> Per calculations upthread, the energy cost of DAC isn't that huge All I’ve seen so far are speculations based on a small prototype in Iceland that is still v

> Per calculations upthread, the energy cost of DAC isn't that huge All I’ve seen so far are speculations based on a small prototype in Iceland that is still very expensive and has access to free energy. I’ve had to add up the costs that you list myself (you are not giving any numbers), and it ends up being a prohibitively expensive gallon of fuel—an order of magnitude more expensive than it is now. How is that reasonable when most states would lose their head with a 10% increase? My concern is that most of the time, the math goes: “Let’s assume electricity is free, and people somehow still want to drive an ICE.” and conclude with, “We just have to continue subsidizing a pathologically dangerous pollution by 90%.” hoping to capitalize on the heads of states fear of a revolution. I can see why that looks tempting to people who refuse to admit that we must shift away from fossil fuels and latch on to plans to paint their industrial assets as renewable. Still, it ends up being an inefficient Rube-Goldberg machine, where adding solar panels on the roof of wherever you need energy works. I’m all for failing convincingly, but you must admit when it’s not working. I’ve heard that mining equipment was too large and could never be electrified… Those converted the fastest (custom engines, high torque, regenerative power, far away from fuel supply but sunny/windy location) and with glee (lower maintenance when technicians have to fly in by helicopter). Prototype boats and airplanes can work “indefinitely” because solar panels can generate enough energy for them to work 24/7. I’ve yet to hear about a single industrial process that needs carbon-chain fuel to work.