Sorry Na'im I don't agree with some remarks (but still with most of it). Let me explain why.
"sending a strong market signal for suppliers to increase their CDR production capacity now. "
At this moment there is hardly a CDR production capacity. The market is already bigger than the supply.
At this stage it is merely about the development of the various technologies, and some are indeed scaling up (the Direct Air Capture, but even here are different technologies still developing). And please take into consideration Climeworks started about 15 years ago. So now after more than a decennium they are starting to scale.
So the main difference is that in vaccins people know how to make them and it required huge capital to scale it up. The fundamental questions were solved once they needed to scale (and scale FAST). And yes also the characterisation of the type etc.
But for CDR most of the technologies are still (besides small) still developing.
And I agree more (high risk) money is required. And with most other remarks.
Hi Pol - thanks for the thoughtful comments. You're right that market demand is far outstripping supply. A strong market signal will enable more companies to raise the money needed to come online, go from bench scale to pilot, pilot to demonstration, and so on. Sending demand signals are necessary to addressing the supply problem. Maybe using "now" in the long time range we're talking about to scale up CDR is a little confusing - I admit. I'll also say that I pointed out a number of the differences between vaccine manufacturing and building CDR capacity in the first half of the article. The second half of the article is about the things that need to be in place for AMC to work. Fulfilling these preconditions will take time, further emphasizing that an AMC (or something similar) is not going to translate into immediate new CDR capacity.
For small existing products creating a (commercial) market demand works perfectly.
The example of Germany pouring money into solar panels and thereby kick starting the learning curves. But there were already PV-panels made for many years. Yes, very expensive (but for space ships that hardly counts). The technologies were known (Edmond Becquerel invented this in 1839). So with incremental steps the prices got down, the market expanded and it grows exponential (a nice analogue to the vaccins).
But there were already suppliers, and it was about decreasing cost, increasing capacity.
Now to CDR:
The Solar is for DAC is a nice analogue (there are about 15 companies active, Climeworks sold about 20 installations), the basic technologies are known. So with more market demand (especially if this is long term commitment and they don't mind paying for the premium in order to lower the green premium) this makes sense.
And of course DAC is "merely" a way of concentrating the CO2 from 415 ppm to 100%, you still need to "dispose" it (preferably permanent).
Another nice analogue is biochar.
Biochar is around for a long time, making biochar is known. And with more market demand (and people paying for both the CDR and the biochar) this will scale fast (as you can see from the fact that quite some CO2 trading companies have this within their portfolio and the money raised by a few of them).
BECCS is more difficult. After all this is threefold combination of:
- Biomass, with all kind discussions
- CCS (with all kind of discussions)
- Big scale facilities. From a startup point you rather have 1 one small installation built,. learn, built the next one faster/cheaper, built the next one etc.
Mineralisation
This is still developing. Only a very limited companies active in this field. Most of them searching for evaluating the CO2 removal amounts. And also from marketing and explanation a different story to tell (except for geochemistry or physics people). Bottom line: Yes, Rocks are storing CO2, No, this isn't very fast.
But permanent or I would even say as solid as a rock ;-)
As Prof. Mercedes Maroto Valer used to "lock it rock"
Sorry Na'im I don't agree with some remarks (but still with most of it). Let me explain why.
"sending a strong market signal for suppliers to increase their CDR production capacity now. "
At this moment there is hardly a CDR production capacity. The market is already bigger than the supply.
At this stage it is merely about the development of the various technologies, and some are indeed scaling up (the Direct Air Capture, but even here are different technologies still developing). And please take into consideration Climeworks started about 15 years ago. So now after more than a decennium they are starting to scale.
So the main difference is that in vaccins people know how to make them and it required huge capital to scale it up. The fundamental questions were solved once they needed to scale (and scale FAST). And yes also the characterisation of the type etc.
But for CDR most of the technologies are still (besides small) still developing.
And I agree more (high risk) money is required. And with most other remarks.
Txs for the article.
Best regards, Pol Knops
Hi Pol - thanks for the thoughtful comments. You're right that market demand is far outstripping supply. A strong market signal will enable more companies to raise the money needed to come online, go from bench scale to pilot, pilot to demonstration, and so on. Sending demand signals are necessary to addressing the supply problem. Maybe using "now" in the long time range we're talking about to scale up CDR is a little confusing - I admit. I'll also say that I pointed out a number of the differences between vaccine manufacturing and building CDR capacity in the first half of the article. The second half of the article is about the things that need to be in place for AMC to work. Fulfilling these preconditions will take time, further emphasizing that an AMC (or something similar) is not going to translate into immediate new CDR capacity.
Hello Na'im we aren't that disagreeing ;-)
For small existing products creating a (commercial) market demand works perfectly.
The example of Germany pouring money into solar panels and thereby kick starting the learning curves. But there were already PV-panels made for many years. Yes, very expensive (but for space ships that hardly counts). The technologies were known (Edmond Becquerel invented this in 1839). So with incremental steps the prices got down, the market expanded and it grows exponential (a nice analogue to the vaccins).
But there were already suppliers, and it was about decreasing cost, increasing capacity.
Now to CDR:
The Solar is for DAC is a nice analogue (there are about 15 companies active, Climeworks sold about 20 installations), the basic technologies are known. So with more market demand (especially if this is long term commitment and they don't mind paying for the premium in order to lower the green premium) this makes sense.
And of course DAC is "merely" a way of concentrating the CO2 from 415 ppm to 100%, you still need to "dispose" it (preferably permanent).
Another nice analogue is biochar.
Biochar is around for a long time, making biochar is known. And with more market demand (and people paying for both the CDR and the biochar) this will scale fast (as you can see from the fact that quite some CO2 trading companies have this within their portfolio and the money raised by a few of them).
BECCS is more difficult. After all this is threefold combination of:
- Biomass, with all kind discussions
- CCS (with all kind of discussions)
- Big scale facilities. From a startup point you rather have 1 one small installation built,. learn, built the next one faster/cheaper, built the next one etc.
Mineralisation
This is still developing. Only a very limited companies active in this field. Most of them searching for evaluating the CO2 removal amounts. And also from marketing and explanation a different story to tell (except for geochemistry or physics people). Bottom line: Yes, Rocks are storing CO2, No, this isn't very fast.
But permanent or I would even say as solid as a rock ;-)
As Prof. Mercedes Maroto Valer used to "lock it rock"
Best regards,
Pol Knops