3 HN users recommended this commentary3 months2022–2024score 3
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN commenters cite it to argue carbon capture is a distraction from stopping emissions at the source.
Adam Something gives a short, sarcastic argument that carbon capture does not live up to its promises. He says the energy it uses would be better spent replacing fossil sources directly.
“100 times out of 100, you would rather just stop the emissions at the source by making the emitter use the green energy.” (HN, 2024)
Carbon capture isn't real (as advertised). If you take green energy out of the supply to capture carbon, a carbon producing power plant will have to make up for it. [1] [this video]
Argues carbon capture undermines green energy use.
From a logical standpoint carbon capture is a scam [0]. The argument is "if you don't have spare energy, why are you spending it on carbon capture? And if you have spare energy (you don't), why not spend the money you usee to build the over capacity to bring clean energy somewhere else?" That is all assuming your entire power grid is 100% clean (it isn't) because otherwise you fall in case 0 where you spend energy that could be spent on offsetting non-clean energy usage. [0] [this video]
Argument that carbon capture wastes energy better used elsewhere.
At this point, my smell test is "how much does the 'solution' smell of gas money." and if it does, I assume they don't want to do the hard work required cause it's not in their interests, and it hasn't been for decades. ( ahem Carbon offsets) In practice it's so much harder to debunk these solutions because we don't have good ways of dealing with bad-faith actors. The non-dismissive way to view Carbon Capture is this: Carbon Capture will be relevant when we actually reach zero emissions, and not a minute sooner. Until then, it is at best, creative accounting that does nothing, and at worst actively preventing electrification. The thought experiment I remember giving me clarity on this is: Imagine you have a solar plant that is fully dedicated to removing carbon from the atmosphere. 100 times out of 100, you would rather just stop the emissions at the source by making the emitter use the green energy. [1] [this video]
Debunks carbon capture as a distraction from electrification.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
3 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Read more