We're happy to have with us Professor Klaus Lackner from Arizona State University, where he's a professor of Sustainable Engineering and the built environment. Previous to his time at Arizona State, he was a professor at Columbia University. And then prior to that, he had a long and distinguished, clear career working at Los Alamos National Laboratory. And I had the opportunity to get to know class many years ago when I became involved in research that extract CO2 from the ambient air. And anyone who works in this field knows the name class Lackner because he was the first to propose such a technology right at the turn of the century around 999 as a mode of climate change mitigation. So class is going to talk to us tonight or this afternoon on the title shown here on the slide. And with that, I will mute myself and turn the floor over to Klaus. And you can thank you for visiting us today. And we'll have time for discussion and Q&A at the end. Thanks so much. It's great to have that. I can be here if you leave it just remotely. I had a great morning talking to everybody and I do want to talk about the energy transition and the role of direct air capture. One of the things I learned, you are really experts on the sovereign side of the story. And so I actually prefer to talk about the bigger picture and see how to put all the systems together into something whereby can ultimately solve this, this very difficult problem relating to climate change. However, before I get to the climate change story, let me point out that I got started in this because I ultimately was worried about access to energy. And I saw they concern already in the early nineties that CO2 is piling up cumulatively in the end it doesn't call Y. And so therefore, there is a limited carpet budget. And it struck me back then already and I was a little contrarian at the time, that that carbon budget is limited by the CO2 emissions and not by the carbon in the ground. And so as a consequence, we need to figure out how to solve this problem. And some people say, Well, please just use less energy, but I would argue in energy makes modern life possible. I don't want to belabor the point here. Couldn't feed 7 billion people on the planet or aid without having plenty of food. Fish comes ultimately through the process. For this, maybe need nitrogen fertilizers, fertilizers and you need to make them, and we need to clean up and transport water. We made a southern aid water in the future, simply have enough water and that would mean even why energy consumption. We have learned over the last century how to operate on beta mineral resources. I think copper is a good example. If you used to be 10, 12 percent copper AND, and, OR, and nowadays for ETL with a quarter percent cover it. And what we can do that because we have the energy, crash and crank that much Rocket process it. And ultimately, if we want to clean up after yourself, you're fighting entropy and you end up paying, paying with energy to make all of this happen. And lastly, I would like to point out, we have to give the developing countries a chance to develop. And they are far more people living in developing countries than in developed countries. Yeah, and if you want to have a shot at the most important sustainability problem, namely controlling population, growth and stabilize the world population. You've got to figure out how to get people a decent standard of living. With that comes a decent standard of education. And particularly ones women I educated, you reach a point where population growth seems to stabilize itself. If he cannot figure this out, we're running into and a sustainability issue of a much, much larger scale. And be better give energy to the rest of the world and give them access. And that means we have preserves the climate change problem. One of the things I find Bay currently, and I have been sort of optimistic about this for a long time. But if you look at the price of solar energy, it's, it keeps dropping and dropping. It's actually rather remarkable. We are now a 100 times cheaper per unit of energy from a photovoltaic panel then be used to be. And this came through mass production, the, the, any effect solar energy and to some extent, wind energy had to grow roughly a million fold in order to reduce costs. A 100 fold that learning curve, people talk about that cost reduction with mass manufacturing, it's roughly 20 percent for AB doubling. It is equivalent to a minus 1 third power law. So if you grow a thousand-fold, you can gain a factor 10. And so the question now is becoming rather serious. Could be potential aid kits place fossil fuels were solar energy, but I would point out B may already be a little late for that, because we already have so much carbon in the atmosphere that we need to start thinking about how to manage that as well. I would argue that energy transition, it actually has started. Solar photovoltaic energy is challenge the status quo. And I would argue the way you see this, particularly in places like here in Arizona, the levelized cost of solar energy has this depth below the dispatch cost of fossil energy. Which means that solar panel can make money but enforce the fossil power plant, whether it's coal or gas, to shut up during the time. So sun our sun hours because they can't even afford to turn it on. And so as a consequence, the markets are changing rapidly. And by the way, building another solar panel is now profitable. So climate change on the other side requires a rebuild of the energy systems. So those two forces coming together really will drive systems in ways we haven't seen before. On the other hand, though, the time available for action, it's extremely short. I would argue and I'll come back to this in a minute that they've already committed to large-scale may get informations before we actually solve that problem. And furthermore, I would argue fossil fuels are not going away quietly. It's easy to say that given way of fossil energy is right now it cannot compete. I lived through the time between 198595, core droplets cost than half because they had to, because otherwise natural gas would have eaten lunch back then, and they succeeded in doing it. So you really don't know what things will cost until they actually forced by computation to reveal that. And on the other hand, liquid fuels, if we need them because they are so important, they need not come from a farm, fossil carbon, they could be made from CO2 and renewable energy. So I would argue we are now in a situation that low cost solar technology gives fossil carbon run for its money and it, fossil carbon, on the other hand, is hobbled by climate change. So we will see a deep energy transition, but I would expect that some 20% of our power ultimately comes from liquid fuels because they're just so incredibly useful. Meanwhile, carbon dioxide is piling up like garbage. And I think we should think of it as a waste management problem. And that's a different paradigm than we used to think and priority easiest way to see this is imagine for a moment that I left my garbage on your front door or your front yard and said not to worry about it. I'm actually mitigating it's 10 percent less than last year. I do think it's important that we reduce our emissions. It's important that we use the carbon May, but we can and recycle it. But if we fail on those counts, we don't have an excuse to dump it into the atmosphere. At that point, we have to dispose of it. And of course, the reason for that is once the carbon dioxide is out, once the carbon is in the environment, that's, it sloshes around there for ten thousand, two hundred thousand years, after which time geological by the ring will have reset the carbon levels. So we need to, to start convincing people and corporations to clean up their CO2 garbage. And this is not all that far-fetched because this is exactly what happened to sewage and what happened to municipal garbage in the past. On the other hand, we don't have any time to waste anymore the 1.5 degree warming, it's just about upon us. There's bailiff little time left to stop it. And we cannot wait for economic drivers to make this happen. I think at this point, overshoot in CO2 concentration beyond the 1.5 degree limit is virtually unavoidable. And so we need regulations of the CO2 emissions to actually stop this. And ultimately, this is a waste management problem. And quite frankly, if you look at sewage, municipal garbage, those things are regulated. I don't have a choice. I may have a choice here in Arizona who is picking up my god forbid. But I don't have a choice, not somebody who's picking up my garbage. And it represents and mind you have a big shift. But the other hand, the cost of disposal will motivate we use right? If you have to pay for getting rid of it, we need, we have any incentive to deal with a problem. And I think 0 waste is a long-term goal after the cleanup in the beginning, you shouldn't have any excuse. You must espouse. And then we can start figuring out how to get to 0 waste and figure out how to get there. You get a feeling for how fast you have to be. I like simple-minded models. So here, here is one. Observationally CO2 emissions grow at 2% a year. The world economy is growing roughly 3% a year. So the carbon intensity seems to spontaneously drop roughly 1% per year. And so you can now ask the question. If we want to stop emitting, and I apologize this graphs a few years old, it's from 2019. How rapidly do we have to reduce the carbon intensity on an annual basis in order to stop at a certain target. And back then I would have said 450 ppm requires 9, 9% annual reduction. But even 750 ppm already has a nearly 3.73, 3% annual reduction in carbon intensity. That in itself is a major effort. I've never seen times like that with the exception of the COVID the last year. So, but bottom line, it is hard to stop at any level, any, the next graph, I simply make the simple-minded assumption that the, I want to stop at 450 ppm, but we keep talking about it and we started a later date. And of course the later be stored, the closer we are to the wall, the faster we go, the harder we have to break. So in 2020 this as 9.6%. In 2025, it's 14 percent. And right now we are at around 10% reduction in carbon intensity. If we want to stop in time. Let's do you think this is ridiculous? Here are the IPCC curves including negative emissions to hold the line at 1.5 degrees C, which tends to be a little, little less than 450 ppm. And here I am overlaying that 9.6% annual reduction if he had started in the year 2020. So would you, would you see, well, within the crowd of these areas are options, of course, reduction alone will never get negative, and it will end up at 450 rather than at 440 herself. In it just shows you that this is not different from what other people have said. But the net result is this is a bay large reduction which becomes necessary. And I think we are too late. I think practically speaking, you would need the equivalent of a warlike approach to the problem to make this happen. And they are not likely to do this. And let's do you think that COVID solved our problem? I'll challenge you to see the Kobe da and this annual cycle of CO2 going up and down? Yes. It should have been 0.2 ppm lower than it would have been otherwise. But good luck identifying that this is accumulation problem. This is a stock problem, not a flow problem. And the fact that 7% less in 2020 than we would have otherwise been, it's barely visible this graph. So in summary, we live in an overshoot world, but we also need access to energy and we have to square the circle somehow. I would argue because we are in an overshoot world, CO2 disposal at this point is unavoidable, even if it's expensive, been unpopular. We will have to figure that out. I can't tell you how much we will pick back, but we will pull back, but we will pull back some, I would argue a nice order of magnitude resided PPM. They may come from 450 to 350 or from 500 to 400, or the unlucky from 550 to 450. But these are the kind of numbers. And I'm assume this is roughly 1500 gigatons of CO2. We need to get rid off. This assumes roughly four gigatons of carbon per PPM, which is double what than what is in the atmosphere. But let's face it, if we start pulling it back out of the atmosphere, the ocean will give its share back. And so for all practical purposes, everything be, uh, made it, we will have to take back much as the half which shows up in the atmosphere. 1500 gigatonnes of two storage capacity may very well exist in saline aquifers as liquid CO2 and basalt says carbonates or in Situ mineral sequestration. But none of this will happen without a regulatory framework that they manage and and disposal becomes mandatory. And disposal also needs to be certified. And furthermore, I would point out right here that yes, we have a large estimate of the resource space, but we do not have any proven we serve and storage capacity because we never ever really tried it. So there could still be some things which don't go as planned. So one of the things we're working on here at ASU of a heart is to develop concepts for the certificates, a sequestration. Basically, we argue that this is where we're sort of in tune with the Oxford group, but we started competing earlier. That extraction of fossil carbon from the ground should only be permitted certificate or carbon sequestration that sort of firms that an equal amount of carbon that's been put away. That would minimize, in my view, the regulatory requirements because it basically just demands that he take care of the problem just in the moment we started it. On the certificate. A sec frustrations for removing Pat mobile Calvin, the excess mobile carbon from the environment that could come from the air, from the biosphere, surface ocean, and they require subsequent store tried. It could also be from point sources, but subsequent storage and the consistent application of the certificate. Actually obviates the need for LCA and the accounting. Because if you think about it, if all carbon was clear at the moment they came out of the ground. I don't really care how much carb he hosted in the process of creating another one. But if you're in supply chain involves multiple certificates or sequestration, it'll never make money on selling a single certificate of sequestration and carbon, where that certificate could be stored in the infrastructure and plastics and all sorts of things or in other novel reservoirs. But you have to guarantee that you pick it up if you lose it. So the operator of the storage has to be responsible for its content. And if it gets lost is an easy remedy ME or behave in certificate a sequestration to make up for what was lost. But therefore, regulation, carbon storage and is verification become critically important. Clause Calvin cycle quits could be supported by renewable energy. Think of the inputs as carbon dioxide from the air, hydrogen from water, and energy from solar photovoltaic panels. And they will likely get even cheaper than they are today. We probably before we completely saturated, saturated the market, we may have some five to ten more doublings coming down the pipeline. And that is three to ten times cheaper than today. If we keep following that curve, we may not. But we do need to manage the intermittency of such a system and that is a challenge and so in its own right. But hydrogen production with cheap conversion devices could solve this problem. And on the output side, well, we have the electricity from those panels for directly, we say batteries. That that is the current focus if you think about it and limited short-term storage. Synthetic fuels for the transport and long-term energy storage is also useful. And then you can close the Calvin cycle that why, but you will never go negative. If you do that, you don't reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. And so therefore then you also collect your waist CO2 for long-term disposal. And that ultimately is there for climate restoration. And I would point out that the cost of solar electricity is approaching the cost of chemical energy and natural gas. This slide is slightly dated that didn't see the recent trumps in Kotlin in natural gas prices, I think right now, natural gas is more expensive than raw electricity from solar pen. And of course, implicit in all of what I say is liquid hydrocarbons are valuable. You actually see this on the fact that oil paints a premium. Since the oil shocks over coal and gas. And it's $50 per barrel of petroleum is a $1.20 per gig. Actual colors below a dollar, picking a general and natural gases used to be around 250 giga joules. So it derives its value from its ease of transport. It's ease of storage and its ease-of-use as a high-energy density to orders of magnitude larger than a battery. Tank is much cheaper than the battery, and the inner liquid is easy to handle any introduce injury energy conversion machinery. It's easy to cheaper pipeline. So I think for all of these reasons, having access to liquid fuels is incredibly valuable. But if you close the carbon cycle, you in the end have, what I would argue is roughly 40 gigaton per year charge. I give you three ways of estimating that we have roughly 40 gigatons of CO2 per year. We had a meeting that's fossil energy and cement. And if friends stay where they are over the next 80 years to 2100, we will grow a factor five. And if it is indeed true that the last 20%, that would be really hard to clean up. While the last 70% in 2100, it will be again 40 gigatons per year. And if you draw it down to a 100 ppm and 40 years, well that's not quite 1540 gigatons per year, but it's awfully spots. So we need scalable options on that scale to make things work. If we close the Calvin cycle through the environment, which I think we have no choice but a fraction of the carbon ended up there, then it can come from the biosphere. And I think this is important, we should do that. We need to make bio char and reforest and have bioenergy CCS. These things are affordable, but I would argue they are ultimately limited scale, cannot get to the 40 pounds, then you better not try because the environmental impact of doing this would be horrific. Knew could get the CO2, but you can get started pays no excuse of saying right now, we have no option to move forward. Yes, we do. And it comes from the bio biomass approaches. Ultimately, we can get the CO2 from the ocean, that is carbonate chemistry thermodynamically it's identical to getting it from the air because let's face it, the surface ocean and the atmosphere can chemical equilibrium. On the other hand, the reason I ended up thinking about AMR ocean water is that the dissolved inorganic carbon is one molecule per 25000 and the water bears and one CO2 per 2500 molecules, 400 ppm is actually better. Furthermore, the air mixes really well. You could collect CO2 in Australia and nowhere else in it, but spread out over the planet without any further ado. And you certainly can reach tens of gigatons per year, the rate limit in the scalability of it. So it has the advantage of scalability and flexibility. Promises all of that. It is not geoengineering. It can do all the things we just asked for. But the question is, is it really practically feasible? And I think I'm fighting a battle right now because it's sort of demonstrated. And I would also point out that just like in heavier than air flight, There's a natural analogue which tells you it must be feasible. The question then is, can you make it affordable? That's much more important question. I also would point out the CO2 in the air, it's not to dilute it by value. Kinetic energy in air at $0.05 a kilowatt-hour, six meters. A second book at Mount with C and a dollar's worth of kinetic energy and the cubic kilometers, which is by the way, what a big mini mill sees in an afternoon at a tipping fee of $30 for a ton of CO2. That same cubic kilometer carries $21 thousand worth of C are true. So it's 70 times more valuable for its CO2 content, for its wind energy. Yet, we have figured out how to retune routinely harvest the energy. So we should put our thinking caps and figure out how to do it for a caption. I don't have to explain to this group that the thermodynamic limit is not all that strange and 22 kilojoules would be nice if we could get there. Yeah, not limited by thermodynamic limits. We are limited by how I inability to get to the the thermodynamic limit. That's where the challenges are. I think Sherwood rule has been avoided if Sherwood right. Plan works couldn't exist and charged what they are charging for CO2. So obviously we have figured it out. I think any cost you look at for a separation has some linear term because one step in your operation is to touch everything. So you have an a times d term where a is a constant. And we also have the log term which comes from the thermodynamics. If you bounce something, you have to release it again and the binding energy goes like the log of the dilution. And the question is which term is larger? The a2 him or the C term. And if you keep the, the front end cost under control, and that's why we decided to Bob asset. Then the second term is the dominant term and then it doesn't look all that much worse. And scrubbing power plant stacks. So to pulmonary edema and eclampsia is much more intense phase, much more intense than photosynthesis. As a result, you will have three orders of magnitude smaller than biomass generation in aerial than behind, in two orders of magnitude smaller than wind installations to avoid the same amount of CO2 which would have otherwise come out of a power plant. And you are one to two orders of magnitude smaller than solar installations. And I would argue furthermore, that we really don't have right now a good alternative to capture, which is not to say that according to exit. But nothing else I have seen really scales to that scale. And so we, we should seriously pay attention and see whether they cannot make it work. But it has of course challenges. The first one is a baby economic pull. The use of CO2 is clearly too weak and waste management service requires regulations and we seem to be unable to put them in place. It has fairly bad economics, right? Carbon price must exceed the cost of air capture. And he kept her right now is very expensive. So there is a chicken and egg problem. And ultimately, we need to grow from nothing to gigatonnes in a few decades and that's her baby. Serious challenge. Although other examples have done. The French had built a nuclear power plant fleet in about 15 years. And there are plenty of technological challenges. This is a novel technology which still needs proving. And I would argue we are about as far away from, from well oiled air capture as the first calories in 1900 from today's modern cars. So days a lot of development which still has to happen. On the other hand, I would say the rank, the acceptor clearly works and now it might scale. So. Right, you see here in 2007 in front of his first CO2 collected, which actually produces CO2. I have it here in the office still I'm not sure. It's still in the in the glass. But at some point it was in there. And there are a number of companies, global thermostat, carbon engineering, Kleinberg who have been involved. I have been involved this GIT back then. I'm now involved with carbon collect, which licensed ASU technology if a particular technology to make things work. And I worked with a former student, found it Selye in New York. And their goal is to produce liquid fuels on eBay small scale from here capture. So our solution here at ASU is ultimately mechanical three. So think of this as a bunch of disks which are pulled apart by gravity. And in fact in your palm high up in the air blows, the wind blows in-between these gaps. So in that sense it's passive. And when these things loaded, we are aiming for 20 minutes to half an hour, extreme case an hour. And then we drop down into the box at the bottom and then pull a vacuum and remove the and then use water either for moisture swing or steam, which is why, again, to heat things up to a particular temperature so they became release the CO2, collected, clean it, and move on from there. 1 I would make, if you build such forms to collect CO2, they are going to be much smaller than the solar or wind farms that would provide the energy to recycle that CO2 back to water and hydrogen. That point, we seem to have no trouble with conceptually so P, the soul of these forms, by comparison, small. So our approach to negative carbon emissions is actually fairly straightforward. We work on direct air capture. We are emphasizing system and process design we are working on. So urban development probably compared to you, much more involved in how do you make this thing worked in a machine. And you are better at the research end of making better versions. We also look at alternative approaches to Silicon cycles. I'll talk about that in a minute and 10. We have a interested at ASU to make synthetic and sustainable fuel out of it by taking the CO2, use intermittent power to convert it into fuel. That gives us a multi-pronged approach to achieve carbon neutrality, we do everything from electrochemistry to thermal processes. I am personally more behind the electrochemical processes. And then ultimately, we're very much engaged in the question of permanent and safe disposal because that's central to negate their permissions. Now, there are lots of regulatory issues. He P2 that somebody has to certify that sequestration actually happened and has to integrate that into the economy as a whole. And then base the societal impact of making these huge transitions. And there's a lot of emphasis nowadays on the social justice and about some of that is, is rather broadly based and not just limited to direct air capture. I would point out there from the start, I got into all of this to a large extent about geographical intergenerational justice because I felt the need to do this. Because we have to future generations a chance, infinity to get developing countries a chance to actually develop. And of course, the same is true for people who are economically deprived in places like maybe Lafayette, Arizona. We're shutting down coal plants, which is a really good thing in northern Arizona. But the people who live right there, I am absolutely dire straits. And the only employer town has completely closed on baby. Short notice, though, we have to figure out how to soften strokes as weak or bad. Rap. You have heard me talk about this before. We have develop the moisture screen so opens. They allow low in energy. Basically is a quaternary ammonium hydroxide or carbonate form. What we found out is that the carbonate minutes fully hydrated, it's stabilized carbonate. And if you withdraw water in that system drives our dehydration clouds shrink. The relative energy of hydroxide and carbonate. Relative to the carbonate changes, changes to the point. That the reaction of carbonate to form bicarbonate and hydroxide actually shifts the equilibrium and that of course, that hydroxide has an enormously affinity to the CO2 in the air and immediately bicarbonates itself. And then you fill up until you are all by carbonate. And if you make it wet, now you have more or less the same hydration energies as before. And the thermodynamic equilibrium shifts even in their ways into something which is way much like it is for foie, for ambient, for an aqueous solution. And the net result is that the partial pressure of CO2 goes up roughly 500 fold. I apologize to the chemical engineers that I decided to draw an isotherm on its side. But I wanted to have the 504 swaying or the vertical axis. So basically what you see here is saturating had the dry ice, that's 2100% relative humidity along the blue curve. And when we go in Langmuir isotherm, by the way, draw behind that. And if you go to the 200% relative humidity away, in this particular case, we're going to actually fully wet the loading dose. Trump's up 500 fault without anything else changing at the same temperature and nothing else actually, bury me, measure this. We have calculate the free energy of reaction from all of that. And we can use this phenomenon to actually pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. We have found that you are much more effective to actually heat that stuff up too, because once it's fully saturated, or of course, entropy tells you they've been. If you heat it up and you get even more CO2 out so we can amplify the effect. And so we get a combination of moisture spring and thermal spraying. And of course we pull a vacuum, so you have that one too. And so then in the end, we feel we can now be agnostic, our startup brands from Europe. And they don't live in Phoenix where the air is dry and the moisture swing or x-ray well, they live in places where the moisture spring, it's hard to do so behalf over the last few years gotten rather active in figuring out how to use different so opens, which can also triumph of thermal swing, making these materials work. Another outcome of this work was that if we can make a flat membrane of the material, then on the right side we load up plus c or two. And on the dry side I'm sorry, I'm a bedside. We unload CO2 in on the dry side. We logged advocacy or true. So as a consequence, there is a concentration gradient of carbonate and bicarbonate inside that membrane and modelling of that transport chain and these transport phenomenon shown, that as water flows downhill thermodynamically, it kicks up CO2 against, against the concentration gradient on the outside. So basically your pump CO2 from the dry air on the outside into the bet environment on the inside of that, behind that membrane, it could be a carbonate solution or carbonate bicarbonate solution that way could just be moist air. That we are we are trying to take advantage of this pumping mechanism. We are right now I still struggling, but the combination of being flexible enough to make a membrane not brittle, so they break and at the same time have all the diffusion constant is going to be bonded to B and all the reaction kinetics where we're going to be. But I think we, as we are at the point where this becomes a potential alternative way, you're now I have everything standing still and all which is flowing in this system is Lakewood. How Mencius is carrying away the true once it has been collected. So you can think of us standing there like a, like a tree. And you can see it in various forms. And this is an opera he project we're actually working on. There are plenty of challenges to direct air capture. Technology that needs proving. It's because we have done some techno-economic assessments, absorbance. One of the things that struck us if we had the 1% level of loading and unloading, really need a 100000 cycles to get out of it. Really helps you to get higher loading cycles. On the other hand, higher loading cycles require a lot more because one millimole sounds like 4.5%. But then in practice you tend to run small and springs and then you could theoretically be clearly need an ability to clean off his side to another sound gases, they are much. Less common in the atmosphere, but SO2, so one per 1000 compared to CO2 in the atmosphere. So eventually your system gum up, but Sauron gases and you have to have a strategy of getting rid of that. And ultimately we have to manage water. And in the moisture swing, our problem is we consume a lot of water more than be thermodynamically NICU and really to fix them. Climb works in my view, has exactly the opposite problem. They are collecting a lot of water and that's expensive water because I'd be Bay proud of myself and I could get to CO2 for $50 a ton. But collecting water at $50 a ton or not started. So costs have to come down by an order of magnitude. But then the economic opportunities. Some peak flows, gas, fire power plants, but probably to better with air capture. Installing flue gas scrapping on the device, which most of the data isn't, right? Right? Yeah, and synthetic fuel production is actually remarkably tolerant and energy consumption and direct air capture. So Corsera, it's actually taken advantage of they have of a brute force way of collecting CO2. But then they use electrochemistry to free the CO2 and make hydrogen in one step. So the, by integrating the two, you can hide the fact that he and capture could not run for sequestration, but you now have CO2 and hydrogen, which you see a starting point to make methanol of the gasoline. And I think there's a demand for carbon reduction. It has started to think of Microsoft at Stripe, pay significant amount of money to get CO2 back. And up in the short-term niche applications, we're going to be important. We are very much aiming for the mass production paradigm. Yeas that curve you saw in the beginning, this is roughly or minus 1 third power. As a matter of fact, the B. In the case of photovoltaics, it was actually a 24 percent reduction in costs rather than a vein percent. So it was even more dramatic, but it is also a 100 fold decrease. And if you think about CO2 capture from here, given what climb works can do right now, I would argue they are roughly a factor of 10, too expensive. So we only need to write down a factor ten, added the subsidy in photovoltaics, which was a million unfold. Most of that was paid after the first factor 1000 happen and achieve because simply, it's the second round of a factor. 1000 involves follow more output and therefore far more subsidy. So we try to use a cost curve analysis where we said we have a cost which ruins itself down the learning curve, but we have a residual cost. Instead, we'll start at $500 a ton for the totals of 470 can be learned the way the last 30. And we have a learning factor of around 0.8. So they transmit power. Yeah, and B wanted to see where all of this adds up. And it turns out, if you subsidize, if you want to get down from $500.2, $100, the time at which point there is a small market in the megaton level for CO2, you would have to subsidize at 50 million. Meat is actually small compared to what Department of Energy paid for flue gas scrubbing research. If we then added to that some sensitivity analysis, I mean, you see the result over there. So basically below, if you get below a billion dollars, if you get up to a billion dollars, you have a high chance you succeed. Now, it's a guarantee that you succeed. Now, in our model, we actually have a few cases where the residual cost, it's over a $100. Therefore, you can't possibly learn your way out of the problem. Or the learning factor is, is, is not, not reducing anything. Either way, you can't get there. And it could very well be that that direct air capture is one of those technologies which doesn't work. But I would argue for 200 million to $500, you could actually either drive the learning if it behaves like normally, down to the point where you learned your way out of the problem. And you now know that it can be done because you did it or you ended up showing that it doesn't, but it doesn't learn. And I think that in itself is extremely valuable lesson, which makes this work. So we're thinking about how would you construct a set of options to actually incentivize this browse full of few kilo pounds a year to a few mega tons a year, which is that factor. 1000 people would have to grow and then see whether you were successful on. And I think either way, you'll write an incredibly valuable lesson, probably much more valuable than any amount of money you spend. And so I think it's worth pushing that forward. If you want to make fuels, has had some class targets. I would argue the raw energy has to be antibiotics and per kilowatt hour, but that's not so farfetched. Same auctions for photovoltaics are now operating around 1.5 to $0.02 a kilowatt hour. And that includes the conversion to get energy, which is not cheap. So I think we're not all that far away from $0.01 per kilowatt hour right now, at 50 percent efficiency, that would add $0.80 a gallon of gasoline at a $100 a ton of CO2, that would add another $0.85. And so it turns out one of your biggest problems is take conversion equipment at 10 percent utilization. You can easily spend $0.80 on the conversion just for the capital cost of the convert it. And so I think in the end the challenge is to get electrolytes as affordable and be able to sit around most of the day. Because cheap electricity is only available in small fraction of the time. We do have you do for Fischer-Tropsch, methanol, DME and methane and all these things. But they have to be matched and scaled so that they can work with renewable energy at the appropriate scale and apply it in color. Shell beds are multi-billion dollar plant to make this happen. And I would guess that at the end, maybe 20 percent of our energy flows to hydrocarbons, think ships, trucks and planes. And there will be energy storage, seasonal and beyond. We're not going to store energy for winter from summary and a battery. We will if there is an annual cycle for loading and unloading, this is going to be chemistry and it's likely going to be quite, there may be some special applications which prefer that true. And I would argue that photovoltaic power can capture this market if directly ATPase and has driven down it's all costs to the point so that it's ready for Dr. Zhao. And if he do that or not, we can actually close the carbon cycle and it's part of the carbon. They need to. But we have to not just get to the megatons where the customer may come into line. We also have to get to the gigatons to actually solve the problem. And I think the commercial markets might be a stepping stone, but they could also end up being a distraction because ultimately, the first the orders get us there and their prices are between $60 a ton in $300 and try and depending on where you live, because shipping carbon dioxide is the big expense there. And ultimately this gives a foothold for a new technology. But then you have to move on to the next step. And by the way, the high-tech companies like Microsoft and Stripe, I actually starting a market for that upper, upper end where we actually deal with the climate problem. But at the end of the day, we have to figure out to get a regulatory scheme in place. Together. The scale, I like to think in container sized units, a 100 million, one time a day units would actually give you that 40 gigatons for why exactly 36 gigaton, say here. That would eliminate a 100 ppm overshoot in 40 years and could provide feedstock for liquid fuels at the current, or provide feedstock for liquid fuels at the current rate. 10 year lifetime would apply it by 10 million per year need to be built. Shanghai harbor process is 30 milliohm union full shipping container. So we can produce tanks at that scale. And cars and trucks are now 90 million a year. As a matter of fact, they move by more than 10 million per year over the last decade so we can grow things that finance. We have set our mind to enlarge in large new infrastructures, take decades, a decade or two coming in. Think of cell phones. They invented in 47, nothing much happened. And then in 20 years they came in cars. They re inventive in 1880, but between 1920, 1925, they penetrated the market. Jet planes, ships to take cable television for a decade and a half. So all of these technologies can be implemented at a relatively short time. Ultimately, cost come down through learning. And then that's where we need to go with you to come from five hundred and ten hundred dollars at time. And that requires the 300 fold growth. So where we are right now, this requires less than a billion dollars. And ultimately, I think that's how we can make progress. I think my time's up and then open this up for questions. All right, thank you, class. Appreciate that lecture. Hi, Johnny. You're going to be monitoring for questions in the chat, right? Thing? Yeah. Are you gonna monitor for questions in the chat and I'll just kick things off with a question for me while we're waiting for any questions from the students or other attendees. And that is i'd I'd like you class if you could to comment on the fact that due to the scale of the problem that we're working on, that one can imagine 510 even 50 relevant direct air capture solutions that could contribute to the large scales that you're talking about. And so I feel like this is an area where I would hope that the students would be inspired to think creatively and sort of us as entrepreneurs and try to imagine new ways of achieving this. These technological solutions, angular. Real quick. Go ahead. I actually think this is a necessity. If you're looking at, is this idea Coming down these learning curves. You don't come out gone all bad fast if there's one company with one idea and it's hiding it in its box. For one thing is we talked to the direct air capture companies. And merely to a man they don't like. And they don't like it because competition over auctions, results and price discovery and cost discovery. And that's the last thing that a company actually wants. So I think from a societal perspective, that's auction approach, which by the way was based successfully used outside of the US. In other countries in Mexico and Chile in the Middle East, has driven down the cost of solar energy dramatically and actually lower than in the US as a consequence, perfect. And so structuring this right, what are the flaws in my potential flaws? And my argument is that if you start where you are, You are very small. So the auctions have to be very small because if I give you a million tons a year, well, then you single-handedly got bigger than what I claim we would need it and clearly I didn't solve my problems will be quite a love of an auction, has to be much smaller than that. Part of the internal discussion is how would one structure such an auction so that you can do that? First, I think entity data needs to be credible that there are monkey. Secondly, a single outfit, it has to be clearly capable of winning an auction more than once. Because a single, a single win is not good enough. So when we are laying out is in the paper, the suggestion is we give you a five-year contract and B by the CO2 at the amount we agreed upon our prompt. And we don't want to go past five years because the mass production paradigms as technology changes so fast that we don't really want you to think about a 30-year delivery. Try to try to take advantage of the fact that your planned isn't worth anything after five years and don't, don't built for eternity. Because that didn't help you. Because clearly, in a rapidly evolving market, what do you do today in five-years? Absolutely, right? I don't want a computer which last three years because things improve in the meantime. And so here too. So we have that five-year window and that's what we would pay for. And that's that 50 million to 100 million depending on came from that. But I would see this as the more IDS the parent, and then the better ideas will move down the pipeline and eventually get somewhere an API key and can give an analogy. You go back to the sixties and early seventies and look at windmills. They had all sorts of jihad matrix, right? Everybody had a good idea on how to do it right now. But in the end it's sort of settle down to a handful of designs and it was not predictable up front. Which one is the right design and EB, EB right now lock in one big technology and say This is what we all ran, was, may have picked a really lousy idea, right? So, and furthermore, this is a more accurate way of competition with other. There's not what's going to limit you. If we really talking about 40 gigatons, no body as an individual company will happen is that 40 gigatons a year, there will be a 1.2 trillion revenue stream for our company at $30 a time. Alright, so think of this as multiple players coming from multiple angles with multiple different ideas how to make it work. So the, the folks here working with us in Arizona, I want a passive design and they want to be very clever about their solvents. Alright, downgrade a cell IDs using a hydroxide. And he is going to intellectualize that solution to produce hydrogen and CO2. And then he has a downstream conversion to make gasoline. So let us ask the flap is blue and push it as far as you possibly can. Great. Okay. So Madeline, Morocco is an ASU alum wanted to ask that of the many challenges that you listed, which is if there was one that we should focus our our most urgent attention on now, which one would that be? I think I actually, after one being in this field, coming from the technical side, I think the biggest challenge since I'm not technical. And my, my example right now, which actually slightly depresses me, is the COVID discussion. And nobody thought we can do vaccines. Nobody thought we can get medication. Nobody wanted to believe that we can solve, reduce the problem by wearing masks. But technology came through at every step. Think about it two weeks into it being either genome. But we can still can't get people vaccinated. So here you have the problem that we are caught in-between people who say that climate change is a hoax on the one side. And fossil industries, which at best, well, intellectually recognize they have a problem, but intuitively culturally drag their feet because they don't really want to deal with it. And environmentalists who feel that we are supporting fossil energy and consumerism. And we got to find a place in there. And I do think that certificate, a sequestration I talked about is crucially important because if we do that right, there is a demand for direct air capture nearly instantly. I pointed this out in a paper in 2000. If you remove, if you did a lab, therefore heavy carbon carbon and another graph, right at the point where it came out of the ground, you need to show a certificate or sequestration and an equal amount of carbon has been put on why you cannot solve this point. So let's capture anymore, because the PowerPoint which bought us stuff is going to give you 90 percent back just so they have to find the last 10 percent immediately. So carbon, we move on from the environment, will become part of the game. Day one. And it won't take you all that long that you figure out that biomass alone is not enough. So the technical solutions will come to the fore in beige order with it. And I do actually, I'm optimistic that if the economic incentive is there, we will invent these things. This is not maybe rocket science or something like it. But it's not beyond that. Those guys could develop, get us to the moon in ten years. So I think we can do this here too. But we have to create an environment in which it's launched. And I don't think that has happened yet. Okay, thank you. Class. So Professor lively asks, mentions first that as somebody who works in negative emissions, you've probably been involved in discussions and debates about point-source capture versus negative emissions, direct air capture. And Ryan's question is that as the energy transition is occurring and we're decarbonizing the power sector. Do you think we will actually ever actually do post combustion capture? Because we've had the technology for 20 years and we've never really used it. Or do you think that we'll just have to go completely to negative emissions technologies and we won't actually do point-source capture on a large scale. I think that's a false comparison. I would argue. If you had asked me 20 years ago, I would have looked at you and say post combustion is never going to go anywhere. I probably actually said I was involved in a 0 emission coal-fired power plant because I felt that scrubbing a flue gas is for an old coal plants as a retrofit is not a solution. And the argument that I made back then and still today, that coal plant wants designed from the perspective of their coal is cheap and it's horribly inefficient. Not because it has to be, but because there was no economic incentive to drive it out. And I can prove because if you look at an Australian power plant, but basically it all and it's less efficient than an American called plant, but medium priced call and is much less efficient, which in turn is less efficient than a European coal plant, which operates on expensive. So we optimize that port. If you now tell me, oops, I made a mistake and I need $30 per ton to see you attribute to remove it from the flue gas, you effectively added 110 dollars to the child and C are true, and then you multiply the coal consumption by a factor 1 c. So in terms of the old Call, us somewhere north of 150 dollar of time, recall, Nobody will run that plaque. So I don't see that the retrofit technologies have much of a chance because people will get bankrupt over a, or the other hand, I can very well see that the world of the future has its negative emissions by carbon removal from the environment. But also it has point sources which are designed to it. We can argue whether the album cycle is the right answer, but it's a good example of something that, that works. By bypassing all of these questions. I always thought that oxy-fuel was much more clever because, because in a way that opened the door and into the future, where as flue gas robbing, always belt the flue gas tax Mughal y. Now this may not be true for cement plants, May play a role in steel plants, but I do think, generally speaking, it gets very hard to scrap flue gases and not started thinking about a redesign of the system. Now part of it is your capital automatic once you have a stranded asset. But, but look at the cost of the retrofits. If you look at Saskatchewan as SaaS power or the energy plant in their capital cost for scrubbing per kilowatt far exceeds the cost of the plant. I may as well build a new power plant and do it, right? And so, so that's why I see the future of the separation technologies. In direct air capture. I see the future of points OS capture in Bay or the different designs. These are designs which like the album cycle is an oxyfuel side. You end up running at extremely high efficiency. You used oxen field to make it happen and it's nearly coincidental that CO2 is showing up on a platter and you can get rid of it. Now, if you didn't worry about CO2, this may not be the most competitive option, but it's certainly more competitive than scrubbing an old coal plants. And so once there's a price on CO2, all of these things more comfortable for and I, I would not, and I'm trying to tell us, my students don't bet that renewable energy just runs roughshod over fossil because they can get a lot cheaper, true? And while I, while I can recognize that we are now at a point where if we do this, the fossil energy is static. Solar energy is winning. I would argue in fossil energy will also be dynamic and respond. And I'm not sure that we do ourselves a service by saying we outlaw fossil carbon as long as we need to outlaw emissions. And that's not quite the same. Okay, For the record, I think Professor lively would agree with you. I think with that, Johnny, we ran out of time a little bit. And we should probably wrap things up. If there are additional questions. I think there's one or two more in the chat. I would encourage you to write to Klaus if you wish, and I think he'll follow up with you via email. And if you had some questions you think of later, please do reach out to myself or to Him and we can make the appropriate connections. Go. All right, thank you very much, Professor Lackner. Thanks everybody for coming today. And I hope everybody has a good remainder of their Wednesday. Johnny, any comments from your side? Note, but, uh, thank you so much for the great toe, the great back and forth afterwards. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Thanks everybody.