Reply #9: The OP was referring to CO2 from conventional power plants ...

[eppur_se_muova]

which mostly burn coal. Underground/underwater "sequestration" (really, sweeping it under the rug) would not even be considered except that fossil fuels are being burned.

What you seem to be suggesting is switching to a process in which the fuel comes from wood or other biomass. That wasn't clear from your earlier post. (Mostly because I read too fast. )

If you're going to burn only biomass, then that's carbon neutral already, no further work needed there. No need to bring charcoal into the discussion on that basis -- it's an added extra, if you want to go that way, but not essential to carbon neutrality. I think what you're aiming for is converting some CO2 back to carbon in the soil -- justifiably, that could be referred to as biomass, or TRUE sequestration. So your goal is for a carbon-NEGATIVE system, if I read it correctly.

The OP (and, I thought, the response) was referring to what can be done with CO2 from disinterred fossil carbon. The only suggestion the Industrial Establishment can come up with is pumping it underground or underwater. It sounded like you were suggesting converting this fossil-produced CO2 *directly* to carbon, which I was saying is not at all practical.

The idea of charcoaling biomass to make both energy and charcoal might work, but I suspect the EROI would be poor. It would be kind of like firing coal to make coke, and then not using the coke for fuel. I can see a traditional community doing this to keep its agriculture sustainable, but not large-scale industrial interests. (This is not the same as saying it's not a good idea, just saying it's unlikely to happen in our world as it is.)

on edit: Didn't notice posts were from two different DU'ers. Apologies.