aksdad October 16, 2017 02:25 AM My first thought was, “by ‘first negative emission power plant’ do you mean ‘negative power emission’?” A power plant that converts CO2 to rock must consume a lot of power, which is the opposite of what a power plant is supposed to do. I read the article waiting for the punch line and to my delight spotted it in the final paragraph: “Of course the economic cost of deploying this kind of carbon capture technology on a large scale is not particularly pragmatic right now...” jamesb October 16, 2017 07:26 AM It is highly dangerous to remove plant food from the atmosphere, which is a system poorly understood and misunderstood in particular in relation to the lithosphere and hydrosphere. Climeworks’s sponsors and shareholders should not be protected from liability for ill effects of spreading this technology. Nik October 16, 2017 09:06 AM If I was an alien, and I wanted to remove all humans from the planet, so I could colonise it, all I would need to do is reduce atmospheric CO2 to near zero, and that would achieve it. This could be achieved by seeding the atmosphere with dust that would reduce solar energy reaching Earths surface. This would cause the atmosphere to cool, this would also cool the oceans, and the CO2 that the oceans release which replenishes the CO2 used by plant life, would diminish. Eventually, there would be insufficient CO2 for plants to survive, so they would die. Followed by all animal life dependent upon it, including humans life. However, I dont have to, because humans are doing it for me! Nik October 16, 2017 09:26 AM Amazing!? Ocean creatures have been doing this for millions of years, its called limestone, and there's millions of cubic miles of the stuff all over the globe. Bob October 16, 2017 11:17 AM Any operation that is an economic negative won't last long. What's theoretically possible and what's practical are two very different things. LordInsidious October 16, 2017 12:41 PM We used to be the ones who solve the worlds issues, now we are the only ones who won't admit there is an issue let alone resolve it and export the solution to the rest of the world. BrianK56 October 16, 2017 12:51 PM If the CO2 was captured directly from the source ( Smoke Stacks ) from industrial sources it would make a lot more sense. I agree with the other comments that too much removed is not good. JimFox October 16, 2017 12:53 PM Surprising result! The economic cost must be very little in Iceland which has 100% renewables by way of hydrothermal generation. Very few similar locations exist now but it's start. "To my delight..." well, f*ck your 'delight' & your negativity. May you die from CO2 poisoning! jamesb-- foolish remark; plants have always adapted to CO2 levels & will continue. dougspair October 16, 2017 01:05 PM ...I've always wondered how well 'sealed' these underground caverns are...? Science and Econ October 16, 2017 01:11 PM Is this CO2-killing industrial plant some sort of sick joke? Our current 400 ppm CO2 level is dangerously low for many plants; 5,000 ppm would be ideal. 5,000 ppm CO2 would greatly boost plant growth and lift 1,000,000,000 people out of poverty. Too bad 99+% of CO2 is natural and 99.999999% of the greenhouse effect is natural and Man can't tinker with it - even if we wanted to.