@slydr68 Actually, yes, I did read the article. The article was the source of the problems I identified.

@slydr68 Face Palm Wrong.

". . .while switching. . ." No! Only after switching.
The system may work to reduce co2 but it will (1st law of thermodynamics) require more energy to function (burn more coal (produce more carbon) then it can extract from the environment. To assert otherwise is to subscribe to another variation of the laughable perpetual motion machine.

The best use of resources is to eliminate carbon based fuel sources. Then, employ technology to clean up the carbon.

@slydr68

What you "think" is irrelevant to the scientific (demonstrable) truth.

You completely missed the point.

As you are displaying a lack of understanding, I'll restate (summarize) what I had assumed was a clear and easily understood argument supported by facts with a simpler and easier to understand statement.

With our current primarily carbon based power supply system, using this technology to reduce carbon creates (by burning carbon for fuel to run the system) more carbon then it removes. If we have surplus non carbon based power, our best course of action would be to use that power to offset (NOT BURN THE COAL TO POWER THE CARBON RETRIEVAL SYSTEM) carbon based energy production.

If used for removing carbon dioxide ok but could run into trouble if you burn it.rather use as a carbon source for other things

@slydr68 Clearly you do not understand what I am saying as you disagree with demonstrated facts that based on our current electrical supply system predominantly dependent on carbon fuel source See the table I provided above for world electrical supply sources or use the US energy administration noting 80% carbon based or even use the video sited below that notes 67% fossil (then we add other carbon) of our current electrical demand is met by CARBON based fuel. Then include 60% total energy production loss to the grid to fuel this carbon removal system will produce significantly more carbon then this technology will be able to remove). These are facts not bold assertions. I sited the 1st law of thermodynamics as a reason this process dos not work but the 2nd law of thermodynamics also demonstrate your position is factually wrong.

As you earlier noted "Didn't read the article, did you? SMH", you have demonstrated you don't like to read to learn, so here is a youtube video that explains why perpetual machines (remove carbon by burning carbon) does not work.

Here is a youtube video explaining how our grid works and where we get power; how we make energy in the states. When you add 60% of power on the grid is lost, burning carbon to make carbon makes even less sense.

To assert I am ignorant because you fail to understand my valid and fully supported argument is pathetic. If you think yourself less then ignorant then I on this topic, please demonstrate why your position is correct and the facts I have referenced are not correct.