it would be somewhat sensible to use surplus renewable energy to capture carbon, while a low-wind, low-sun place is powered by fossil fuels. We do of course want to shut all of them down ASAP, but the optimal ordering might not be as strict as you imply. I agree with your broader point though. There is a lot of potential for energy waste if carbon capture is prematurely applied aggressively. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/how-icelands-carbfix-is-harnessing-power-turning-co2-into-stone-2023-10-30/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/how-ic...