> Over a year, the equipment can capture 4,000 tons of CO2
Not to be glib, and I'm no agronomy expert, but a quick google tells me that's about equivalent to a square mile of hay field. Seems like if you were serious about this problem and wanted an economical solution, buying a farm and burying the output would be more effective than throwing money at startups like this.
Articles like this are always written from a tone of "If ONLY there was some way to economically extract and concentrate carbon from the atmosphere", by journalists who then go home and tend the heirloom snap peas in their raised beds without a sense of irony. Plants do this. It's literally what makes them plants.
Now... maybe there's a stronger economic argument for technologies like this, but if there is it's not filtering into the press hits. I remain suspicious.
Not to be glib, and I'm no agronomy expert, but a quick google tells me that's about equivalent to a square mile of hay field. Seems like if you were serious about this problem and wanted an economical solution, buying a farm and burying the output would be more effective than throwing money at startups like this.
Articles like this are always written from a tone of "If ONLY there was some way to economically extract and concentrate carbon from the atmosphere", by journalists who then go home and tend the heirloom snap peas in their raised beds without a sense of irony. Plants do this. It's literally what makes them plants.
Now... maybe there's a stronger economic argument for technologies like this, but if there is it's not filtering into the press hits. I remain suspicious.