. @stripe's commitment on carbon sequestration. I hope a lot more companies start to do this: https://stripe.com/gb/blog/negative-emissions-commitment …pic.twitter.com/PAU81izx9L
Show this thread
-
Have you seen any evidence that it would be possible to get near $10/tCO2 for DAC? I’m assuming it’ll end up around $100/tCO2, which is still plenty cheap for producing carbon-negative fuel ($1/gal extra) for aviation etc.
I've no idea - as I think we've discussed previously, the tech is all over the place at the moment (see, e.g., the National Academies Report). My general impression is just that no-one's tried very hard, at scale - it's not a though billions of dollars have been put into this.
-
-
In particular, that report, linked in the Stripe post, lists a bunch of tech well below $100. But none is (yet) scalable.
-
Funny, I remember talking to a solar cell expert circa 2000. Almost every single thing he told me about limits is now off by substantial multiplicative factors. And he was regarded as a wild optimist.
-
All that is to say: my inclination is to hope ARPA-E et al will make small investments in dozens or hundreds of different directions, trying to drive progress. Maybe there's some intrinsic bottleneck, and after 20 years and a few billion we'll have little progress
-
But if there's a 10% chance of significant progress, that money will have been extremely well spent.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
All very true. Given the thermodynamics and kinetics, I’m skeptical that even $1B would bring DAC costs below $50/tCO2, but even at $100/tCO2 we‘ll have all the tools we need to cost-effectively solve climate change.
-
What argument are you referring to?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.