Two Myths Of Carbon Capture

For a long time, I wanted to believe in carbon capture.

It sounds like the perfect solution.
Keep the industry running, clean up emissions later, no lifestyle changes required.

Until I ran the numbers.

Myth #1: Carbon capture is a climate solution.

In reality, it’s an energy problem.

To permanently remove and store CO₂:

• DAC needs ~2–3 kWh per kg of CO₂

• Point-source capture needs ~1–1.5 kWh per kg of CO₂

And there’s a catch: those kilowatt-hours must be clean — wind, solar, hydro, nuclear — or the whole system becomes circular nonsense.

Those same clean kWh could:

• decarbonise power grids

• electrify industry

• displace fossil generation directly

In almost every case, they deliver more climate impact doing that than being spent on capturing already-emitted CO₂.

Then came the second epiphany.

Myth #2: Carbon capture fails because there was no market.

Until this year, CO₂ had no real price. Now it does.

With CBAM, carbon lands at roughly €70–90 per ton for exposed industries.

That finally creates a forcing function.

But it also exposes the hard truth:

• DAC at €500–1,000 per ton is still economically detached from reality

• Point-source capture at €40–80 per ton might work — if those costs are achieved at scale, not just in pilots

This is exactly what the Yara industrial CCS project is attempting to prove this year.

And that’s why I’ll be following it closely this year and next.

When I run carbon capture through my own frameworks:

• It passes the climate impact test

• It fails the energy efficiency test

• And until CBAM, it also failed the market test

Two failures out of three is enough.

So here’s my current take: Carbon capture may be necessary. But necessary does not mean investable. For now, my bet remains negative — and the burden of proof is on execution, not belief.