3 ms·

Today at lab scale it is quite high at >$1000 ton. At the 1 million ton per year scale, we expect our process to come in at <$100/ton.

hgomersall 5y ago
Obviously, if you achieve that it's a huge victory. Best of luck!
- markcyffka 5y ago
  Thank you - we appreciate it!
cinntaile 5y ago
So as long as CO2 certificates are more expensive than your solution, it makes sense to opt for your solution? Do you see any other scenario's where companies will want to use your solution? Is this the cost including storage? Does this use amines as well or is it a different chemical reaction?
- markcyffka 5y ago
  Lots of good questions - thanks. As long as a) the total cost people are willing to pay for CO2 removal gives sufficient margins vs. the cost required to capture it, b) the end-to-end process actually removes substantially more CO2 than it emits, c) the resources allocated to pursue more CO2 removal makes sense vs. other uses (biased, but we think so), and d) the sequestration is done in a well-characterized & verifiable way, we think it makes sense. Many companies & stakeholders are working right now to define in what contexts CO2 removal makes sense for them. We have LOIs from multiple companies who want access to our CO2 removal capacity as soon as it becomes available. The CO2 captured from our process could be used for any number of applications if there is an economic/policy reason to pursue it. Fuels, fertilizers, and many other materials can use CO2 as a feedstock, and many startups are actively working on this problem from different angles. Startups are injecting atmospheric CO2 into concrete with great success. There is no reason we couldn't adjust our business model to divert CO2 captured with our process to these applications. Our <$100/ton cost projection includes storage. PNNL has some great public resources, including on Youtube, that go into more detail the total cost of storage. Can't comment on what chemistry we use, but amines are effective at capturing CO2 and have been used industrially for that purpose for decades.
_fizz_buzz_ 5y ago
<$100/ton If you'll achieve that then this has to be done. France has a CO2 emissions of about 5ton per capita per year (which is pretty low for an industrial nation). But if we get all industrial countries into that ballpark or even lower, then we could just invest another $500 per person each year and are at net zero.
- markcyffka 5y ago
  Thanks for the comment. Companies that are very action-oriented on slashing their emissions are already starting to look to CO2 removal projects as the next frontier to maximize their impact, now that the lowest-hanging emissions reductions are complete. Public sector entities (cities, states/provinces, countries) may be in the wings. We agree that eliminating CO2 emissions must be the primary & most urgent goal, while CO2 removal solutions like ours can be developed in parallel to meet immediate early market demand & prepare (e.g. get costs down, validate & improve the tech, get the regulations set up) for future deployment.

hgomersall 5y ago

Obviously, if you achieve that it's a huge victory. Best of luck!

markcyffka 5y ago
Thank you - we appreciate it!

cinntaile 5y ago

So as long as CO2 certificates are more expensive than your solution, it makes sense to opt for your solution? Do you see any other scenario's where companies will want to use your solution? Is this the cost including storage? Does this use amines as well or is it a different chemical reaction?

markcyffka 5y ago
Lots of good questions - thanks. As long as a) the total cost people are willing to pay for CO2 removal gives sufficient margins vs. the cost required to capture it, b) the end-to-end process actually removes substantially more CO2 than it emits, c) the resources allocated to pursue more CO2 removal makes sense vs. other uses (biased, but we think so), and d) the sequestration is done in a well-characterized & verifiable way, we think it makes sense. Many companies & stakeholders are working right now to define in what contexts CO2 removal makes sense for them. We have LOIs from multiple companies who want access to our CO2 removal capacity as soon as it becomes available. The CO2 captured from our process could be used for any number of applications if there is an economic/policy reason to pursue it. Fuels, fertilizers, and many other materials can use CO2 as a feedstock, and many startups are actively working on this problem from different angles. Startups are injecting atmospheric CO2 into concrete with great success. There is no reason we couldn't adjust our business model to divert CO2 captured with our process to these applications. Our <$100/ton cost projection includes storage. PNNL has some great public resources, including on Youtube, that go into more detail the total cost of storage. Can't comment on what chemistry we use, but amines are effective at capturing CO2 and have been used industrially for that purpose for decades.

_fizz_buzz_ 5y ago

<$100/ton If you'll achieve that then this has to be done. France has a CO2 emissions of about 5ton per capita per year (which is pretty low for an industrial nation). But if we get all industrial countries into that ballpark or even lower, then we could just invest another $500 per person each year and are at net zero.

markcyffka 5y ago
Thanks for the comment. Companies that are very action-oriented on slashing their emissions are already starting to look to CO2 removal projects as the next frontier to maximize their impact, now that the lowest-hanging emissions reductions are complete. Public sector entities (cities, states/provinces, countries) may be in the wings. We agree that eliminating CO2 emissions must be the primary & most urgent goal, while CO2 removal solutions like ours can be developed in parallel to meet immediate early market demand & prepare (e.g. get costs down, validate & improve the tech, get the regulations set up) for future deployment.