Biofuel is not a good source of energy. It uses a lot of land.
It just doesn't make sense to emit all the CO2 to then recapture and sell it to someone. First, it's awefully inefficient, and second, do you think there's an infinite amount of demand for CO2 at a high enough price that it makes sense to jump through all these hoops?
Unfortunately, the best solution for climate change is the least sexy, and therefore techies, VCs and the media don't jump on it. 1) Reduce emissions by "boring" things like solar power and less livestock agriculture, 2) increase the existing CO2 sinks that already exist in nature (forests and coastal areas).
It just doesn't make sense to emit all the CO2 to then recapture and sell it to someone. First, it's awefully inefficient, and second, do you think there's an infinite amount of demand for CO2 at a high enough price that it makes sense to jump through all these hoops?
Unfortunately, the best solution for climate change is the least sexy, and therefore techies, VCs and the media don't jump on it. 1) Reduce emissions by "boring" things like solar power and less livestock agriculture, 2) increase the existing CO2 sinks that already exist in nature (forests and coastal areas).