[Dylan16807]

> As another yardstick, it will cost about 2x the annual world GDP to mitigate all emissions this way.

How did you calculate the cost for this number? Is that supposed to be annual operating cost?

> it will be about 1.5x-2x more than entire energy expenditure worldwide

We could use non-carbon sources to triple energy production if we really wanted to.

[anovikov]

>How did you calculate the cost for this number?

$53M for 1K tons of capacity vs 37B tons annual mitigation needs, assuming 20 years amortisation, and purchase price being about half of the total lifetime costs including financing, which is typical for renewable energy systems, resulting in ~$200T a year vs $165T world GDP, so yes, oops, 1.2x world GDP :) which is still kinda too costly :D

>We could use non-carbon sources to triple energy production if we really wanted to.

exactly my point.

[Dylan16807]

> $53M for 1K tons of capacity

Nothing says the company is spending all their money on this facility, and I massively doubt the second and third such facility would cost anywhere near the same amount.

Also there's no need to finance, just cap annual builds at N/20 per year.

> exactly my point.

Huh? I thought you were arguing capture needs too much power, and what I was saying was that capture does not need too much power.

If you're suggesting replacing most of our existing electrical production, I agree, but capture would still be useful.

[anovikov]

I suggest that capture is a bullshit idea and this company is a bullshit company. We don't need capture, we need carbon-free renewable electricity and stuff powered by that electricity and batteries to store it. That's all solved, scaled, and economics is there. Everything else is just a detestable way to siphon public money.