It's easy to forget why there is a bit of a challenge to getting C02 out of the air: there's so little of it, comparatively.
In order, air is, broadly, made up of the following:
Nitrogen: %78.084
Oxygen: %20.946
Argon: %00.934
C02: %00.042
The stuff is essentially beyond a rounding error - it really gives one an appreciation of the "either don't release it, or capture it at the point of release" sentiment, and for the difficulties in making carbon capture outside of these scenarios be even slightly cost-effective. It's great to see progress on this front.
(I'm sorry - I have long since given in to this strange urge to type short alpha-numerics as hex. I can't justify it; it's habitual; and when I catch it, I always hope no-one is using a font that highlights it.)
Could burning biofuel to generate highly concentrated co2 cheapen the process? This way there would also always be energy available for the capturing process and the capturing plants would be mostly just plots of land with plants on them.
In order, air is, broadly, made up of the following:
Nitrogen: %78.084
Oxygen: %20.946
Argon: %00.934
C02: %00.042
The stuff is essentially beyond a rounding error - it really gives one an appreciation of the "either don't release it, or capture it at the point of release" sentiment, and for the difficulties in making carbon capture outside of these scenarios be even slightly cost-effective. It's great to see progress on this front.