I read the title as ‘first carbon-removal plant’ and thought: don’t they all do that?
Removing 1 tonne of co2 by using far more coal-produced energy. Great job people, just brilliant. /s
No, there is no mention of coal or a specific power usage in the article, but every method I’ve seen so far, put more co2 in the air than it manages to pull out of it. Coal was merely an assumption.
Right now, there are some CDR methods that absolutely DO make more CO2 than they remove - but that does not mean it has to be that way. The first time you try a recipe, it might not taste so great - you might not even want to eat it at all. But that does not mean the recipe is no good. CDR now is about basic technological development - the processes are creeping up past thousands-of-tons-per-year sort of numbers at commercial scale - but within about 15 years they will need to be at billion ton per year scale (a million times greater). They won’t get there burning more carbon than they capture for sure, but they will get there nevertheless (or else . . .)
It is already far too late to argue for carbon cutting only solutions. Maybe 10 years ago but as it stands, carbon sequestration is 100% necessary.
