> Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere?

Because it costs money.

Just not polluting in the first place is cheaper.

Nuclear is probably an important part of the future energy mix but now we discussed using nuclear energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere and I believe that would be a huge waste of resources compared to just not putting the carbon in the atmosphere in the first place.

Carbon capture is a scam.

Why do you think carbon capture is a scam? It's not going to replace reduction via reducing new emissions to zero like some people seem to think, but we're also going to need to pull a lot out of the carbon cycle - net zero isn't enough.

We should be pouring a huge amount of money into nuclear fission right now, it's the most straightforward way toward a zero target, and repetition/scale with large series of identical reactors and streamlined regulatory oversight will hopefully make it cost competitive with fossil fuels.

It's a scam because the cost of removing one ton of CO2 using carbon capture (assuming we're talking about direct air capture) is so high that very few would be ready to pay the price to remove their emissions. Again, reducing how much carbon emissions we produce is way cheaper.

I've got nothing against carbon capture technology in principle, but it's not a solution that will let us continue releasing carbon into the atmosphere at anywhere near the current rate.

Ah, but there are a bunch of other carbon capture solutions, DAC is usually considered among the highest cost.

But yeah, not emitting is cheaper in most cases, and you’re right, we can’t just slather carbon capture on our current situation and not change anything else.