[typeformer]

Are they really sequestering it? If I understand their tech correctly they are recycling it back into fuel which then gets burned and the CO2 goes back into the air? It’s a fascinating process but unlikely to undue our decades of harm.

[traverseda]

They claim that their technology will "replace fossil fuels". If it actually hits a price point where that's possible than I'd expect it to not be a problem either way.

I guess in that future we're getting power mainly from renewables and using hydrocarbons as power storage? We'd probably be using those same hydrocarbons to make plastics and the like as well.

Still, halting new fossil fuel extraction would be an excellent first step, even though the energy costs don't make much sense to me.

[filleokus]

Yeah, that's how I understand it also. But they are talking about putting it in (plastic) goods "that store it forever". So I'm thinking that they could just solidify it somehow and bury it in the ground? Feels fairly cheap?

But I'm not clear on wether their price point includes the revenue they get from selling the carbon (in the form of fuels or plastic)?

I.e, does it cost them 36 USD, or 351 USD? [0]

[0]: 36 USD + (1 tonne of Co2 / 19 lbs of Co2 per gallon of fuel) * 3 USD / gallon of fuel ≈ 36 + 105*3 = 351 USD. Makes a huge difference...

[rmcginnis]

$36 is the cost of the capital equipment and energy needed to remove the CO2 from the air. Just an internal metric. Not tied to sale prices.

[filleokus]

Thanks for you response (and looking forward to the announcement you mentioned in your other comment).

That's so much better than what I could have thought!

Even though my skeptical self almost falls in the "too god to be true" category I see you mention on Twitter, I'm very excited about following Prometheus' progress :-)

BTW: Make sure to let people know when/if human-drinkable ethanol "fuels" from Co2 are available for order! ;-)