| Lots of good questions - thanks. As long as a) the total cost people are willing to pay for CO2 removal gives sufficient margins vs. the cost required to capture it, b) the end-to-end process actually removes substantially more CO2 than it emits, c) the resources allocated to pursue more CO2 removal makes sense vs. other uses (biased, but we think so), and d) the sequestration is done in a well-characterized & verifiable way, we think it makes sense. Many companies & stakeholders are working right now to define in what contexts CO2 removal makes sense for them. We have LOIs from multiple companies who want access to our CO2 removal capacity as soon as it becomes available. The CO2 captured from our process could be used for any number of applications if there is an economic/policy reason to pursue it. Fuels, fertilizers, and many other materials can use CO2 as a feedstock, and many startups are actively working on this problem from different angles. Startups are injecting atmospheric CO2 into concrete with great success. There is no reason we couldn't adjust our business model to divert CO2 captured with our process to these applications. Our <$100/ton cost projection includes storage. PNNL has some great public resources, including on Youtube, that go into more detail the total cost of storage. Can't comment on what chemistry we use, but amines are effective at capturing CO2 and have been used industrially for that purpose for decades. |