It's not just a matter of cost. All carbon removal schemes have limited capacities, even tree planting. There are practical realities that will prevent many of them operating anywhere near the scale we need.
I can't see anything in the article about how much carbon they expect to remove, but I am confident it's not a lot, certainly nowhere near the 50 gigatons we need to scrub annually.
In any case the world has no use for 50 gigatons of methanol, and the carbon in that methanol will eventually go back into the atmosphere.
legitsigh t1_j5ve1gf wrote
Reply to Researchers unveil the least costly carbon capture system to date - down to $39 per metric ton. by PNNL
It's not just a matter of cost. All carbon removal schemes have limited capacities, even tree planting. There are practical realities that will prevent many of them operating anywhere near the scale we need.
I can't see anything in the article about how much carbon they expect to remove, but I am confident it's not a lot, certainly nowhere near the 50 gigatons we need to scrub annually.
In any case the world has no use for 50 gigatons of methanol, and the carbon in that methanol will eventually go back into the atmosphere.