Carbon removal has made huge progress over the past ~5 years. Demand has gone from ~$0 to several billion, there are now 100+ companies working across a range of carbon removal pathways, and governments are more engaged than ever. At the same time, it’s still far from inevitable that carbon removal gets to climate-relevant scale in the timeframe needed.
Most funding audiences are afraid of speculation. The current focus for funding is to do something soon and tell a story about how cheap CO2 capture will be when carbon-free energy is plentiful. Earning revenue is the primary driver.
This funding process generally limits technology concepts to TRL 5 or better.
If the best CO2 capture technology has not yet entered the lab, then that technology has limited to no path forward. That technology will not participate in solving our excess atmospheric CO2 problem.
As long as funding audiences focus on cost and time ($100 per ton by 2030), the truth of CO2 capture (GJ/ton) will be limited to today's technology portfolio.
How does speculation get funded? I bet funding audiences will take more risk 10 years from now. But then it may be too late to be useful.
"Get SBTi to make carbon removal a part of their Net Zero standard" - I think the elephant in the room for me is that my understanding is that CDR is an eventual last resort for only the toughest to decarbonise sectors.
So while *some* CDR is needed in the future, there is definitely some element of fossil fuel companies using it as a political cover.
At the same time, I completely support industrial policies/voluntary standards that incorporate the cost of carbon (e.g. via CDR costs), and given how slow decarbonisation is going this could be a huge source of demand for CDR.
Regarding Topic 4
Most funding audiences are afraid of speculation. The current focus for funding is to do something soon and tell a story about how cheap CO2 capture will be when carbon-free energy is plentiful. Earning revenue is the primary driver.
This funding process generally limits technology concepts to TRL 5 or better.
If the best CO2 capture technology has not yet entered the lab, then that technology has limited to no path forward. That technology will not participate in solving our excess atmospheric CO2 problem.
As long as funding audiences focus on cost and time ($100 per ton by 2030), the truth of CO2 capture (GJ/ton) will be limited to today's technology portfolio.
How does speculation get funded? I bet funding audiences will take more risk 10 years from now. But then it may be too late to be useful.
"Get SBTi to make carbon removal a part of their Net Zero standard" - I think the elephant in the room for me is that my understanding is that CDR is an eventual last resort for only the toughest to decarbonise sectors.
So while *some* CDR is needed in the future, there is definitely some element of fossil fuel companies using it as a political cover.
At the same time, I completely support industrial policies/voluntary standards that incorporate the cost of carbon (e.g. via CDR costs), and given how slow decarbonisation is going this could be a huge source of demand for CDR.