[Manuel_D]

They still need to capture the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere. They claim that because it doesn't need to be pure carbon dioxide it'll be a lot cheaper. But that's based on an engineering assessment not an actual bill of materials from a working prototype. Just like how the hyperloop is amazing technology on paper.

[ncmncm]

Let somebody else invest. You can sit around and watch. Maybe amuse yourself with rude remarks.

Hyperloop made no sense whatsoever, from day one.

[Manuel_D]

Yes, I'm more than comfortable letting BMW put $12.5 million into Prometheus. If they shared even half of your confidence in this tech, they'd invest a lot more than that. My take, and likely the investors' takes too, is this is yet another carbon capture company, and it's success hinges on whether or not they can actually hit the performance their promising.

[ncmncm]

BMW are certain to understand investment strategy better than you.

Probably they are putting seed funding into a bunch of different start-ups, and will invest more as they see further evidence of viability. That is a much more productive activity than carping ignorantly from the sidelines.

Most startups flop for reasons unrelated to their technology underpinnings. E.g., incompetent website implementation.

[Manuel_D]

> Probably they are putting seed funding into a bunch of different start-ups, and will invest more as they see further evidence of viability. That is a much more productive activity than carping ignorantly from the sidelines

This is exactly what I'm saying: they're testing to see if this technology is viable, because we don't know if it's viable.

[ncmncm]

"Many a slip 'twixt cup and lip", "Count your chickens", and "Grass is greener" shed as much light.

If not this one, one or six among the other dozens. It's trivial electrochemistry, so the problems to be overcome are of manufacturing, which just needs money. And, we know hydrogen and ammonia synthesis work at scale; this is extra.