4 ms·

Even in the long term, it seems like you'd want to grab CO2 from point-sources. Sure you might need to also grab CO2 from open-air if you reach such a scale, b

by _Nat_ 7y ago

Even in the long term, it seems like you'd want to grab CO2 from point-sources. Sure you might need to also grab CO2 from open-air if you reach such a scale, but even at that point open-air would just be a supplement rather than the sole source (unless there's a reason to favor open-air exclusively?). So why start with open-air capture? Just seems weird to burn cash on a more expensive way of accomplishing the same goal.

NortySpock 7y ago
It takes time to integrate technology with existing utilities or businesses, rather than just renting a building and opening a window. I agree, they're going for the harder problem, but it's also the most scalable solution.
- _Nat_ 7y ago
  > I agree, they're going for the harder problem, but it's also the most scalable solution. It's not really harder, just more expensive. When major point-sources give off CO2, it's more concentrated. Once it gets into the atmosphere, the entropy goes up, and that entropy cost must be repaid to capture it again. Technical challenges aside, it's still another cost to be paid, making it more expensive. I think people like the idea of open-air capture because it's just so easy to imagine. I'd guess that it's also easier to pitch to non-technical investors, largely because it sounds so elegant in its simplicity. I just don't see how it makes much technical or business sense, beyond that sex appeal -- which, to be fair, I can appreciate having its own uses. Honestly, I'm skeptical that a robust analysis of the economics would yield a favorable conclusion. But the market isn't entirely rational, and I can imagine a strategy that sacrifices a measure of fiscal viability for sex appeal potentially profiting for it -- I'm guessing most when pitching to investors, but potentially when pitching to policy makers and the general public? Which I think is what I find so interesting here. I mean, this doesn't look like a technically optimal strategy to me, but perhaps that isn't necessarily a bad thing? This is, say that they optimize the plan in a fiscal sense -- would it still get funding from investors? Would people still want to buy into it as hard? Would the HackerNews thread still have so many positive comments?
  - wazoox 7y ago
    Investors financed total nonsense such as solar roads. You don't need to be efficient to get VC money, particularly nowadays with loads of free cash from the central banks and low interest rates.

by _Nat_ 7y ago

NortySpock 7y ago

It takes time to integrate technology with existing utilities or businesses, rather than just renting a building and opening a window. I agree, they're going for the harder problem, but it's also the most scalable solution.

_Nat_ 7y ago
> I agree, they're going for the harder problem, but it's also the most scalable solution. It's not really harder, just more expensive. When major point-sources give off CO2, it's more concentrated. Once it gets into the atmosphere, the entropy goes up, and that entropy cost must be repaid to capture it again. Technical challenges aside, it's still another cost to be paid, making it more expensive. I think people like the idea of open-air capture because it's just so easy to imagine. I'd guess that it's also easier to pitch to non-technical investors, largely because it sounds so elegant in its simplicity. I just don't see how it makes much technical or business sense, beyond that sex appeal -- which, to be fair, I can appreciate having its own uses. Honestly, I'm skeptical that a robust analysis of the economics would yield a favorable conclusion. But the market isn't entirely rational, and I can imagine a strategy that sacrifices a measure of fiscal viability for sex appeal potentially profiting for it -- I'm guessing most when pitching to investors, but potentially when pitching to policy makers and the general public? Which I think is what I find so interesting here. I mean, this doesn't look like a technically optimal strategy to me, but perhaps that isn't necessarily a bad thing? This is, say that they optimize the plan in a fiscal sense -- would it still get funding from investors? Would people still want to buy into it as hard? Would the HackerNews thread still have so many positive comments?
- wazoox 7y ago
  Investors financed total nonsense such as solar roads. You don't need to be efficient to get VC money, particularly nowadays with loads of free cash from the central banks and low interest rates.