Show HN: Solid Carbon

OK, so, this obviously uses energy in order to do this work. How do we guarantee that that energy was produced in a carbon-neutral fashion? And how do we know that it's better to use the energy for this effort than simply directly using it for industry etc? Is there really such a surplus of energy that doing this makes sense, vs. using that surplus to decommission current mass-scale emitters of carbon (like coal plants)?

I find all this stuff to be too pie-in-the-sky to have any real chance at success. We're at what, ~400ppm of carbon right now? So to produce a single metric tonne of carbon, you need to process 2.5 billion metric tonnes of air? If my calculations from https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/weight-to-volume are correct, that's nearly 2 trillion cubic meters of air.

I think I need someone better at math because I don't trust those numbers, but all in all it seems like you'd need to have MASSIVE fans blowing tremendous amounts of air around, AND you'd have to capture at a very, very high rate, in order to get enough to be worth it. Surely all the energy spinning those fans cancels out tons of energy generated by wind power plants. What the hell's the point?