Comments on: Air Capture in The Guardian http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4436 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4436&cpage=1#comment-10339 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:01:29 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4436#comment-10339 Lackner's previous cost estimates based on his earlier prototype(s) -- at Columbia and GRT -- were included in my analysis (which is still under review, so certainly not final). Lackner’s previous cost estimates based on his earlier prototype(s) — at Columbia and GRT — were included in my analysis (which is still under review, so certainly not final).

]]> By: James Annan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4436&cpage=1#comment-10338 James Annan Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:11:52 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4436#comment-10338 The *possible* 90% reduction in energy usage is a comparison with their previous prototype, not directly relevant to other published estimates. I don't see any actual details of the energy used, either for this version or the previous. But if you have looked into this may you know more than is written here...please share. The *possible* 90% reduction in energy usage is a comparison with their previous prototype, not directly relevant to other published estimates. I don’t see any actual details of the energy used, either for this version or the previous. But if you have looked into this may you know more than is written here…please share.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4436&cpage=1#comment-10337 Roger Pielke, Jr. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:11:35 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4436#comment-10337 Thank you James, now corrected. The paper that I have written that I refer to in this post conducts a review of published estimates of the economic costs of air capture. I would assume that an approach 10% as energy intensive will cost less (perhaps much less) than the estimates that I reviewed. We shall see. Thank you James, now corrected.

The paper that I have written that I refer to in this post conducts a review of published estimates of the economic costs of air capture. I would assume that an approach 10% as energy intensive will cost less (perhaps much less) than the estimates that I reviewed. We shall see.

]]> By: James Annan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4436&cpage=1#comment-10336 James Annan Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:25:50 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4436#comment-10336 Actually, that was last week's Guardian, and as William said last week, there is no hint as to the costs of operating it (financial or energy). http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/06/75.php Actually, that was last week’s Guardian, and as William said last week, there is no hint as to the costs of operating it (financial or energy).

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/06/75.php

]]>