I suppose this was more of a Pro con for DAC. For stationary it’s the same Cons, but the pros are that we limit some of the CO2 that would otherwise be vented. No technologies are currently scalable that can replace existing processes that burn fossil fuels.

Stationary capture is much more mature, but it’s still costly. Our problem is really that no one wants to pay extra for it, so you get these projects to claim subsidies with minimal capital input.

Simplest Pro - can sequester CO2 generated from difficult to abate industries. Think aviation, cement etc. Con - it’s extremely energy intensive and you have to mineralize the CO2. It works in Iceland due to ‘free’ energy and good geology but economics are poor everywhere else.

Sometimes I think this country is too stupid to survive.

Absent environmentalism and air quality. Gas lines are dangerous. Especially in large apartment or mixed use condos

The best part is they blame democrats for their ‘economic anxiety’

The NYT is sick. This isn’t a both sides issue where facts are gonna change that the Republican nominee threatened extrajudicial violence to cheering crowds. Go ahead, assume you won’t be one of the victims. Let me know how that turns out.

This is why the press has become irrelevant.

Yet still no plans or details needed to win pundits votes. /snark

In a country of 300 million people you’ll always find an anecdote to prove your point though.