You often provide insightful references that trigger my interest and response. Previously, I found "RainForestEnergy" a great reference that might also pertain to this "Carbon Capture" topic.

Living in rural Minnesota does NOT make me world-wise, but we practice "forest maintenance, and soil carbonation" common sense small farming. And as an old biophysical chemist, I would also see industry news magazines like "Chemical and Engineering News" in the lab I once worked at in the 1970s. It seems now hydrocarbon fuel synthesis has become automated, and making simple fuels like propane from syngas is cost competitive with fossil extraction sources and processing.

It might be easier to re-invent conventional simple fuel sources using atmospheric CO2 extraction than to re-invent most all the chemical fuel use technologies.

Thanks for putting some of this into perspective, Len. There is certainly a long way to go in actually deploying carbon capture in any meaningful way- I believe we're starting to see some growth from a few seeds here in the U.S., with some large companies actually taking a serious look at this. The biggest reason they are looking? Because of the money, not any climate change concerns. Only when the climate change concerns tip the financial scales towards these carbon capture (either through govt subsidies, tax incentives, or public pressure on regulators) will we really see a worthwhile effort. It does seem like things are moving in that direction, whether stakeholders on either side of it like it.

Thanks again for the insightful piece!

From a comment in another thread "The Int'l Energy Agency says:  'Capturing CO2 directly from the air is currently the most expensive approach...' and they show an average of USD$238/ton price for that type reduction."

Who's going to fund this? It would seem that we need to focus on eliminating CO2 emissions before they reach the atmosphere in the transportation and electricity generating sections first, which make up about 50% of current emissions. 

Len:

Great food for thought.

The one nuance to the title I would change would be: "The Current State of Carbon Capture does not Meet the PERCEIVED Need in Combating Climate Change." If decisionmakers and the public were truly convinced that the various changes in the climate that have been reported is truly an existential threat, then the problem would be addressed with no limit of money or dedication. As it is, there is a perception that something should be done, but there are more important things to pay attention to. It is human nature when the doctor says to lose weight and lower cholesterol or risk significant health impacts or even death; but commonly we will put it off or not make an all-out effort whatever the cost to implement a solution. We tend to see it as an existential threat only after a heart attack. Although there is climate change (as there has always been), the public does not yet see it as an existential threat. So, we are left with using public funds (aka, taxes) to finance the implementation of (aka, forcing) decarbonization. This was exactly the case for wind and solar which grew in technological capacity and extent only after (and continuing) the infusion of public funds. Nevertheless, whether we must, should, or want to decarbonize, the infusion of public funds will take things in the decarbonizing direction. Whether its "enough" is dependent on the perceived need.