Neue Druckmethode fängt 99 % des CO2 für nur 26 US-Dollar pro Tonne ein

26$ / 2,000 kwh great let’s go!

What was the previous standard?

as per the article, this is an at-source tech where they capture right at the furnaces.

not shitting on that, good effort.

but just for context, it doesn’t do anything about the greenhouse gasses already emitted which will haunt us for the next 30ish years.

so, not so much carbon capture but carbon filtering. if i read this correctly, i’m just a shmock on the internet.

I was curious about how much co2 we need to take out, along with the costs of such and so I asked chatGPT 5.1 and this is the reply. I have no way to verify as I am not familiar enough but doing some light searching does seem to indicate we are in the right zone here. Feel free to correct.

Reply:

“Good question — let’s run the numbers and then unpack some of the caveats.

⸻

The “$26 per ton” technology

You’re referring to a recent report of a carbon‐capture method that claims to trap ~99% of CO₂ for about US $26 per metric ton. 
(As a side note: this appears to be for a point‐source capture method, not necessarily full atmospheric removal, and is likely still in early stages.)

⸻

Annual cost to make a difference

If we assume we want to remove X gigatons (Gt) of CO₂ per year, and cost is $26/ton, then:
• 1 Gt = 1 billion tons → cost = $26 × 1 billion = $26 billion per year
• If target is ~7–9 Gt/year (as cited by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “State of CDR” report) 
• 7 Gt/year → $26 × 7 billion = $182 billion/yr
• 9 Gt/year → $26 × 9 billion = $234 billion/yr

So if that $26/ton cost is real and scalable, you’d be looking at on the order of $180-$240 billion per year for a major CO₂ removal program at the magnitude scientists suggest.

⸻

For how long?

The removal isn’t just a one-year thing; it needs to be sustained for decades. Some points:
• To meet the 1.5 °C pathway, models estimate 7–9 Gt/year by ~2050. 
• Some overshoot scenarios might require removal continuing into the latter half of the century.
• The total legacy CO₂ in atmosphere is very large (over 1,600 Gt since the pre-industrial era) so even sustained large annual removals just gradually reduce the stock.

If you assume 8 Gt/year for 30 years → 8 × 30 = 240 Gt removed over that period. At $26/ton → 240 billion tons × $26 = $6.24 trillion over 30 years.

⸻

Key caveats & what this really means
• The $26/ton figure is promising but early and may not include all costs (infrastructure, storage, monitoring, energy input, transport, land, etc).
• Many existing technologies cost much more than $26/ton. For example, current air-capture removal costs often exceed $100/ton and up to $1,000/ton for small scale systems. 
• Scalability: Removing billions of tons per year reliably, permanently, with measurement & verification, is still a major technical, logistical and financial hurdle.
• Removal is not a substitute for deep emissions cuts. The need to slash future emissions remains the top priority. 
• Duration: The storage must be long‐term (decades to centuries) to really count; otherwise you risk re-release or decay of storage.

⸻

Bottom line

If you could reliably remove CO₂ at $26/ton, then yes — you’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars per year to scale up to the ~7-9 Gt/year level needed by mid-century. Over decades it becomes a trillions-of-dollars investment. But the “cheap” cost is still theoretical/early, and many conditions must hold (scale, permanence, full life‐cycle cost, infrastructure, etc).”