4 ms·
They are not here to mitigate global warming. They plan to make big money. There is a market for natural gas, they have a precise estimate of costs (including
by joak 4y ago
They are not here to mitigate global warming. They plan to make big money.
There is a market for natural gas, they have a precise estimate of costs (including carbon capture) and their costs are lower than fracking. No new tech. No big upfront investments. Just deploy and get rich.
- leoedin 4y agoGiven the motivations of most humans, "deploy and get rich" seems like a good way to deal with CO2. The reason we're in this mess is because being CO2 neutral doesn't pay. If someone can find a way to profitably produce fuel while extracting CO2 from the atmosphere CO2 levels will be falling in no time. I hope this works. I also suspect that the inaccuracies of estimation will completely make or break this concept. If they can't achieve their theoretical efficiencies, or have other losses they didn't account for, the economics will fall apart. This is the fundamental problem with almost all "green" tech. The economics aren't there. The cost of fossil fuels ignores the cost of cleaning up. If there was serious money to be made in green tech, there would be serious investment. It feels like we're turning a corner in seed investment - but that's probably more because of hype rather than market fundamentals.
- maxerickson 4y agoIs all the stuff that works no longer "green" tech or something?
- leoedin 4y agoWhich stuff is that? Obviously there's been massive energy reductions across all sorts of industries - LED lights, hybrid cars, improved building standards - but they've clearly not solved the greenhouse gas problem. Solving that problem means making it more profitable to keep carbon in the ground than removing it.