[thinkcontext]

But first you have to cross the valley of death. Elsewhere you refer to having to limit capital spending, wouldn't getting CO2 from a 3rd party instead of building a massive air capture facility do that? Everything I've seen says that its cheaper to capture from a point source than from the atmosphere, why would you make your costs higher than they need to be? You can of course build air capture down the road but I'd guess that you'd want to get off the ground as easily as possible.

[rmcginnis]

Yes, we're actually agnostic on CO2 source. To get to scale we'll need to use CO2 from direct air capture, but we could by the collection from someone else.

[simonh]

I can completely see the logic. If this only works for point sources it may not scale sufficiently to be viable long term. So that capability needs to be proved out early in order to demonstrate it's long term value to investors.

[sova]

how many point sources do you need to make atmospheric extraction viable? i'm thinking it's like a million