Environment & Energy

...to popularize them, but I think it unwise to make sweeping "could" statements that will only increase cynicism.

The general class of organic frameworks, the most common of which are MOF's, metal organic frameworks, are often cited for carbon capture, but no matter what of the many tens of thousands of such schemes announced, the real issue is that carbon capture requires energy.

MOF's and in this case "COF's" are often mentioned in the context of DAC, direct air capture, which strikes me at the edge of feasibility, but essentially useless if the energy required to accomplish this, DAC, (or better DSWC, direct seawater capture), is derived from dangerous fossil fuels. In both cases, they are perpetual motion machines, something as the crisis of extreme global heating worsens, is regrettably being popularized as a "solution."

Perpetual motion machines do not exist.

Fossil fuels, primary energy, is the problem and much of the advertising of hydrogen, carbon capture and sequestration, so called "renewable energy," is designed to divert attention from this fact. Right now there is no path in practice or close to practice (except the often unjustly maligned nuclear energy) that can eliminate fossil fuels, or even that can reduce the use of dangerous fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels is increasing, not decreasing, as I noted yesterday:

The 2024 IEA World Energy Outlook has been released; World Energy Demand Grew by 13 Exajoules, Solar and Wind by 2 EJ.