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.
-
The contractors can’t be very light, which means you need a big strong structure to hold them in place against gravity, and against the air you’re blowing through/over them. That puts a lower bound on the capital cost of your DAC equipment.
These sound very design-specific. Are they fundamental arguments about physics, or more heuristic, about particular approaches? (That's what they sound like - much like arguments I used to hear that so-and-so was the limit to transistor density. But maybe I"m misunderstanding?)
-
-
(They are, nonetheless, very interesting - I'm taking some time to try to unpack them!)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They’re heuristic, but I think they’re general enough to apply to all the best DAC approaches under development, but a quantitative analysis from first principles is beyond my current skills.
-
That said, I think any approach that bypasses these limits would be qualitatively different enough to not really be DAC. Enhanced weathering, which the Stripe announcement mentions, is one such possibility there.
- 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.