The only argument for investing in carbon capture today seems to be to allow the technology to mature. We'd probably be saying similar things about the effectiveness of solar panels if we started developing that technology now. The idea is that maybe, and that's a big maybe, by the time we get to a point where all of our power generation is low emissions, we will have matured carbon capture tech enough to make it viable.
The difference is that thermodynamic analysis of solar panels, even before building them or improving them, tells us that it is a winning bet. We can't say the same for carbon capture. It's a thermodynamically losing bet.
The humongous amount of entropy we will have to generate to offset any significant part of current emissions via carbon capture (let alone already emitted CO2) basically tells us that carbon capture can only be used in exceptional circumstances where there are no feasible methods of reducing emissions. If there are, then the winning method is to not emit in the first place.
> only argument for investing in carbon capture today seems to be to allow the technology to mature
> CDR currently removes about 3bn tonnes of CO2 from the air every year, of which almost 100% comes from land-based methods, *such as afforestation and reforestation*, the study says.
Trees have pretty well matured. They will not get the same improvements through material science that solar got. "Letting carbon capture tech mature" is hoping for a moonshot to bear fruit.
