. @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
-
Ah: thermodynamics is easier to overcome: you “just” need free power/heat, for example from an Allam cycle plant or SMR. Kinetics = at 450ppm you need large air contractors that are hard to make cheap enough (including structural support) to get too far below $100/tCO2.
I'm afraid I don't understand either argument. (For calibration in explanation: my background is mainly theoretical physics, with a smattering of other stuff. ) I'd be very interested if you wouldn't mind expanding over a few tweets!
-
-
Most common argument against DAC is that CO2 is so diffuse in atmosphere (~420ppm) that it takes way more energy to capture than from flue gas. True enough, but only relevant as long as your DAC cost is dominated by energy requirements.
-
With a source of waste heat, you can cook the CO2 off a compound that then passively reabsorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, and at that point you just need a source of cheap zero-carbon electricity to run the fans to blow air over it (much like a big air conditioner does).
- 4 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.