[HN Gopher] Prometheus Fuels (YC W19) Closes Series B with $1.5B...
___________________________________________________________________
Prometheus Fuels (YC W19) Closes Series B with $1.5B Valuation
Author : alexose
Score : 102 points
Date : 2021-09-23 16:02 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (prometheusfuels.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (prometheusfuels.com)
| kaycebasques wrote:
| There was a lot of excitement around this business in their
| Launch HN post [1]. I recall the reception being positive and the
| technology sounding legit, not snake oil. Pretty cool to see that
| they've been plugging away and must have got the interest of some
| big players.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240
| endisneigh wrote:
| I admire the attempt to make your site really cool, but jeez it's
| so unusable. Perhaps the most "form over function" site I've used
| in years.
|
| Please use a million or so and just make the website a static
| site.
| jacquesm wrote:
| But if they had had a static website they wouldn't have had
| funding.
| destitude wrote:
| Doesn't work properly for me in Safari version I am using
| (13.1.3).. I see no text or images.. just some logo.
| lancesells wrote:
| I think you could have both. Static home page with a link to
| "Experience Prometheus".
| tedmcory77 wrote:
| I really enjoyed Prometheus's launch discussion here on HN. I've
| followed them on a regular basis because I believe in their
| vision and mission largely because of Rob's responses here on HN.
| I'm glad to see they've got funding for the next steps to start
| scaling.
| aww_dang wrote:
| Feasibility aside, this is exactly what people want to hear
| today. Eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere and sell gasoline. You
| have to give them credit for the pitch, regardless of what is or
| isn't delivered.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I have this great idea about doing blood assays for all of the
| common tests out there out of a little pinprick worth of blood
| from your fingertip. It's exactly what people want to hear
| today. How about some funding?
| aww_dang wrote:
| Yes, Theranos raised money. If Prometheus goes that way the
| failure mode may be different.
|
| "Our process works, but it isn't profitable."
|
| "It isn't profitable, but we deserve subsidies..."
|
| "It isn't profitable _now_ , but with carbon trading right
| around the corner we will be wildly profitable _in the near
| future_ "
| alexose wrote:
| It definitely passes the Mr. Burns test:
| https://twitter.com/sethbannon/status/1214215295969030148
| ttobbaybbob wrote:
| They seem to be heavy on vision, marketing and zero-net-carbon
| partnerships with huge brands, light on technical detail (i
| wouldn't hate some links to papers or a PoC of their reactor or
| something), all of which feels a little Nikola-y.
|
| Thin articles touching on the technology:
| https://prometheusfuels.com/on-the-road/meet-our-v3-faraday-...
| https://prometheusfuels.com/on-the-road/worlds-1st-machine-t...
|
| Hopefully someone can chime in with an explanation of why the
| technology is viable now (and not in the past) or why Prometheus
| is equipped to execute on this vision.
| mbesto wrote:
| And how a physical good/energy company that is worth $1.5B only
| has 20 employees...
| splistud wrote:
| Definitely better valuations on Canadian companies in the
| carbon-neutral 'area', and better ideas in my opinion
| ttul wrote:
| You're missing the link: https://carbonengineering.com/
| sayonaraman wrote:
| most of that funding must have paid for the animations
| kolbe wrote:
| Welcome to 2021. In a few years, Chase Coleman will pick up
| large stake in this company, take it public and financially
| engineer it enough to stuff it into the S&P at a $500bn
| valuation.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| Oh yeah. Added to $ARKK and the whole nine yards.
| whymauri wrote:
| non equity baring contractors. is my guess, at least.
| rasz wrote:
| Its nothing like Nikola, its Faraday!
| alexose wrote:
| I've done a decent amount of research on Prometheus Fuels, and
| I'm a believer.
|
| They've licensed a couple of key technologies out of Oak Ridge.
| First is a catalyst that converts CO2 + H2O + electricity
| directly into ethanol. The other is a membrane with parallel
| carbon nanotubes that are just the right size to filter that
| ethanol. The rest of the business involves the chemical
| conversion of pure ethanol into other types of hydrocarbons.
|
| The result is the ability to efficiently create carbon-netural
| fuel, effectively capturing a percentage of the electricity as
| gasoline (or jet fuel, etc).
|
| Of course, this is less energy efficient than simply burning
| fuel that you found in the ground. The advantage is that they
| can bypass the expensive drilling, refining, and transportation
| steps and use cheap renewable energy to create fuel literally
| anywhere they can stick a shipping container.
|
| That's the goal, anyway. I really hope they succeed.
| trhway wrote:
| I myself don't like much how my brain sees Musk everywhere,
| yet I think similar methanol production will first come from
| SpaceX for Mars.
|
| Also i wonder whether moonshine style distillation is worse
| than the carbon nanotubes membrane filtration, especially if
| you have a source of cheap waste heat.
| uranium wrote:
| Distillation is pretty expensive, energy-wise, and if you
| can't run continuously [e.g. if you're trying to use cheap
| intermittent renewables] you lose energy in the cooling-
| and-reheating cycles.
|
| I have yet to see a significant source of usable "waste"
| heat that's not already being used for something else. Low-
| grade heat isn't helpful--you generally need reasonably
| high temperature differentials in order to power large-
| scale industrial processes.
|
| [Disclosure: I've invested in Prometheus Fuels, but don't
| speak for them.]
| alexose wrote:
| How were you able to invest, if you don't mind me asking?
| trhway wrote:
| >Distillation is pretty expensive, energy-wise,
|
| Moonshining is less than 400 KJ per kg of source, i.e.
| about 1.5 KWh per kg of ethanol produced from 15%
| ethanol/water source. Given that one can use waste heat
| from almost any other industrial process the real
| monetary cost is way less than the cost of electrical 1.5
| KWh.
|
| >I have yet to see a significant source of usable "waste"
| heat that's not already being used for something else.
| Low-grade heat isn't helpful--you generally need
| reasonably high temperature differentials in order to
| power large-scale industrial processes.
|
| Moonshining is 78 C degree - such cheap waste heat
| sources are plentiful exactly because it is hard to use
| for almost anything else.
|
| >you lose energy in the cooling-and-reheating cycles.
|
| not an issue for a 78 C process - basically like your
| water boiler, takes minimum of thermal isolation.
| corpdronejuly wrote:
| Well that answers my question about crypto waste heat and
| useful work.
| corpdronejuly wrote:
| I've often wondered if I could justify a crypto mining rig
| if I used the waste heat for something, literally anything,
| useful. The tech is interesting and I want to for the sake
| of "doing something cool" but the environmental cost has me
| iffy on ever trying.
| uranium wrote:
| Heat your house?
|
| https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530072-800-the-
| comp...
| cfgghsj wrote:
| I found this article written by the CEO in a journal outlining
| some technical details.
| https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-4351(20)30002-7.pdf
|
| His breakthrough technology is supposed to be the carbon
| nanotube membrane as explained here.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240
|
| But, the two papers he cited in the Joule article don't go as
| far as actually separating water and ethanol. It's questionable
| whether this is possible or has been done successfully yet.
| https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-0068/25/04/4...
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700938
| lowercase1 wrote:
| Yeah the tech seems feasible but I'm skeptical of controlling
| capital costs when you need carbon nanotubes membranes as a
| core piece.
|
| Air capture is also quite expensive and I'm not sure how much
| the "only need small concentrations of CO2" trick does.
| alexose wrote:
| I think it's fair to assume that this technology is feasible
| at this point. McGinnis' other company, Mattershift,
| specializes in these kinds of membranes. IIRC they started in
| the desalination world, but have since found other
| applications.
|
| https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/03/20180310-mattershif.
| ..
| beambot wrote:
| Some of the technical details:
|
| https://www.science.org/news/2019/07/former-playwright-aims-...
| [deleted]
| tlogan wrote:
| I hope they will do it. I see Rob McGinnis (their CEO) has a
| PhD. Did he publish some papers on this topic before?
| rmcginnis wrote:
| If you'd like to see some of my publications (including old
| desalination stuff), check out my Google Scholar page:
| https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=t4ZIFUoAAAAJ&hl=en
| sschueller wrote:
| Another Elizabeth Holmes?
| outside1234 wrote:
| What's the catch? Does the fuel cost $10 a gallon?
| jack_riminton wrote:
| I can't point you to where because the scrolling but mid-page
| it said it costs the same as regular fuel
| rmcginnis wrote:
| One cent per gallon less than the fossil jet fuel spot price -
| in California (we will use LCFS credits to start)
| rasz wrote:
| The catch is there is no fuel.
| neonate wrote:
| Here's the relevant text, since the website makes it hard to get
| to.
|
| _We're excited to announce the close of our Series B funding
| round, with investment by Maersk, Metaplanet, and BMW. As a
| result of the round, we've achieved a $1.5 Billion valuation,
| making us the world's first electrofuels unicorn._
|
| _This month, we received strong support from the White House, as
| well as some of world's largest, most iconic brands that have
| been nothing short of bold in backing innovative tech to
| decarbonize their industries -- American Airlines, Maersk, and
| BMW. Their support marks a rising recognition of the incredible
| promise that our zero net carbon electrofuels hold in getting the
| planet to Net Zero by 2050._
|
| _On September 9, the Biden administration included Prometheus
| and our zero net carbon electro-Sustainable Aviation Fuel, or
| electro-SAF, in its plan to phase out fossil jet fuel and make
| aviation carbon neutral by 2050._
|
| _American Airlines, responding to the White House's goal, cited
| our zero net carbon electro-SAF as key to decarbonizing its
| fleet, which, at over 880 aircraft, is the world's largest. The
| airline's support came on the heels of its recent agreement to
| buy 10 million gallons of our fuel._
|
| _Said Doug Parker, American Airlines Chairman and CEO: "We're
| excited to partner with Prometheus to scale up the production of
| zero net carbon electrofuels. Their ability to produce 100%
| carbon neutral SAF at a price lower than fossil jet fuel and to
| not be limited in the scale of future production is the strongest
| indicator we've seen that a 100% carbon neutral aviation future
| can be achieved in time."_
|
| _Maersk Growth, the venture arm of A.P. Moller - Maersk, led our
| Series B round. Maersk, the world's largest container logistics
| company, responsible for moving nearly 17% of the world's
| container capacity, has been a take-no-prisoners, accept-no-half-
| measures trailblazer in decarbonizing its operations and the
| maritime shipping industry at large._
|
| _So we were honored when Maersk's Head of Decarbonization,
| Morten Bo Christiansen, had this to say: "Prometheus Fuels is
| developing a very exciting and innovative technology to produce
| carbon based electrofuels from direct air capture of CO2.
| Electrofuels are expected to play a key role for the
| decarbonisation of shipping and, if scaled successfully,
| Prometheus Fuels' technology will address a key constraint for
| carbon based electrofuels -- namely the cost competitiveness of
| direct air capture."_
|
| _BMW i Ventures, who led our Series A round last year, doubled-
| down to join our Series B as well._
| quadrature wrote:
| Thanks!, their website is completely unusable so this helps a
| ton.
| rmcginnis wrote:
| Working on it!
| uxcolumbo wrote:
| What does everyone think of the website?
|
| Heavy on animation, can't select text, uses the canvas element
| which isn't great for accessibility.
|
| If this would be a 'normal' html website with those videos
| embedded - would this make a difference how you perceive the
| company and their tech?
|
| Great tech though - hope they can scale it. Need to throw
| everything we got at this climate crisis.
| truthwhisperer wrote:
| hope your technology works better than your website
| BLanen wrote:
| Using organic fuels as a battery(which this essentially proposes)
| with internal combustion engines is extremely inefficient.
|
| This seems more like a device to capture subsidies.
| rmcginnis wrote:
| Hi everybody, I'm the founder of Prometheus. Happy to answer any
| questions!
| rmcginnis wrote:
| Sorry to all about the drop in website performance. Working on
| it!
| alexose wrote:
| I'm curious if Prometheus has considered any options for
| permanent sequestration. Perhaps buying an old oil rig and
| pumping electro fuel back into it.
|
| It's obviously hard to find an economic incentive to do this,
| but maybe carbon credits would make it possible.
| Voloskaya wrote:
| How would that be better for the environment though?
|
| Unless we have a way to electrify all planes (we don't
| currently), this is the next best thing. I think the key is
| to ensure biofuel never gets cheaper than regular fuel, to
| avoid incentivizing flying more.
|
| If you sequester what you pull out in some old oil well,
| while American Airlines is pumping out from the next oil
| well, it has to be less effective (and thus release more CO2
| in the process), than just you sending your oil from captured
| carbon directly to them.
| pkrein wrote:
| If the founders are around... trying to understand their
| economics. They claim to sell Jet A at the market clearing price.
| Jet A goes for $0.45/L. The lowest industrial electricity rates
| in the US are $0.05/kWh (double that in California where they are
| selling today.) With 100% efficiency, no capital costs and no
| other opex, you get $0.05/kWh * 9.5 kWh/L = $0.47/L electrofuel
| Jet A. How can that work?
| sacred_numbers wrote:
| Their system is designed to easily start and stop to take
| advantage of wholesale wind and solar electricity rates, which
| are more like $0.02/kWh during certain parts of the day and
| times of the year. They sacrifice uptime for even cheaper
| electricity. If their capital costs and fixed opex are low
| enough this is a good strategy.
|
| Here's an article about this strategy form the CEO:
| https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-4351(20)30002-7.pdf
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| make it up on volume?
| rmcginnis wrote:
| In order to make electrofuels cost competitive, you've got to
| use new utility scale solar, which is now less than $0.02/kWh :
| https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/08/saudi-arabias-second-...
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-sola...
|
| Assume an overall efficiency of approx. 40% to be conservative.
| pkrein wrote:
| Ok so the 40% efficiency and 2.5x reduction in electricity
| prices cancel each other out... we're still at electricity
| costs == energy in the jet fuel. No room for electrofuel
| plant capex or any other electrofuel plant opex. And to get
| those low electricity prices you have to only run your plant
| at 30% duty cycle when the sun is shining (3x capex).
|
| How does capex and other opex fit in?
| caust1c wrote:
| Subsidies, closed grid electric sources, could be anything!
|
| (Not claiming it's feasible, but playing devils advocate
| because of course I'm hopeful)
| yumraj wrote:
| > How can that work?
|
| Theranos 2.0 ?
| qqqwerty wrote:
| There is probably a fair bit of wishful thinking going on, but
| that is essentially a perquisite for starting a company like
| this. The pessimists don't get very far.
|
| But something worth considering, in academic circles the "old"
| school of thought was that we could get a high penetration of
| renewable energy by building sufficient transmission capacity
| (i.e. send electricity from sunny/windy areas to places where
| it is not). The "new" school of thought is that instead of
| investing in transmission, invest in significantly overbuilding
| capacity. Think 3-4x the peak demand vs peak supply (i.e. in
| the summer months, if you have 100MW peak demand, build
| 300-400MW solar/wind). The rough idea is that renewables are so
| cheap and long term storage and transmission are so expensive,
| that it is better to just massively overbuild renewables and
| rely on shorter term storage to fill in the gaps.
|
| And one major side affect of a strategy like this is that we
| will have a ton of extra electricity that we don't know what to
| do with during certain periods of time. This would be a great
| time to spin up carbon capture devices (among other industrial
| uses). There are still a lot of things that need to fall into
| place for a future like this to happen, but if you are trying
| to "skate to where the puck is going to be" it is not a bad
| target to aim for. There are plenty of well funded energy
| focused startups/companies that operating on worse future
| assumptions.
| tbojanin wrote:
| This website gave safari a heart attack
| jonny_eh wrote:
| This site is so hard to navigate/scroll, it's a shame because
| this seems like interesting tech.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Not surprised to see all the criticism of the website, as of
| course this is HN. But for me it loaded instantly and I
| absolutely loved the experience.
|
| That said, the technology seems suspect. Carbon nanotubes are
| just as hard to use today as they were twenty years ago.
| moneywoes wrote:
| This seems to good to be true. What's the catch?
| setgree wrote:
| Trying to click this on my phone in a low-service area (I waited
| 10 seconds and got nowhere besides a loading screen) is a great
| reminder of why companies should strive to have at least some of
| their materials -- anything related to fundraising is a good
| candidate -- in plaintext.
| caymanjim wrote:
| I'm on high speed Internet and the loading animation was slowly
| spinning long enough for me to close the tab without seeing
| anything else.
| dr_orpheus wrote:
| Same for me.
| dukecitypal wrote:
| Why convert methanol to gasoline when you can directly convert it
| into electricity using a reformer and HT-PEM fuelcell?
|
| https://www.advent.energy/advent-power-stacks/
| splistud wrote:
| Because gasoline is also an extremely useful product
| jmpman wrote:
| If Norway took their entire sovereign wealth fund from the
| extraction of oil, and spent it on carbon capture, what
| percentage of carbon they extracted through their oil industry,
| could they recover? 0.1% 1% 100% ?
| whirlwin wrote:
| Judging by the name, I thought it was something else. They can
| still make a fuel_exporter though!
| sethbannon wrote:
| I'm confused about how this is on the front page. The title says
| they've raised a Series B at a big valuation but the link is just
| their marketing page, with no mention whatsoever of a raise.
| alexose wrote:
| Sorry, I'm not sure what happened there. The actual release is
| tucked away on their blog:
|
| https://prometheusfuels.com/on-the-road/prometheus-is-first-...
| contravariant wrote:
| Dear god, it's just text but somehow they've managed to make
| it equally unusable as their overdesigned homepage.
| earksiinni wrote:
| Serious question for all atmospheric carbon capture companies:
|
| What happens once you're super successful and atmospheric carbon
| densities are dramatically lower? Is there a point at which the
| density is too low for the economics to work?
|
| Would be an awesome problem to have.
| achenatx wrote:
| we burn the generated fuel and cycle the carbon again. The fuel
| essentially acts like a battery. You would have to use
| renewable energy to power the capture.
| earksiinni wrote:
| Duh! Obviously ( _headdesk_ :-)
|
| I guess I was thinking more of CCS, but for fuel it makes
| total sense.
| alexose wrote:
| I can't wait for that to be a problem :)
|
| Most carbon capture schemes like this tend to have some sort of
| concentration step, often using amine sorbents or other
| chemical equivalents. The atmospheric concentration doesn't
| tend to be the bottleneck here, from what I can tell.
|
| There is the question of "what happens when we're at pre-
| industrial carbon levels", which yeah, means that we'll have to
| stop getting our carbon straight from the atmosphere :)
| betaby wrote:
| Looks like Theranos to me.
| hsavit1 wrote:
| Why should anyone be excited about reusing captured C02 as fuel
| for gasoline? The climate crisis is incredibly dire, do not
| forget. We are rapidly sleepwaliking into a catastrophic 2
| degrees C of warming.
| rhinoceraptor wrote:
| EV passenger cars are feasible for the average person today.
| But without an order of magnitude leap in battery tech, it's
| never going to be feasible to electrify planes, cargo ships,
| farm equipment, etc.
|
| Other carbon capture tech doesn't have a useful end product, so
| the only incentive for it to exist is to offset other carbon
| emissions in some sort of larger cap and trade or carbon tax
| scheme. So it would be great if this also drives down the price
| of carbon capture in general.
| jpm_sd wrote:
| Didn't Google X try out something similar, and then decided it
| was uneconomical?
|
| https://x.company/projects/foghorn/
| rmcginnis wrote:
| Project Foghorn was technically successful but couldn't hit the
| economics. The tech lead on that project is now a scientific
| advisor for Prometheus - Matt Eisaman
| nradov wrote:
| The US Navy continues to research similar technology for
| manufacturing synthetic kerosene out of sea water onboard
| aircraft carriers. They aren't too concerned about economics.
| Their goal is to reduce the amount of jet fuel they have to
| haul around.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| It helps having more power onboard than they know what to do
| with, thanks to a handy nuclear reactor.
| mbesto wrote:
| > Their goal is to reduce the amount of jet fuel they have to
| haul around.
|
| Which has economic consequences :)
| nradov wrote:
| No it's more about survivability. Tankers are a vulnerable
| part of the logistic train. And storing large amounts of
| fuel is a fire risk.
| mbesto wrote:
| Ok let's get pedantic.
|
| Not having to store fuel means:
|
| - I have to spend less money on logistics because I don't
| have to put out fires, I don't have to train people to
| put out fires, I don't have to hire people, etc. etc.
|
| - Less fuel needed to be held means more working capital
| needed for energy consumption, less time to fuel up.
|
| - Less fire risk means I have to allocate less money for
| risk based allocations (insurance, hospitalization for
| people getting burnt, emergency planning and services
| required to deal with fires, etc.)
|
| - Less fuel means the cost to create an aircraft carrier
| is much less
|
| - A smaller fuel tank required means a smaller overall
| aircraft carrier, which means I spend less
|
| - etc etc.
|
| This is by all means an economic decision.
| nradov wrote:
| No that's nonsense. The ships will still have all the
| same fire fighting equipment and they will continue the
| same damage control training for crews. If this fuel
| synthesis technology is built into future aircraft
| carriers then they won't be any smaller or cheaper. The
| large size is a requirement to maintain high sortie rates
| and handle rough seas, and reducing the size wouldn't
| significantly reduce costs (steel is cheap). If anything
| they will be _more_ expensive due to the complex
| machinery and increased power generation requirements.
| mbesto wrote:
| The suggestion that there isn't some powerpoint
| presentation that the US Navy created (or consultants to
| them) that says "if we invest $X millions/billions to
| create smaller fuel jet fuel tanks we won't save money"
| is total nonsense. That's not how capital intensive
| government projects work.
| adamdusty wrote:
| The website really glosses over the part where they turn alcohols
| into gasoline. Is this an existing technology that is already
| available? I dont know as I'm not really plugged into energy
| generation technology.
|
| Also, it says that Titan turns 9 millions kilotons of CO2 into 1
| million gallons of gasoline. Does it actually do this or is that
| what they expect it to do?
| pfdietz wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Methanol_to_hydrocarb...
| eaenki wrote:
| They must have spent a million on that landing page
| donsupreme wrote:
| 1.5B valuation and yet their UX is total shit and basically
| unusable.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Sounds like they have their priorities right, focusing on a
| hard-tech product and not a consumer web portal.
| kwonkicker wrote:
| What product?
| norcux wrote:
| I would argue they focused too much on the website to the
| point where they over-engineered it.
| kolbe wrote:
| This is not a cheap/neglected form of "total shit." They put
| a lot of man hours into this cartoon.
| notyourday wrote:
| Their product is selling shares. If you are looking at the UX
| or the tech, you aren't their target market.
| danpalmer wrote:
| I haven't had a loading screen for that long on a website, or a
| framerate that low, since I last used Flash in 2007.
|
| This is a shame because I think the company does something
| interesting? I'm not sure, because the website is getting in the
| way of understanding what it is, but reading the Wikipedia entry
| it sounds fascinating:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_Fuels
| hannob wrote:
| Just so people are aware, Prometheus comes up every now and then
| among people on twitter following the climate tech space, and
| most think that their claims are bogus and completely
| unbelievable.
|
| Like they recently claimed that they can capture CO2 from the air
| with 36$, which is like 20-30 times lower than what current best
| tech can offer, and also lower than what people believe is
| generally possible.
|
| See some discussion (while snarky, both people know this space
| well):
| https://twitter.com/gnievchenko/status/1385357863191814149#
| https://mobile.twitter.com/rutherdan/status/1385459168107057...
| YossarianFrPrez wrote:
| Prometheus's vision is very hard not to like. And, at the same
| time, there are likely good reasons to be skeptical. (I have
| very little expertise in this area myself.)
|
| FYI, I didn't find the tweets you've linked to to be
| convincing. One tweet criticizes prometheus because, at the
| time of the tweet, they had a P.O. box. The other suggests that
| 'the secret ingredient may be lies.' Now, maybe both tweet
| authors' criticisms are well-founded. But, rhetorically
| speaking, the tweets aren't appeals to logic.
| Voloskaya wrote:
| > can capture CO2 from the air with 36$, which is like 20-30
| times lower than what current best tech can offer
|
| 36$ is their cost after reselling the fuel. The 20-30x is the
| cost to capture and then sequester a ton, with no revenue for
| this.
| rmcginnis wrote:
| $36/ton is our cost to capture CO2 from the air. For us it is
| an input to making things, not a product, so we don't need to
| purify it to 100% pure CO2, just need to capture it into
| water (approx. 2% concentration). This requires way less
| energy and equipment, so much much cheaper.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-23 23:02 UTC)