3 ms·

Interesting. The grand prize timeline is 4 years from now. That seems VERY fast. However, I like the aggressiveness- if this can produce viable demonstrations o

Interesting. The grand prize timeline is 4 years from now. That seems VERY fast. However, I like the aggressiveness- if this can produce viable demonstrations of the technology at anywhere near what the aformentioned Prometheus Fuels ($36/ton) claims, then that produces a huge line in the sand for policy makers on carbon pricing and mitigation. $36/ton would raise the price of gasoline about 36 cents. The cost to capture ALL 6.5B tons of US emissions would be about $236B per year, or 1.1% of GDP. I think even getting it down to a $100/ton would change the discussion. These are real, manageable numbers that should undermine opposition to mitigating climate change and get something resembling a carbon tax based on a feasible number. Policies like "A 39 cent/gallon tax on gasoline" is much more understandable and politically feasible then "you'll have to change everything you do." And then, once in place, we'll see the economic effects of taxing carbon accelerate movement away from carbon emitting solutions, which are already becoming non-competitive in many scenarios. None of this means we shouldn't do things SOONER, espicially since DACC might never get that cheap, but I like the way this XPrize has the potential to change people's political calculus. Sources: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php#:~:text=Carbon%20Dioxide%20Emissions%20Coefficients%20by%20Fuel%20%20,%20%2078.79%20%2021%20more%20rows%20 https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php#:... https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks#:~:text=1%20In%202019%2C%20U.S.%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions%20totaled,sector%29%20were%20nearly%2013%20percent%20below%202005%20levels https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas.... https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location...

spywaregorilla 5y ago
Is that price net of the carbon put into the environment by he energy used by this tech?
jandrewrogers 5y ago
I am skeptical of the $36/ton claim. The elephant in the room is that most of the proposed process chemistry does not have the necessary scale. If I need a billion tons of mined mineral per year to make a dent -- the reality for many of these proposals -- and current global production is a few thousand tons, you have a serious practicality problem. Not only would you need to develop those mines and the corresponding power generation facilities to manufacture the chemicals (which is energy intensive), we may not have the necessary mineral reserves. Addressing these all require massive amounts of capital investment that are not included in the cost per ton of the process at current scales. Buying a liter of water has completely different economics than buying a trillion liters of the same water, and the cost is always calculated as if it was the former case. While recycling of reactant chemicals is always a part of these proposals, they are typically only ~90% efficient as designed (each marginal increase in recycling efficiency tends to be exponentially more expensive). At the scales involved, that requires billions of tons of reactants being produced that don't exist today. It would be the largest mining and chemical manufacturing endeavor ever undertaken on the planet, starting from zero.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

Is that price net of the carbon put into the environment by he energy used by this tech?

jandrewrogers 5y ago

I am skeptical of the $36/ton claim. The elephant in the room is that most of the proposed process chemistry does not have the necessary scale. If I need a billion tons of mined mineral per year to make a dent -- the reality for many of these proposals -- and current global production is a few thousand tons, you have a serious practicality problem. Not only would you need to develop those mines and the corresponding power generation facilities to manufacture the chemicals (which is energy intensive), we may not have the necessary mineral reserves. Addressing these all require massive amounts of capital investment that are not included in the cost per ton of the process at current scales. Buying a liter of water has completely different economics than buying a trillion liters of the same water, and the cost is always calculated as if it was the former case. While recycling of reactant chemicals is always a part of these proposals, they are typically only ~90% efficient as designed (each marginal increase in recycling efficiency tends to be exponentially more expensive). At the scales involved, that requires billions of tons of reactants being produced that don't exist today. It would be the largest mining and chemical manufacturing endeavor ever undertaken on the planet, starting from zero.