If I calculate that right, it is about $1100 a ton.
I just gave a presentation on BECCS w/ Brazilian Ethanol which comes out closer to $30. I haven't put it up, but here is one of the papers I based it on
You are right that this is very expensive. Other firms in this space estimate that there should be a lower bound for direct air capture of $100-200 per ton of CO2 [0].
However, this is a very different product than BECCS - it direct air capture (DAC) of CO2 which would not occur without your purchase, in the only real permanent operating storage facility we currently have. It is very difficult to know what the marginal impact of changes in sugarcane production are, though we do know that there is potential for either indirect land use change, or mitigation of reduction due to shifts in demand/supply and knock-on effects.
It's insufficient - there's a cap on how much carbon we can stop emitting, and maxing that out will not be enough to halt climate change. Agreed though, in the sense that we should fully fund the cheap options while also funding research on going carbon negative.
+0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths.
Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction, but both are moves in the right direction.
> +0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths.
Right, but we're talking about -1 tonne (reducing emissions) vs -1 tonne (taking carbon out of the atmosphere) and last I checked, -1 tonne is equivalent to -1 tonne.
> Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction
It makes sense to me that it's easier/cheaper to reduce C02 output (at least as long as there is lots of low-hanging fruit), but it doesn't make sense to me that one would have a greater impact than the other.
If you look at "reducing 1 tonne" of emission as -1 to the current emission output, sure. But if you see it as +0 to the current C02 levels, it's different math.
-1 tonne (active output) is not equivalent to -1 tonne (overall C02 levels)
It's splitting hairs over what we consider to be better. Either is an improvement that I am happy to see.
Pretend we have 5 tonnes of co2 in the air. If I have an emitter, say someone wanting to burn a forest. That would emit 1 tonne. Or I have a sequestration process that would remove 1 tonne.
I can pay $X to either #1 or #2. In #1 case I stop the addition, e.g. 5 tonnes total. In #2 the forest gets burned so I'm up to 6 tonnes, but I've pulled down 1 tonnes so back to 5 tonnes.
As mentioned by other posters, there are a _ton_ of side benefits of the different approaches (burn forest for agriculture) vs other benefits of forests. But it seems like from a pure CO2 in atmosphere the two approaches should be similar?
I spot checked some of the projects they list, and not one has any estimates of how much greenhouse gas reduction is attributable to TerraPass investment. Nor is the investment amount or percentage is shown. From which I conclude that TerraPass is a scam.
Brazil had 379 sugar mills in 2014, thus there is already a land dedicated to sugarcane. This is a real business that makes money without subsidies.
Ethanol plants produce CO2 as a byproduct of fermentation which is nearly pure and easy to purify to the point where it can be compressed to 1200 psi and not have nitrogen phase separate out and not have water vapor mix with the CO2 and make carbonic acid that eats pipe.
So it is a small add-on to existing plants. A larger and more complex add-on would capture CO2 from the bagasse furnace.
This could lead to more land-use changes if it improves the economics and if the ethanol industry can find more markets for fuel and electricity.
Most of the ethanol plants are located near Sao Paulo and Rio because that is where the fuel and electricity are in demand. None of them are in the Amazon basin and few in the area to the south of it that is in risk of "savannafication".
I just gave a presentation on BECCS w/ Brazilian Ethanol which comes out closer to $30. I haven't put it up, but here is one of the papers I based it on
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...