Several recent posts have referred to the American Physical Society's report on Air Capture.
We posted a critique of the report and in turn the APS released an updated version that-using a post-facto kluge-addressed two of the errors that had identified. The our comments are posted on www.carbonengineering.com<http://www.carbonengineering.com> the website of our Air Capture startup company, the deep link is here: http://www.carbonengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CE_APS_DAC_Comments.pdf. We at Carbon Engineering are self-interested. Of course! But that cuts both ways. We have a huge incentive do to quality engineering that can be brought to market and not to waste our time on stuff that does not make sense. Speaking for myself, I have opportunities to do commercial work on both AC and on biomass with capture (BECCS). And I have access to high quality proprietary engineering and economic analysis of both. If I thought that BECCS was much cheaper than AC then I would not be working on AC. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
