Carbon capture sequestration
The major competitor is the CCS technology: the concept has been widely accepted with many governments making budgets available for demonstration projects. It will remain as CCR’s primary competitor into the future despite its shortcomings.
Shortcomings of CCS: these are discussed in the Mantra Energy business plan, section entitled Summary of key competitive advantages: CCS is judged not be economically feasible as shown by the fact that industry is not generally committing to implementing it; the physics of underground geology pertaining to CCS may not have been fully understood. Nonetheless, CCS will remain a serious competitor. Mantra will happily work in conjunction with CCS projects.
When the ERC system is compared to CCS, this is the outcome:
| Comparison category |
ERC system |
CCS |
| Economics |
Profitable according to ROI estimates |
Very costly - $80 to $100 per tonne of CO2 |
| Value of product |
$1,440 per tonne of formic acid |
No product: no income |
| Safety |
Simple and immediate |
Liability may continue for 1,000 years |
| Timing |
Demonstration units in industry use next year; full plants operational within 4 to 5 years |
Early demo projects within 2 years. Ten years before CCS realistically available to industry, or longer. |
| Scalability |
From small demo projects to full commercial plants |
No small CCS projects – N. Germany, €1.5 billion |
| Project authorization |
Electrochemistry is proven and established, no problems |
No definitive legal structure established; expect problems |
| Practicality |
In process of being accepted |
Now being questioned |