1000 kWh/ton to sequester, and how many tons per kWh to generate?

EDIT: Apparently, one ton of CO2 is released by 1000 kWh of electricity:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11

So you have a coal plant generating energy and emitting CO2 just for this factory next to it to capture all that CO2 again. Seems more efficient to just not run the coal factory.

It seems like this idea will be worthwhile when the last coal factory closes.

It'll always be more efficient not to emit carbon.

Imagine you have a teaspoon of salt and a cup of water.

Adding salt into the water is dead simple and requires little energy. Now how hard is it to remove that teaspoon of salt?

That's effectively what's happening with the atmosphere.

two comments: they claim to sequester 1000 tons (1e6 kg) vs 22kg, so the sequestration space difference is on the order of 200000 difference. They may include the solar panel area in their stated efficiency calculation.

Secondly, the solar panels are a bit more liquid than a comparable area of trees, when industrial demand is high, you can route it there, when it's low, it can be working on sequestration. There are some advantages there. Especially considering the atmosphere is fairly homogeneous, but soil in proper condition for forests is less so.

Their plant is in Iceland and runs on geothermal

Geothermal is not good for global warming bc it is an additional source of energy which would normally be contained. The sun gives such amount of wattage and the earth can give so much wattage back to the universe. Nuclear, geothermal and fusion is stored energy like fossil fuel which adds to the heat in the atmosphere. Today that only amounts to 5% of global warming but if it's the only source of energy it could add more. CO2 is the focus right now bc it is continuous warming potential but the other energy forms have it too. Wind and solar is just "saving" sun energy from being instantly converted into heat and can be so used for our pleasure as it doesn't add to the input/output equation.

Heat waste is absolutely miniscule compared to the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun. As in, the Earth is continuously bombarded by 173 petawatts of solar radiation. So you can see why it would be worth trading some waste heat to reduce the retention of solar energy in the atmosphere.

This doesn't make too much sense in this case, the geothermal energy is being stored in chemical bonds in the carbon sequestration process and returned underground

Too late to edit, but I should qualify this:

They claim 4000 tons per year, I did the math on 4000 tons per day. So ~3-4 acres of PV to power, not 1000 acres.

To completely counteract the 37 billion tons per year produced worldwide, and do it with PV only, assuming desert southwest conditions, would require ~30 million acres of PV. That sounds impossibly high, but is only about the size of the US state of Mississippi. 20% of the land area of Texas, on the El Paso side, would be sufficient to keep pace with the entire world's carbon dioxide emissions.

I remain skeptical that this is the most cost-effective approach, as well as skeptical of its ability to scale, but I apologize for crapping on it at first gloss.