Legitimate question, but the answer is simple: No.

The cost of CO2 capture largely depends on the concentration of CO2. Transport is relatively cheap. If you capture from the atmosphere, that's the most expensive thing you could possibly do. That's also why people try all kinds of things to increase CO2 concentration. Like Oxyfuel technology, which basically means you're burning without nitrogen, so what you end up with has a higher CO2 content.

It's also why CCS is hard in industries where by design CO2 concentration in the exhaust is low (Aluminium is one of them), and why most of the existing CCS projects are at facilities that by design have high CO2 concentrations (mainly gas upgraders).

It's cheaper to capture it where it is concentrated, at the source (eg. power plants).

Is the efficiency gained by capturing it from a stronger concentration enough to offset the costs of building pipelines?

Why not burn wood in a room near the destination site and get extremely concentrated CO2 right there and capture that instead?

Are pipelines somehow even more economical than that?

I think it's better to charcoal the wood and burry the charcoal. If charcoal is stored properly, it takes a lot of time to decompose and keep the carbon down there for a long time. And it has less storage problems than CO2 that is a gas and wants to escape.

Probably instead of wood, it would be better to use other agricultural waste. For example here, some sugar factories use the rests of the sugarcane ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagasse ) to burn it and produce heat and electricity. I'm not sure if it can be charcoaled and buried instead.

Because then you have to transport the wood to the site, transport the ash (etc.) off the site, and build something useful to do with the produced energy. Most of that would be trucks or ships if it's on a navigable waterway.

Oil and pipeline companies are building pipes to move gases because it is the cheapest way to do it.

There's nothing remotely economical about capturing CO2 in the first place. But if you're dead set on doing it, it costs the least to do it where the CO2 concentration is the highest (where it's produced.)

Carbon capture is not a solution to anything except further enriching fossil fuel companies. It's a big fat scam, the only real solutions to climate change are renewable energy and nuclear power.

There's nothing shady about this practice. It's simple science.

The shady part is when you tell people it's carbon capture, with a clear hint of helping avoid CO2 emissions, when actually the end state is even more oil out of the well.

Yes, it's called Carbon Capture and Storage. Once we switch to renewables and don't need this oil any more, the expensive fancy plant is useless as it is only designed to store carbon that one way.

I have not seen any convincing evidence of the Economic _feasibility_ of Carbon Capture irrespective of the scientific _possibility_ of Carbon Capture.

Forgive the general public's skepticism but so far Carbon Capture comes across very much like another greenwashing attempt from industries that will drag their feet into emissions reduction.

Good point.

The answer is: Ridiculously high Government subsidies.

In other words, this is simply a stealth tax on the public where the only winners are corporations which benefit via very generous tax credits.

It's ANOTHER subsidy for the fossil industry. We (earth) already pay [1] them around us$1T/yr to accelerate our demise. CO2 offset subsidies are on top of this [2].

So instead of stopping X, we pay them to continue X and then pay them to cook some books about X. Insane. We will be the first species driven to extinction because the alternative wasn't profitable.

[1] https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidi...

[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carbon_credit.asp

Oh, don't worry too much. As a Nobel Prize winning economist once said, Agriculture is an industry affected heavily by climate change, but it's only worth 2% of world GDP.