Industrial heat from renewable energy is a rapidly-growing field right now. Lot of 'box of rocks' companies in the field. I know Rondo has some pilots for cement plants making clinker using renewable energy, for example.
Solar is already so cheap that it makes sense to switch to it as your energy source as the tech allows it -- and the tech is already allowing it. Hopefully wind will catch up to that point soon too.
It the first using a process which generates CO2 and then turns a little bit of it into something useful. Hybrit uses hydrogen for reducing iron ore instead of carbon.
Honestly, it probably will not work eventually. It just feels too close to a thermodynamics violation.
It is just impossible for me to believe you can burn a fossil fuel and capture all of the GHG thus produced for a lower cost than it would've been to just use renewable energy in the first place.
Well tbf the idea of carbon capture is to undo damage, and not sustain fossil fuels. We move to clean energy which alone we know is not enough, and then capture to compensate. But i agree with you it shaky and mostly used for green washing and pretending there isn't a problem.
To power these capture fueling machines we need energy, and there's no point in doing all that if we can pump clean energy into the capture devices.
It absolutely does matter. This article is not about DAC, it is about carbon capture. They are entirely different processes.
What goes into capturing and storing all of the concentrated GHG at the time of combustion at the site of energy production is entirely different than what goes in to pulling already-dispersed CO2 directly from the air. For one thing, carbon capture is necessarily powered by fossil fuels. DAC is virtually always renewable-powered because it makes zero sense otherwise.
These terms have meaning. I understand they are confusing, which is why I clarified for you. When you said that carbon capture may "work eventually", I now know you were talking about DAC. But that's an entirely different thing that isn't relevant.
Carbon capture is a process for using fossil fuels without releasing GHG. It is not pulling CO2 from the atmosphere; that is a different thing. Almost certainly a total technological dead end not worth pursuing.
What are you talking about, dude? This thread is about US Steel wanting to use CCS. Your post is top-level, you've been talking to me the whole time, and the only other thread here is the guy talking about Swiss steel projects that don't use CCS nor DAC.
Your original comment doesn't mention DAC. It mentions carbon capture. I replied to you basically agreeing and saying I really didn't think carbon capture has any actual application, at which point your reply showed you didn't know that DAC and CCS/carbon capture are different things and has been using carbon capture to talk about DAC, so I explained the difference for you -- because I know the terms confuse a lot of people. And you got defensive.
Seriously, I encourage you to take a moment and look through this exchange from the beginning. Clearly it's not worth continuing, but this is incredibly frustrating for me.