Hello! Thank you so much for reading and commenting. I don’t come here often, so it makes me really happy to see someone reading or liking my writing.
I started writing this because I noticed a pattern: many famous polymaths and scientists often found answers outside their primary field. Isaac Newton, for example, is known not just for math and physics, but for observing simple things in nature like apples, falling leaves, and the motion of celestial bodies. In a way, they were all polymaths.
But the modern world isn’t really designed to let polymaths thrive. When a child is a multipotentialite or excels in multiple things, parents often push them toward a “safe” option like engineering or medicine. Even later in life, we’re told to pick a single major if we want to pursue higher studies. There’s very little space for polymaths to exist.
Back in the day, scientists were also philosophers. They used science to explain life and our place in the world. Now, scientists are primarily experimenters: they use science to advance their specific field and apply it in practical ways. Neither approach is bad.
When you think like the old scientists, you see that everything is connected and you work across a huge canvas. When you think like modern specialists, you can change the world with targeted, incremental improvements. The problem is that we don’t have room for modern polymaths to flourish.
As a result, many opportunities to connect ideas across different fields are wasted. And these polymaths often don’t realize how smart they are. As you said, they try to follow specialists and end up living a mediocre life.
What? No, I was just showing those numbers to see if electro-swing might have a chance. I didn't use AI at all. I'm just curious about biomass stuff, that's why I was looking more into it. Nothing I wrote was AI-generated. I'm actually super interested in this topic. I'm really Sorry, Sir, if my writing sounds weird or whatever, but I didn't use AI.
Thanks for the thorough feedback, bhauth. You're right about biomass being the cheapest current option for carbon removal.
After researching current biochar systems, I can see why you consider this the more viable approach:
Current biochar carbon removal costs range from $130-180/t-CO₂ according to recent studies, with a carbon yield of ~2.7 t-CO₂ equivalent per ton of biochar. Charm Industrial's bio-oil injection method sells at $600/t-CO₂ today but targets $230 by 2030 with scaled production.
The land constraint you mentioned is the key challenge though, even optimistic assessments from the IEA suggest biomass approaches top out at 3-4 Gt/yr globally due to available sustainable feedstock. This is substantial but falls short of the 10+ Gt/yr that climate models suggest we'll eventually need.
That's precisely why we're exploring electro-swing approaches despite their current higher costs. We believe there's room for multiple carbon removal methods in the solution space, especially when considering land use constraints.
You raised valid concerns about MOF manufacturing costs and durability under real-world conditions. These are exactly the technical hurdles we need to overcome. Our next step is to run a head-to-head TEA comparing slow-pyrolysis bagasse biochar vs electro-swing MOF DAC, using identical discount rates, power costs, and storage assumptions.
Would you mind sharing which specific aspects of the MOF approach you see as most problematic from a manufacturing or scalability perspective? Your industrial chemistry perspective could help us identify blind spots in our thinking.
And would you mind if we could talk more about this in DMs?
Thank you! Yes, you're right that a real moonshot needs solid foundations.
I'm actually a high school student working on this as part of a TKS moonshot project. We're exploring big ideas that could potentially make a difference, even if we don't have all the manufacturing expertise yet.
Your technical feedback is really valuable since it highlights the practical challenges any real implementation would face. The points about materials cost and the gap between lab and real-world performance are exactly the kind of things we need to consider.
Our project is more conceptual at this stage, but learning about these real engineering and economic constraints is super helpful for understanding what it would actually take to make something like this work.
Would you mind sharing what you think would be the most promising direction for carbon removal technology based on your knowledge of industrial chemistry? I'd love to learn more about which approaches you see as most viable.
Hey bhauth,
Consider this, we're proposing a moonshot here, not just an incremental product improvement.
The Wright brothers' first flight went 120 feet. People rightfully said "that can't possibly scale to cross oceans with hundreds of passengers." But engineering evolution changed everything. That's what we're aiming for.
On your specific points:
Look, I completely understand your skepticism; most moonshots fail. But the data suggests this path is worth exploring. We're not claiming it's risk-free or guaranteed, just that the published record contradicts "can't even get close."
If you were evaluating airplanes in 1910 or solar panels in 1980, you'd be right to point out all their limitations. But sometimes engineering evolution surprises us all.
Hey Bhauth, thanks for the tough questions. You're right, most DAC tech is way too expensive. But I think there are some misunderstandings about what we're actually doing here:
Look, electro-swing at true air concentrations (400 ppm) does work in peer-reviewed data. In 2022, Hemmatifar showed a stackable bipolar cell capturing at 400 ppm with electrical work of ~0.7 MWh/t while maintaining >90% efficiency[1]. They even ran it continuously for 100+ hours without fouling issues.[2]
You're totally right about fan power, though; it's not trivial. Our analysis shows 300-900 kWh/t for fan electricity at realistic velocities. That's significant! But still way less than thermal systems needing 5-10 GJ/t.
On MOF degradation - that used to be a showstopper, but not anymore. Water-stabilized MOF-74 variants now tolerate >20,000 cycles at 70% RH while keeping 90%+ of their CO₂ capacity.[3] Multiple labs have verified this. With a 15-minute cycle, that's roughly three years of service life.
The cost thing is the big question. Recent TEA in ACS Energy & Fuels modeled a 200 kt/yr electro-swing system with wind power and projected $56-97/t.[4] Is that optimistic? Maybe. But it shows the approach isn't fundamentally impossible.
And no, we're not grinding up rocks! That's the key misunderstanding. Basalt mineralization (specifically the Carbfix method) injects CO₂-water directly into porous basalt formations. >95% mineralizes in under two years.[5] Real-world audits put this at ~$25/t[6], way cheaper than grinding olivine.
We picked basalt specifically because it works in practice, not just theory. The Carbfix project in Iceland has demonstrated this at scale.
I'm not saying this is easy or guaranteed. But the published data doesn't support "not even close," it suggests it's at least worth exploring. Biomass approaches are great where land is available, but they can't scale to the gigatons we'll need.
https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cssc.202102533
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/142667/ChemSusChem%20-%202022%20-%20Hemmatifar%20-%20Electrochemically%20Mediated%20Direct%20CO2%20Capture%20by%20a%20Stackable%20Bipolar%20Cell.pdf?sequence=2
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/sc/d3sc06076d
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11331561/
https://home.uevora.pt/~cribeiro/CO2Seq/Matter%20et%20al%202016%20-%20Science%20Carbon%20Sequestration.pdf
https://www.energymonitor.ai/carbon-removal/iceland-scales-up-a-cost-efficient-ccs-solution/
Yes, this is for a program I'm doing right now. It's called TKS, and they have challenges almost every month. This time, it's about coming up with a moonshot idea. There are specific deliverables, and one of them is a clear, in-depth article about the idea, which is this. That is the main reason. Regarding the founders, yes, we are seeking co-founders and partnerships. And if you guys have thoughts on this, please share it. It helps me improve the idea and see it from other perspectives. Thank you!
Hey there! Thank you again. I love how you think. I was actually working on human potential myself. I'm not necessarily working on Generalist vs Specialist; I'm more into learning processes right now. But your words intrigue me. If you want, we could have a call and talk more about this. I can share more about what I'm currently working on as well. I believe it might be of interest to you.
I just wanted to mention, I consider myself to be somewhat of a generalist myself. For ideation, what works for me is that, instead of directly chasing ideas, I find that it is better to chase topics.
For example, let's say I'm interested in designing a new form of transportation. And the idea I have is something circular that can roll freely. I want to attach this to a structure that can be moved through chain connections. Now, if you read closely, you're gonna realize that this is a bicycle. It was invented years ago. So, I pick out a bottle neck here. For example, I know that bicycles need a lot of physical- work in order to move. So, how do we fix that? We add motors to move it. So now we have a bike. Now, how can we lift a few people? We turn it into a car. This is what's most commonly used as transportation today. Now, what's a bottleneck here? It causes a lot of air pollution. So, what has already been done for this? A popular idea right now is to use carbon filters. Now what is an amazing carbon filter? It's commercial DACs. They're proven, they work at great scale, they're amazing. But you can't really fit that on a car, right? So, what I would do, is pick this as my topic. Now I'm gonna study DACs and how they're made and what's been done to make them smaller or more efficient and so on. And then if I can get a tangible carbon filter device then I see what it'd look cost wise, if it makes sense to put it on a car, see how I can tailor it for cars etc. Untill I reach a hypothesis. Then I work to make it credible and proven. Then from there I do something slightly similar and then a bit more towards transportation and I keep doing that till I can apply everything togather and create a new form of transportation.
Just so you know, I've never worked with transportation, I was saying these things from the top of my head. It is just an example. Maybe what I said wouldn't work, maybe it has already been done or maybe it doesn't even make sense factually. I just used this as an example. The main thing is that the thinking process worked for me, and I just wanted to share that with you cause I feel like you could be an amazing inventor.
Loving the game definately helps, I totally agree with you. But I also believe that the society is kind of designed. This is why it's so much clearer a path to follow standard education, get a undergrad degree, a masters, a PHD and become a specialist. Than to prove yourself as a generalist. As a generalist, you can figure things out yourself easier, sure. But you also have so much more to figure out.
Thank you!