February 14, 2025 • 38 mins
Join Lee and Gwilym for an enlightening conversation with Ray Naughton from NEG8 Carbon, a pioneering force in the world of carbon capture technology. Ray takes us on a journey from a humble research project at Trinity College Dublin to a cutting-edge enterprise nominated for the 2025 Earthshot Prize. Ray and the peas discuss how innovations might reshape industries by turning captured CO2 into valuable products like strengthened concrete and the role intellectual property plays in maintaining a competitive edge. This episode offers a thought-provoking look at the intersection of technology, personal impact, and the quest for a sustainable future.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Lee Davis and Gwilym Roberts are the two IPs in a pod
and you are listening to apodcast on intellectual property
brought to you by the CharteredInstitute of Patent Attorneys.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
Hey, gwilym, good to see you mate.
New series of the.
Is it a season?
They're called seasons, aren'tthey?
In podcast land, not series?
I think New season of thepodcast.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
I think we can call it what we like.
What about?
I don't know, I haven't got abetter word.
What did you say?
Season Season.
They're seasons, aren't they?
I think that's what they'reneed to get back.
I need to get back into this.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
I've forgotten my words I I don't really
understand podcast seasonsbecause I listen to podcasts,
obviously, and they always seemto end a season and then the
next week they start the nextseason.
It's like what?
What happened?
There was there was no breakbetween them.
We at least have a little breakbetween us.
We have a little bit downtime,don't we?
Speaker 1 (00:57):
well, this is this behind the scenes stuff, lee,
but you know, as you know, wedon't necessarily always record
them exactly when it might soundlike we recorded them.
Sometimes you do a bit of aburst, so maybe that's it, I
don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
So that's it.
So what are you doing in yourdowntime?
Anything exciting.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Well, given that I haven't seen you since Christmas
, kind of you haven't seen mesince Christmas.
Yes, that's right, Because thisis the one that's going out now
because of the magic of timeshifting.
So how was your Christmas outnow?
Speaker 4 (01:26):
because of the magic of time shifting.
So how was your Christmas?
I have a really, really manicChristmas, as you know, because
I've got far too many childrenand, by extension, far too many
grandchildren.
In fact, as we speak, I'mwaiting for grandchild number
seven.
How exciting is that?
Who is eight days late?
Eight days late, yeah, so duelast week.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Excellent.
We have another podcast goingafter this one where the baby is
further out so people can haveto get their heads around that.
Did I mention it last time?
Did I do that?
Yeah, you did.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
This is so complicated.
Can you think of some betterfriendly bants?
That means that I don't mark upthe time.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
I've got an idea.
Why don't we pretend that weactually recorded this in June
of 2025 and talk about recentcurrent events?
How's about that?
What do you know is happeningin June 2025?
Well, that's what I mean Lastweek.
It'll really confuse peoplebecause I think, my God, they
recorded this in June.
They know the future.
That's what will happen.
So I think in June, that'll bewhen the dinosaurs reappeared.
(02:21):
That was really weird in May,wasn't it?
Speaker 4 (02:24):
It did, but didn't we have a podcast shortly before
that about some sort of DNA geneinvention thing?
And then the world wenthorribly wrong.
We're losing the plot, okay, Ithink we need to crack on with
this podcast.
Yes, so exciting one today,because it's the start of our
(02:45):
new Earthshot nominations for2025.
And really, really delighted tohave on one of our nominees.
So, Ray, have I got yoursurname right?
Ray Norton, is that right, Ray?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Ray Norton.
That's right, Ray.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Norton.
Welcome to the podcast, Ray.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Thank you very much thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
It's, it's good, and I get really excited when we
have bona fide inventors on, butalso inventors that are doing
stuff that benefits the planet,and, um, there can be no sort of
example of the way the ipsystem serves the world really
in terms of protectinginventions that are there for
the for the betterment of us all, can there so lovely to have
you on super, that you're, uh,one of the 2025 earthshot
nominees little ways out, aren'twe?
Because we won't find out untiltowards the end of this year
(03:30):
how you've done so, um, so Ithink all we can say at the
moment is good luck, good luckwith all of that, thanks again.
And so where, where should westart?
Do you want to tell us a weebit?
Speaker 2 (03:42):
about this.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
So it's Negate Carbon , yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Yes, the name of the company is Negate Carbon, and we
started actually about 11 yearsago in Trinity College in
Dublin, and we started off as aresearch project that went on
for about seven years, lookingat all aspects of carbon capture
technology and going downthrough many rabbit holes and
(04:10):
learning an awful lot about thesubject.
Sure, yeah, and finally, in2021, we spun out of Trinity and
we established ourselves inWaterford in the south of
Ireland it's a town in thesoutheast of Ireland and we set
up our labs there and recruitedour scientists and engineers,
(04:34):
and we've been busy since thendeveloping our carbon capture
technology, because what we dois we capture CO2 from the air,
because what we do is we captureCO2 from the air, and that
actually is the subject of ourpatents that have helped us get
nominated for the EarthshotPrize, so we're very pleased
(04:56):
about that.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
So before Gwilym gets into the techie patent stuff
and I know he'll have done alittle bit of research and I
know he'll want to I'm not theIP specialist on the podcast,
right, so I get.
I get to ask the questions thatperhaps aren't sort of directly
ip related.
Um, perhaps like have more of asocial conscience.
So if I, if I understand thisright, it's about grabbing
(05:18):
carbon from the air, yeah, andwouldn't a cynic say that that's
just an easy way out for, like,fossil fuel companies to keep
to keep doing what they do,because it's all right, because
we can just grab it from the air, or is that?
Is that an unfair question?
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Well, I think you know the planet has two problems
.
One is the currentconcentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere.
So at the moment, there are 422parts per million of CO2 in the
atmosphere.
So at the moment, there are 422parts per million of CO2 in the
atmosphere, and that is thecause of global warming.
So as we tip up 422, 423 and wego up to 550, which is when we
(05:59):
expect to flatten the curve wewill have many, many more
extreme weather events and many,many more changes in our
climate on the planet during thenext 100 years as a result of
the concentration of CO2 in theatmosphere.
So there's one problem, rightthe CO2 stays in the atmosphere
(06:22):
for, let's say, about a thousandyears.
That's another issue, right,because when you come to say
nature-based solutions for CO2,you're looking at maybe 80,
100-year life of those solutionsin terms of their impact on CO2
.
(06:43):
Whereas if you capture CO2 fromthe atmosphere, and you take
that CO2 and you mineralize it,then you're actually making a
very significant difference toclimate change.
Now the question, then is howcan you do it in volume?
It's one thing to capture CO2from the atmosphere, but there
(07:05):
are billions of tons of CO2 tobe captured in order to move the
needle on climate change, andso what's needed are very
efficient carbon capturetechnologies, and that has
essentially been our focus forthe last 10 years or so has been
(07:25):
to try to develop highlyefficient CO2 technologies,
capture technologies so that thecost is affordable for the
planet and so that thetechnology can be deployed at
scale worldwide.
That's the mission of NegateCarbon.
(07:45):
That's what we're trying to do,and the patents are very
important to us because theyprotect the novelty of the way
we do this and the way that weachieve a very low cost of
carbon capture.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
So presumably you're not operating in an exclusive
environment, are you?
There will be others trying todo what you're trying to do.
Yes, and the way the patentsystem helps you is that your
way is novel and different andobviously you want to to protect
that.
Well, I think probably time foryou to come in yeah, no, it's
very interesting.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
I was going to um pick off just by talking about
technology.
I'll give you a heads uptechnology, then ip, then
investment.
That's my three stages, so I'mquite interested in all of them
um starting on this technologysounds like there's there's two
elements potentially to.
I don't know, I've not looked atthe patterns, but, um, it
sounds like there's a chemistryangle which is how to do it, and
there's a scalability anglewhich is, it's all very well
(08:44):
capturing carbon that happens tobe wandering past your filter
or whatever, but you've now gotto work out how to get those
billions of tons.
So are you attacking both ofthose problems?
Have I oversimplified it?
Where are the problems?
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Right.
So there are two key aspects tothis right.
One is the material that youuse to capture the CO2.
So that's number one, and so wehave quite a number of material
scientists working for us, andour objective is to identify the
(09:23):
best materials to capture CO2and to modify them for use in
our process.
That is our focus.
So materials are criticallyimportant, and then the process
itself is critically importanthow you actually do this.
So, like any process, itrequires power and that is the
(09:46):
key point.
It requires less power thanother processes and so less
costly.
And how we do that is actuallyin the package.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
That makes loads and loads of sense.
You've got a material that doesthe capture.
You've looked at what kind ofcapture you're trying to sense.
You've got a material that doesthe capture.
You've looked at what kind ofcapture you're trying to do.
You've then built a process todo it.
That makes perfect sense.
The power requirements areinteresting because, of course,
you're presumably at risk ofpumping carbon into the
atmosphere to capture carbonfrom the atmosphere.
So I'm guessing that you'vesolved that one.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Yes, yes, exactly.
So obviously the captureprocess has to use green power
number one, right, so?
And it has to use, ideally,which is freely available so
that you can scale it.
In other words, you want tooperate in countries where the
(10:40):
grid isn't under pressure, rightFor supplying industry or other
things.
So the first deployment of oursystem will be in Canada, for
example, and they have a verylow cost of power there about 5
cents a kilowatt hour, so aboutmaybe a third or a quarter of
(11:04):
the UK's cost of power.
And they also have the otheressential ingredient that you
need to make this whole cyclework, and that is that they have
very suitable mineral sandswhich we can pump the CO2 into
and it turns into a calcite, inother words, you can turn it
(11:24):
back into rock.
So you think about it.
The beauty of direct aircapture is you can place your
plant anywhere on the planet,because the concentration of CO2
in the atmosphere is the sameeverywhere in the planet.
So you can place your plantanywhere on the planet.
So obviously you're going toplace it in a country which has
(11:47):
good permitting, good knowledgeof mining, good infrastructure
and compliance regulations, lowcost of power and then the
geological formations necessaryto turn the CO2 back into rock
or to mineralize it, what wecall mineralizing.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
I was wondering what happened to the byproduct.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
So our focus is, on very large scale, dac farms
direct air capture farms whichwe want to deploy into suitable
locations worldwide, and Canadais the first country that we're
doing that in Other countriesthat are suitable are Iceland,
(12:33):
who have similar characteristicsof low power costs, good
geological formations and so on,and also Oman, in the Persian
Gulf.
It has similar characteristicsas well.
So there will be many differentplaces around the world which
will be perfect for capturingthe carbon and then turning it
(12:54):
into rock, so that you don'tsuffer from all the leakages of
other systems, you don't sufferfrom the problem of trying to
move the co2 on pipelines, putit on ships, take it offshore,
pump it underground, go throughall of that stuff.
Even though they are optionsthat that are available, the the
actual gold standard is is tocapture it and mineralize it on
(13:19):
site, never move it again.
So take it straight out of theair and put it straight
underground.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Okay, and your customers?
Who are you aiming to take thistechnology up?
Is it government level?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
So there are two groups of customers that are the
big DAC farm developers, thepeople who are developing direct
air capture farms, and they'reall just beginning.
So this industry is brand new,it's just starting.
But in the future you will havevery large developers of DAC
(13:55):
farms all over the world who arewell capitalized we're talking
about billions of pounds todevelop these farms.
So you're looking at companieswith very big resources and they
will be buying systems toenable them establish these
farms and we will be providingthese systems to the DAC farm
(14:19):
developers.
So that is one category ofcustomer.
Within that category, by theway, you have two
classifications.
You have, let's call them, thespeculative DAC farm developers,
who build DAC farms to sell thecarbon credits, and you have
(14:43):
the second type, which is theindustrial DAC farm, where you
have an emitter who's buildingDAC farms in order to reach net
zero in their own manufacturingor process operation.
So they're the two types ofdevelopments that you have in
the business that you have inthe business.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
So basically your market is the requirement to
reduce CO2 and the government'skind of global pressure to
actually get on with it.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yes, exactly.
And then you have anothercategory of customer, which is
the customers who use CO2.
So, for example, you will havea very big market for what are
known as SAFs sustainableaviation fuels.
They are now being mandated foruse in Britain and in the EU
(15:35):
and in other countries in theworld, and what this means is
that you no longer be able touse fossil fuels to make jet
fuel.
You will have to use SAFssustainable aviation fuels and
they're made from combininghydrogen and CO2.
(15:56):
And so you get a pure fuelwhich you burn and then, with
the net zero concept, thecircular economy you capture the
CO2 again and you regenerate it, and so on.
So that's quite a large market,but that again is only just
starting.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Understood, understood.
So to our interest, I think yousaid that we're at 442 parts
per million of CO2.
Where are we supposed to be?
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Well, 350 ideally, 350 ideally.
But let's face it, the realityis that we're going to go 422 to
probably 550.
Nobody knows actually how farit's going to go.
(16:47):
There's an awful lot of workgoing on, an awful lot of
studies going on, but in the endof the day, it comes down to
action by industry to reduceemissions and action by
governments to encourage orcarrot and stick, you know,
encourage or penalise industryif they don't reduce their
(17:09):
emissions.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Instant.
So we talk about the IP, ofcourse.
So you mentioned you have apending patent application.
Do you have any more or are youbuilding your portfolio at the
moment?
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Yes, we have another one pending.
Another patent pending.
Yes, we have another onepending.
Another patent pending becausewe've made another discovery
which is quite revolutionary.
So, if you think about it, inthe last five years we have
built three generations ofsystem generation one, two and
(17:44):
three Each one progressivelymore efficient than the other.
And the generation threetechnology, which we're
currently testing in Waterford,will be much more efficient than
, obviously, the previous twogenerations, but that will be
the subject of a new patentwhich we will submit in the
(18:06):
coming month.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
So, hey, we know from the Earthshot nomination that
you're working with ClaireRutherford at Definition IP.
How important is IP to theproject right now?
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Well, claire actually was very important to helping
us hone that patent.
She put a lot of work into itand it is crucial to the future
protection of the intellectualproperty of the business and
gives us a unique position inthe marketplace.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Are you finding that it's an attractant for
investment and third partiesputting money into you?
Speaker 2 (18:44):
It's absolutely essential for investors You're
right Particularly in a highlycompetitive space like this.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
As much as you're able to share.
We always love to hear aboutthe funding side, because it's
the reality of the IP system.
It's not just having an idea,it's bringing it to market.
That involves a lot of peopleand a lot of investment.
How's that going?
How have you played it?
Speaker 2 (19:09):
yeah, well, so far, all of the investors are private
investors, people friends ofmine, people who are concerned
about climate change, people whowant to to make a difference
with their investments and theirwhat we call impact investors,
and so far, they're the peoplebehind the company.
We are talking to a couple oftrade investors and we're, of
(19:33):
course, talking to the big fundsas well, and we continue that
dialogue at the moment.
You know which is going on atthe present time.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
It sounds like you've got proof of concept, so you
can you know this is a goingconcern.
This is something that reallyworks.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Correct, correct, yeah.
And in Waterford we can showinvestors and customers
(20:10):
precisely how the technologyworks and see it in action, so
to speak.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
And the story behind that.
As you said, you started off asa research project at Trinity.
Yeah, and it's been quite along journey.
So do you still work closelywith the university in all of
this?
How's that relationship?
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Well, our technology director was previously the
professor of chemicalengineering in University
College Dublin.
So we have strong contactsstill with all of the
universities in Ireland and wework with University of Limerick
, for example, on the materialscience side, and we work with
(20:52):
the Southeastern TechnologyUniversity, which is the one
next door to us in Waterford,and so on, mainly because if
you're working in the materialscience area you need access to
research all the time.
One of our people, andre,actually is full-time
(21:16):
researching what is happening inmaterial sciences worldwide.
So we research everythingthat's happening around the
globe in materials that could beused for carbon capture and
then we make those materials,test them, verify them and so on
(21:37):
.
So we have a very high affinitywith the academic community,
not just in Ireland but actuallyaround the world.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Sorry to butt in Gwilym, but did I take from that
Ray that there might be?
So, rather than in the futuremineralising it for storage, you
might be mineralising.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
I can't even get my tongue around that word
mineralising it for productsthat might have other uses?
Yeah, well, that would besuperb.
That would be superb.
So maybe if I roll back andjust say in 2014, when we
started recruiting postdocs forthis project in Trinity, at that
point in time, in 2014, therewere two centers in the world
(22:27):
doing CO2 research.
One was Arizona StateUniversity and the other was in
South Korea.
Which you believe?
Two centers in the world.
Almost no research being done incarbon capture research and
almost no research being done inthe application of CO2 to
(22:49):
materials.
This is a long answer to yourquestion.
So there is an enormous amountof research work to be done in
carbon capture and also in theuses of carbon, because the
ideal thing I mean what we'redoing is capturing it, turning
(23:11):
it into rock.
That's fine, it's put away forall time, but if we could
generate products out of it,that would be a great result.
One of the projects that we'reworking on is capturing the CO2
and injecting it into concrete.
So that way, we strengthen theconcrete, reduce the amount of
(23:33):
concrete needed to perform itstask right and we also fix the
CO2 for all time.
So that type of application issomething we're very keen to
explore with many partners, aswe can.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
And I guess the sort of like the where my mind was
going was is there a sort ofmarket in industrial diamonds or
anything like that?
Could you ever get to the stagewhere you're making something
that advanced, or is that justtoo far away?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
It's possible.
It's possible, but a lot ofthis is going to come out of the
research community.
A lot of this is going to comeout of the research community,
and what I would say is and wenotice this when we're
recruiting our engineers and ourchemists and so on we notice
that there are very few peoplecoming with experience.
(24:33):
So this is a very youngindustry and most of the
engineers and scientists getmopped up by the life science
and chemical industry, rightyeah, so the hard science work
that we're doing is sort of rarebreed at the moment and we
(24:54):
would like to see a lot moreresearch done to feed into this
developing industry, whereas atthe moment, most of the research
is life science based and medtech based and all of that, and,
of course, it based and AI andall of that stuff.
But we would like to seegovernments around the world
(25:19):
focus more of their researchdollars on pushing into the
carbon capture and utilisationspace, the area you're talking
about.
We think that's very first-uprequirement.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
And that makes absolute sense to me.
And what does that mean interms of future business models?
For negate, because presumablyI mean there are a number of
things you can do, aren't there?
You could.
This could be something whereyou're building a massive
international business, um, oryou could be building something
where it exists throughlicensing, so you're encouraging
others to come on board.
What's what's at the moment interms of the early stage of your
(25:54):
journey on what's the futurelook like?
Speaker 2 (25:56):
yeah.
So very good question, becausein a new industry the business
model evolves very quickly.
You know, you try this, you trythat, and so it evolves.
So also the technology and theway you approach the deployment
of technology evolves.
(26:18):
So our experience to date hasbeen that for the initial
deployments of systems we haveto deploy the entire system
Right.
So there's so little expertiseout there, so you have to do the
whole thing.
But in fact in a carbon capturesystem there are an awful lot
of standard elements right.
(26:39):
So the secret source is in theabsorber right, which is the
piece of the system whichcontains the materials right,
and the substrate that it isattached to.
That's the secret source.
So what we want to do long-termis just make the absorbers
(27:01):
right and we will sell thedesign of our system to the big
developers.
They can build all of theinfrastructure and then they buy
the absorbers from us.
That's the way we want to go,even though in the initial
stages we will provide fullsystems yeah, they get that
sense.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
So you, you're providing components.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Future industry yes, yes, we're, we're providing,
like the intel inside, we'reproviding the, the, the absorber
, to the system, which is thekey component to capture the CO2
.
And all the rest of the stuffwill leave to the developers to
make.
And because you can't reallyscale unless you have an
(27:46):
enormous amount of capital,which we don't have and we're
unlikely ever to have right, youcan't scale the establishment
of 100 parks, each one capturing10 million tons of CO2 each per
year.
So I can't see a point that wecan capitalize that.
So we take the bit we cansupply and we can manufacture
(28:10):
that in volume and ship it atlow cost for integration into
these big farms that thedevelopers make.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
Yeah, I guess it doesn't.
It doesn't say my simple mind.
It doesn't matter where thesefarms are, because I imagine if
you've taken CO2 out of theenvironment in Canada, co2 will
find its way there, won't it't?
You don't need, you don't needfans to blow it back over again,
it's no it sorts itself out.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Yeah no, it does, you're absolutely right.
Yeah, no, you're absolutelyright.
So so you can you?
You know, globally, you can seea situation where countries and
and industries will beoffsetting carbon emissions in
one country for plants which areoperating in another, and the
(28:59):
reason why they will do that isbecause the other country is
much more suitable for carboncapture and mineralisation, for
example.
Speaker 4 (29:08):
Can we talk a wee bit about F-Shot, Because we
mentioned it at the beginningbut we've not really gone back
to that.
What does it mean to benominated?
Speaker 2 (29:23):
I think it's been probably the most important bit
of publicity that we've got sofar in our journey, because it's
recognition.
It's recognition that theseguys have something special.
That's what the Earthshotnomination means, so it's very
important to us.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
I think we hear that a lot.
We've had other Earthshotnominees on and it's almost.
I mean, whilst it would belovely to win a million pounds,
wouldn't it?
And I'll ask you in a momentwhat that might do for the
business, so think about thatone.
But we hear a lot from nomineesthat actually just the exposure
, just the media profile.
The interest is that whatyou're finding?
Speaker 2 (29:58):
yes, but it's the recognition, it's the fact that
that you qualify for anomination, that's the key thing
, and then there's a lot ofpublicity generated out of that.
But it carries a lot of weightin the community, in the, in the
customer community and theinvestor community.
It's recognised as a seriousaward and therefore a nomination
(30:22):
is considered serious.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
Gotcha.
So there's a financial spin-offthere as well, in that it makes
you more attractive toinvestors because you've got
that recognition.
Absolutely Cool.
What would a million pound mean?
What are you going to use amillion pound on when you win it
?
Speaker 2 (30:41):
well, uh, the million pound would help us build the
first 6 000 ton generation 3system, and that will be
tremendously welcome.
It would help us on our journeyto build that system.
And 6,000 tons is the standardunit that we want to provide to
(31:06):
the developers of DAC farms.
So up until now, most of thecarbon capture systems are
operating in hundreds of tons.
We want to have a standarddeployment block, so to speak,
like Lego, you know of 6,000tons and then you can populate
(31:26):
as many of these.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
Help me understand that.
In my simple brain, lego worksfor me.
Actually, I understand Lego.
You link stuff together.
But what does 6,000 tons mean?
Is that a kind of overtimecapacity?
Speaker 2 (31:41):
That's the annual capture rate of the module.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
So a single unit is taking 6,000 ton of CO2 out of
the atmosphere in a year.
Exactly Got it.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
And then you just, and then that scale yeah, and
then the key thing you have toachieve is you have to achieve a
cost per ton capture of aroundsomewhere between 100 and 200
euros a ton.
There's the magic number thatwill enable the the widespread
adoption, direct air capture ofcarbon around the world, and at
(32:19):
the moment we can capture CO2with the Generation 3 system at
about 165 euros a tonne.
And if you have waste heat,which is a huge bonus, if you
have waste heat you can get thatdown to around 100 euros a time
, maybe a little under that.
And now you're talking seriousopportunities for the developers
(32:44):
.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
Now, I think that brings us to the end, Gwilym,
unless you've got a littlecloser question for us.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
I do.
My closer is always.
Speaker 4 (32:53):
Quite silly though I do, my clothes are always quite
silly though, so let me justexplain it to Ray, though first.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
So.
So Gwilym will ask me, and thenhe'll ask you, ray, and then he
won't realise this, but I'mgoing to then spring the
question back on him.
What Lee doesn't realise isthat I've already know my answer
and built the question aroundhaving a good answer to it.
And I'm sure Lee's never donethat to me, I've never done that
to you, obviously.
So so, ray, this conceptobviously, uh, started through a
university research project andit's leading something
(33:27):
fantastic and world changing,hopefully as well.
Um, lee, you've studied, you'vegot multiple degrees, as I
recall, so you've studied lots.
What's legacy?
Not, in anything useful?
Willem, I was going to say whatlegacy do you see from your
studies that um, that you'd likeyou'd put your point to?
Speaker 4 (33:43):
oh no.
So I, I already have my legacyand sorry, I'm going to be a
little bit serious for a momentbecause I'm quite proud of my
legacy.
So my, my degrees, multipledegrees, as you know, we're in
education, educational theory,educational leadership, and I
was only reading something theother day.
So I introduced, largely forteachers in further education,
qualified teacher status andthat was as a result of my
(34:05):
second master.
So my second master's was onteacher professional identity
and one of the outcomes of thatwas qualified teacher, learning
and skills status for teachersin further education and
trainers in the workplace andthe like.
So, yeah, have my legacy.
No one will ever remember it'sme, but I do so.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Yeah, it's like a serious answer god, I'm
regretting asking this questionnow when I get to my answer, but
anyway, um and and and ray, Imean you know negate is a huge
um legacy.
Anything else you kind of lookback on through your studies and
through your work and researchthat you're proud of, is this
the thing that you really pointto, something that you want to
(34:41):
kind of think about as you goforward?
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Yeah, you know, the thing that drives the passion
and the commitment to makesomething happen is the belief
that science can make adifference to climate change.
(35:05):
You know that collectively wecan get together and we can
actually make a difference,actually make a difference.
And it's the difference betweendriving a car and being a
passenger in a car.
You know If you're driving acar at high speed, but yet it's
(35:27):
safe, you know you're going toget there, whereas everybody
else is scared in the back.
So it is with climate change.
If you're working withtechnologies that you can see
will make a significantdifference to global warming,
(35:49):
even though they are still inthe early days, then you don't
have the fear and that deepconcern that everybody I talk to
has about climate change,because you know that we can
make a difference and thatscience can make a difference to
the rate of development ofclimate change and to global
(36:13):
warming.
So I guess, if we achieve ourobjective, and if we achieve the
objective of helping developersbuild enormous stack farms who,
in the end, capture billions oftons of CO2 and put it
(36:33):
underground for all time, thenI'd be a happy man and say, okay
, there's a legacy, there's anachievement that was worth doing
lee, before you say anything,we can either go to my really
pure I'll answer or we can stopabout now.
Speaker 4 (36:52):
No, no, there's no way you're getting away with it,
because I know, I know thisquestion came from some I.
So, knowing what you did, Ican't see how you're ever going
to have changed the world, mate.
So so what's your legacy?
Speaker 1 (37:06):
um, so well, obviously, lee, you've had a
massive impact on the nationaleducation system, hopefully set
a you know an example globally.
And, ray, you're literallytrying to make climate change go
away and bring us back to wherewe should be.
So I'd love to compete withthat.
But I didn't know where thiswas going when I came up with
the question, and I'm just goingto point to my stint as head of
(37:27):
publicity for my collegehomebrew society, which I think
also at the time was veryimpactful.
A lot of people really enjoyedit.
Beer wasn't great, I'm notgoing to lie, but good defence.
But we can cut that bit, Ithink, and just stick on
improving the world.
Speaker 4 (37:44):
I think that stays in .
Speaker 1 (37:46):
I really regret that.
Speaker 4 (37:48):
No, so, ray, thank you so much for coming on.
Sorry that you had to suffer mylearned colleagues' rubbish
attempt to close a question Onthe next podcast.
It will go back to me doingthem, grill them I think okay
yeah, thanks again, ray, forcoming on.
Thanks again for um hosting withme.
Just a little shout out to ourlisteners.
(38:08):
Obviously we say this everytime, but if you can leave us a
little review on whicheverplatform you listen to the
podcast on, that'd be greatbecause it helps other people
find us.
And, gullum, I'll see you nexttime.
Lee Davis and Gwilym Roberts are the two IPs in a pod
and you are listening to apodcast on intellectual property
brought to you by the CharteredInstitute of Patent Attorneys.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
Hey, gwilym, good to see you mate.
New series of the.
Is it a season?
They're called seasons, aren'tthey?
In podcast land, not series?
I think New season of thepodcast.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
I think we can call it what we like.
What about?
I don't know, I haven't got abetter word.
What did you say?
Season Season.
They're seasons, aren't they?
I think that's what they'reneed to get back.
I need to get back into this.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
I've forgotten my words I I don't really
understand podcast seasonsbecause I listen to podcasts,
obviously, and they always seemto end a season and then the
next week they start the nextseason.
It's like what?
What happened?
There was there was no breakbetween them.
We at least have a little breakbetween us.
We have a little bit downtime,don't we?
Speaker 1 (00:57):
well, this is this behind the scenes stuff, lee,
but you know, as you know, wedon't necessarily always record
them exactly when it might soundlike we recorded them.
Sometimes you do a bit of aburst, so maybe that's it, I
don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
So that's it.
So what are you doing in yourdowntime?
Anything exciting.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Well, given that I haven't seen you since Christmas
, kind of you haven't seen mesince Christmas.
Yes, that's right, Because thisis the one that's going out now
because of the magic of timeshifting.
So how was your Christmas outnow?
Speaker 4 (01:26):
because of the magic of time shifting.
So how was your Christmas?
I have a really, really manicChristmas, as you know, because
I've got far too many childrenand, by extension, far too many
grandchildren.
In fact, as we speak, I'mwaiting for grandchild number
seven.
How exciting is that?
Who is eight days late?
Eight days late, yeah, so duelast week.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Excellent.
We have another podcast goingafter this one where the baby is
further out so people can haveto get their heads around that.
Did I mention it last time?
Did I do that?
Yeah, you did.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
This is so complicated.
Can you think of some betterfriendly bants?
That means that I don't mark upthe time.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
I've got an idea.
Why don't we pretend that weactually recorded this in June
of 2025 and talk about recentcurrent events?
How's about that?
What do you know is happeningin June 2025?
Well, that's what I mean Lastweek.
It'll really confuse peoplebecause I think, my God, they
recorded this in June.
They know the future.
That's what will happen.
So I think in June, that'll bewhen the dinosaurs reappeared.
(02:21):
That was really weird in May,wasn't it?
Speaker 4 (02:24):
It did, but didn't we have a podcast shortly before
that about some sort of DNA geneinvention thing?
And then the world wenthorribly wrong.
We're losing the plot, okay, Ithink we need to crack on with
this podcast.
Yes, so exciting one today,because it's the start of our
(02:45):
new Earthshot nominations for2025.
And really, really delighted tohave on one of our nominees.
So, Ray, have I got yoursurname right?
Ray Norton, is that right, Ray?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Ray Norton.
That's right, Ray.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Norton.
Welcome to the podcast, Ray.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Thank you very much thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
It's, it's good, and I get really excited when we
have bona fide inventors on, butalso inventors that are doing
stuff that benefits the planet,and, um, there can be no sort of
example of the way the ipsystem serves the world really
in terms of protectinginventions that are there for
the for the betterment of us all, can there so lovely to have
you on super, that you're, uh,one of the 2025 earthshot
nominees little ways out, aren'twe?
Because we won't find out untiltowards the end of this year
(03:30):
how you've done so, um, so Ithink all we can say at the
moment is good luck, good luckwith all of that, thanks again.
And so where, where should westart?
Do you want to tell us a weebit?
Speaker 2 (03:42):
about this.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
So it's Negate Carbon , yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Yes, the name of the company is Negate Carbon, and we
started actually about 11 yearsago in Trinity College in
Dublin, and we started off as aresearch project that went on
for about seven years, lookingat all aspects of carbon capture
technology and going downthrough many rabbit holes and
(04:10):
learning an awful lot about thesubject.
Sure, yeah, and finally, in2021, we spun out of Trinity and
we established ourselves inWaterford in the south of
Ireland it's a town in thesoutheast of Ireland and we set
up our labs there and recruitedour scientists and engineers,
(04:34):
and we've been busy since thendeveloping our carbon capture
technology, because what we dois we capture CO2 from the air,
because what we do is we captureCO2 from the air, and that
actually is the subject of ourpatents that have helped us get
nominated for the EarthshotPrize, so we're very pleased
(04:56):
about that.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
So before Gwilym gets into the techie patent stuff
and I know he'll have done alittle bit of research and I
know he'll want to I'm not theIP specialist on the podcast,
right, so I get.
I get to ask the questions thatperhaps aren't sort of directly
ip related.
Um, perhaps like have more of asocial conscience.
So if I, if I understand thisright, it's about grabbing
(05:18):
carbon from the air, yeah, andwouldn't a cynic say that that's
just an easy way out for, like,fossil fuel companies to keep
to keep doing what they do,because it's all right, because
we can just grab it from the air, or is that?
Is that an unfair question?
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Well, I think you know the planet has two problems
.
One is the currentconcentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere.
So at the moment, there are 422parts per million of CO2 in the
atmosphere.
So at the moment, there are 422parts per million of CO2 in the
atmosphere, and that is thecause of global warming.
So as we tip up 422, 423 and wego up to 550, which is when we
(05:59):
expect to flatten the curve wewill have many, many more
extreme weather events and many,many more changes in our
climate on the planet during thenext 100 years as a result of
the concentration of CO2 in theatmosphere.
So there's one problem, rightthe CO2 stays in the atmosphere
(06:22):
for, let's say, about a thousandyears.
That's another issue, right,because when you come to say
nature-based solutions for CO2,you're looking at maybe 80,
100-year life of those solutionsin terms of their impact on CO2
.
(06:43):
Whereas if you capture CO2 fromthe atmosphere, and you take
that CO2 and you mineralize it,then you're actually making a
very significant difference toclimate change.
Now the question, then is howcan you do it in volume?
It's one thing to capture CO2from the atmosphere, but there
(07:05):
are billions of tons of CO2 tobe captured in order to move the
needle on climate change, andso what's needed are very
efficient carbon capturetechnologies, and that has
essentially been our focus forthe last 10 years or so has been
(07:25):
to try to develop highlyefficient CO2 technologies,
capture technologies so that thecost is affordable for the
planet and so that thetechnology can be deployed at
scale worldwide.
That's the mission of NegateCarbon.
(07:45):
That's what we're trying to do,and the patents are very
important to us because theyprotect the novelty of the way
we do this and the way that weachieve a very low cost of
carbon capture.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
So presumably you're not operating in an exclusive
environment, are you?
There will be others trying todo what you're trying to do.
Yes, and the way the patentsystem helps you is that your
way is novel and different andobviously you want to to protect
that.
Well, I think probably time foryou to come in yeah, no, it's
very interesting.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
I was going to um pick off just by talking about
technology.
I'll give you a heads uptechnology, then ip, then
investment.
That's my three stages, so I'mquite interested in all of them
um starting on this technologysounds like there's there's two
elements potentially to.
I don't know, I've not looked atthe patterns, but, um, it
sounds like there's a chemistryangle which is how to do it, and
there's a scalability anglewhich is, it's all very well
(08:44):
capturing carbon that happens tobe wandering past your filter
or whatever, but you've now gotto work out how to get those
billions of tons.
So are you attacking both ofthose problems?
Have I oversimplified it?
Where are the problems?
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Right.
So there are two key aspects tothis right.
One is the material that youuse to capture the CO2.
So that's number one, and so wehave quite a number of material
scientists working for us, andour objective is to identify the
(09:23):
best materials to capture CO2and to modify them for use in
our process.
That is our focus.
So materials are criticallyimportant, and then the process
itself is critically importanthow you actually do this.
So, like any process, itrequires power and that is the
(09:46):
key point.
It requires less power thanother processes and so less
costly.
And how we do that is actuallyin the package.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
That makes loads and loads of sense.
You've got a material that doesthe capture.
You've looked at what kind ofcapture you're trying to sense.
You've got a material that doesthe capture.
You've looked at what kind ofcapture you're trying to do.
You've then built a process todo it.
That makes perfect sense.
The power requirements areinteresting because, of course,
you're presumably at risk ofpumping carbon into the
atmosphere to capture carbonfrom the atmosphere.
So I'm guessing that you'vesolved that one.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Yes, yes, exactly.
So obviously the captureprocess has to use green power
number one, right, so?
And it has to use, ideally,which is freely available so
that you can scale it.
In other words, you want tooperate in countries where the
(10:40):
grid isn't under pressure, rightFor supplying industry or other
things.
So the first deployment of oursystem will be in Canada, for
example, and they have a verylow cost of power there about 5
cents a kilowatt hour, so aboutmaybe a third or a quarter of
(11:04):
the UK's cost of power.
And they also have the otheressential ingredient that you
need to make this whole cyclework, and that is that they have
very suitable mineral sandswhich we can pump the CO2 into
and it turns into a calcite, inother words, you can turn it
(11:24):
back into rock.
So you think about it.
The beauty of direct aircapture is you can place your
plant anywhere on the planet,because the concentration of CO2
in the atmosphere is the sameeverywhere in the planet.
So you can place your plantanywhere on the planet.
So obviously you're going toplace it in a country which has
(11:47):
good permitting, good knowledgeof mining, good infrastructure
and compliance regulations, lowcost of power and then the
geological formations necessaryto turn the CO2 back into rock
or to mineralize it, what wecall mineralizing.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
I was wondering what happened to the byproduct.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
So our focus is, on very large scale, dac farms
direct air capture farms whichwe want to deploy into suitable
locations worldwide, and Canadais the first country that we're
doing that in Other countriesthat are suitable are Iceland,
(12:33):
who have similar characteristicsof low power costs, good
geological formations and so on,and also Oman, in the Persian
Gulf.
It has similar characteristicsas well.
So there will be many differentplaces around the world which
will be perfect for capturingthe carbon and then turning it
(12:54):
into rock, so that you don'tsuffer from all the leakages of
other systems, you don't sufferfrom the problem of trying to
move the co2 on pipelines, putit on ships, take it offshore,
pump it underground, go throughall of that stuff.
Even though they are optionsthat that are available, the the
actual gold standard is is tocapture it and mineralize it on
(13:19):
site, never move it again.
So take it straight out of theair and put it straight
underground.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Okay, and your customers?
Who are you aiming to take thistechnology up?
Is it government level?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
So there are two groups of customers that are the
big DAC farm developers, thepeople who are developing direct
air capture farms, and they'reall just beginning.
So this industry is brand new,it's just starting.
But in the future you will havevery large developers of DAC
(13:55):
farms all over the world who arewell capitalized we're talking
about billions of pounds todevelop these farms.
So you're looking at companieswith very big resources and they
will be buying systems toenable them establish these
farms and we will be providingthese systems to the DAC farm
(14:19):
developers.
So that is one category ofcustomer.
Within that category, by theway, you have two
classifications.
You have, let's call them, thespeculative DAC farm developers,
who build DAC farms to sell thecarbon credits, and you have
(14:43):
the second type, which is theindustrial DAC farm, where you
have an emitter who's buildingDAC farms in order to reach net
zero in their own manufacturingor process operation.
So they're the two types ofdevelopments that you have in
the business that you have inthe business.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
So basically your market is the requirement to
reduce CO2 and the government'skind of global pressure to
actually get on with it.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yes, exactly.
And then you have anothercategory of customer, which is
the customers who use CO2.
So, for example, you will havea very big market for what are
known as SAFs sustainableaviation fuels.
They are now being mandated foruse in Britain and in the EU
(15:35):
and in other countries in theworld, and what this means is
that you no longer be able touse fossil fuels to make jet
fuel.
You will have to use SAFssustainable aviation fuels and
they're made from combininghydrogen and CO2.
(15:56):
And so you get a pure fuelwhich you burn and then, with
the net zero concept, thecircular economy you capture the
CO2 again and you regenerate it, and so on.
So that's quite a large market,but that again is only just
starting.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Understood, understood.
So to our interest, I think yousaid that we're at 442 parts
per million of CO2.
Where are we supposed to be?
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Well, 350 ideally, 350 ideally.
But let's face it, the realityis that we're going to go 422 to
probably 550.
Nobody knows actually how farit's going to go.
(16:47):
There's an awful lot of workgoing on, an awful lot of
studies going on, but in the endof the day, it comes down to
action by industry to reduceemissions and action by
governments to encourage orcarrot and stick, you know,
encourage or penalise industryif they don't reduce their
(17:09):
emissions.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Instant.
So we talk about the IP, ofcourse.
So you mentioned you have apending patent application.
Do you have any more or are youbuilding your portfolio at the
moment?
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Yes, we have another one pending.
Another patent pending.
Yes, we have another onepending.
Another patent pending becausewe've made another discovery
which is quite revolutionary.
So, if you think about it, inthe last five years we have
built three generations ofsystem generation one, two and
(17:44):
three Each one progressivelymore efficient than the other.
And the generation threetechnology, which we're
currently testing in Waterford,will be much more efficient than
, obviously, the previous twogenerations, but that will be
the subject of a new patentwhich we will submit in the
(18:06):
coming month.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
So, hey, we know from the Earthshot nomination that
you're working with ClaireRutherford at Definition IP.
How important is IP to theproject right now?
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Well, claire actually was very important to helping
us hone that patent.
She put a lot of work into itand it is crucial to the future
protection of the intellectualproperty of the business and
gives us a unique position inthe marketplace.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Are you finding that it's an attractant for
investment and third partiesputting money into you?
Speaker 2 (18:44):
It's absolutely essential for investors You're
right Particularly in a highlycompetitive space like this.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
As much as you're able to share.
We always love to hear aboutthe funding side, because it's
the reality of the IP system.
It's not just having an idea,it's bringing it to market.
That involves a lot of peopleand a lot of investment.
How's that going?
How have you played it?
Speaker 2 (19:09):
yeah, well, so far, all of the investors are private
investors, people friends ofmine, people who are concerned
about climate change, people whowant to to make a difference
with their investments and theirwhat we call impact investors,
and so far, they're the peoplebehind the company.
We are talking to a couple oftrade investors and we're, of
(19:33):
course, talking to the big fundsas well, and we continue that
dialogue at the moment.
You know which is going on atthe present time.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
It sounds like you've got proof of concept, so you
can you know this is a goingconcern.
This is something that reallyworks.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Correct, correct, yeah.
And in Waterford we can showinvestors and customers
(20:10):
precisely how the technologyworks and see it in action, so
to speak.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
And the story behind that.
As you said, you started off asa research project at Trinity.
Yeah, and it's been quite along journey.
So do you still work closelywith the university in all of
this?
How's that relationship?
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Well, our technology director was previously the
professor of chemicalengineering in University
College Dublin.
So we have strong contactsstill with all of the
universities in Ireland and wework with University of Limerick
, for example, on the materialscience side, and we work with
(20:52):
the Southeastern TechnologyUniversity, which is the one
next door to us in Waterford,and so on, mainly because if
you're working in the materialscience area you need access to
research all the time.
One of our people, andre,actually is full-time
(21:16):
researching what is happening inmaterial sciences worldwide.
So we research everythingthat's happening around the
globe in materials that could beused for carbon capture and
then we make those materials,test them, verify them and so on
(21:37):
.
So we have a very high affinitywith the academic community,
not just in Ireland but actuallyaround the world.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Sorry to butt in Gwilym, but did I take from that
Ray that there might be?
So, rather than in the futuremineralising it for storage, you
might be mineralising.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
I can't even get my tongue around that word
mineralising it for productsthat might have other uses?
Yeah, well, that would besuperb.
That would be superb.
So maybe if I roll back andjust say in 2014, when we
started recruiting postdocs forthis project in Trinity, at that
point in time, in 2014, therewere two centers in the world
(22:27):
doing CO2 research.
One was Arizona StateUniversity and the other was in
South Korea.
Which you believe?
Two centers in the world.
Almost no research being done incarbon capture research and
almost no research being done inthe application of CO2 to
(22:49):
materials.
This is a long answer to yourquestion.
So there is an enormous amountof research work to be done in
carbon capture and also in theuses of carbon, because the
ideal thing I mean what we'redoing is capturing it, turning
(23:11):
it into rock.
That's fine, it's put away forall time, but if we could
generate products out of it,that would be a great result.
One of the projects that we'reworking on is capturing the CO2
and injecting it into concrete.
So that way, we strengthen theconcrete, reduce the amount of
(23:33):
concrete needed to perform itstask right and we also fix the
CO2 for all time.
So that type of application issomething we're very keen to
explore with many partners, aswe can.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
And I guess the sort of like the where my mind was
going was is there a sort ofmarket in industrial diamonds or
anything like that?
Could you ever get to the stagewhere you're making something
that advanced, or is that justtoo far away?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
It's possible.
It's possible, but a lot ofthis is going to come out of the
research community.
A lot of this is going to comeout of the research community,
and what I would say is and wenotice this when we're
recruiting our engineers and ourchemists and so on we notice
that there are very few peoplecoming with experience.
(24:33):
So this is a very youngindustry and most of the
engineers and scientists getmopped up by the life science
and chemical industry, rightyeah, so the hard science work
that we're doing is sort of rarebreed at the moment and we
(24:54):
would like to see a lot moreresearch done to feed into this
developing industry, whereas atthe moment, most of the research
is life science based and medtech based and all of that, and,
of course, it based and AI andall of that stuff.
But we would like to seegovernments around the world
(25:19):
focus more of their researchdollars on pushing into the
carbon capture and utilisationspace, the area you're talking
about.
We think that's very first-uprequirement.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
And that makes absolute sense to me.
And what does that mean interms of future business models?
For negate, because presumablyI mean there are a number of
things you can do, aren't there?
You could.
This could be something whereyou're building a massive
international business, um, oryou could be building something
where it exists throughlicensing, so you're encouraging
others to come on board.
What's what's at the moment interms of the early stage of your
(25:54):
journey on what's the futurelook like?
Speaker 2 (25:56):
yeah.
So very good question, becausein a new industry the business
model evolves very quickly.
You know, you try this, you trythat, and so it evolves.
So also the technology and theway you approach the deployment
of technology evolves.
(26:18):
So our experience to date hasbeen that for the initial
deployments of systems we haveto deploy the entire system
Right.
So there's so little expertiseout there, so you have to do the
whole thing.
But in fact in a carbon capturesystem there are an awful lot
of standard elements right.
(26:39):
So the secret source is in theabsorber right, which is the
piece of the system whichcontains the materials right,
and the substrate that it isattached to.
That's the secret source.
So what we want to do long-termis just make the absorbers
(27:01):
right and we will sell thedesign of our system to the big
developers.
They can build all of theinfrastructure and then they buy
the absorbers from us.
That's the way we want to go,even though in the initial
stages we will provide fullsystems yeah, they get that
sense.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
So you, you're providing components.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Future industry yes, yes, we're, we're providing,
like the intel inside, we'reproviding the, the, the absorber
, to the system, which is thekey component to capture the CO2
.
And all the rest of the stuffwill leave to the developers to
make.
And because you can't reallyscale unless you have an
(27:46):
enormous amount of capital,which we don't have and we're
unlikely ever to have right, youcan't scale the establishment
of 100 parks, each one capturing10 million tons of CO2 each per
year.
So I can't see a point that wecan capitalize that.
So we take the bit we cansupply and we can manufacture
(28:10):
that in volume and ship it atlow cost for integration into
these big farms that thedevelopers make.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
Yeah, I guess it doesn't.
It doesn't say my simple mind.
It doesn't matter where thesefarms are, because I imagine if
you've taken CO2 out of theenvironment in Canada, co2 will
find its way there, won't it't?
You don't need, you don't needfans to blow it back over again,
it's no it sorts itself out.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Yeah no, it does, you're absolutely right.
Yeah, no, you're absolutelyright.
So so you can you?
You know, globally, you can seea situation where countries and
and industries will beoffsetting carbon emissions in
one country for plants which areoperating in another, and the
(28:59):
reason why they will do that isbecause the other country is
much more suitable for carboncapture and mineralisation, for
example.
Speaker 4 (29:08):
Can we talk a wee bit about F-Shot, Because we
mentioned it at the beginningbut we've not really gone back
to that.
What does it mean to benominated?
Speaker 2 (29:23):
I think it's been probably the most important bit
of publicity that we've got sofar in our journey, because it's
recognition.
It's recognition that theseguys have something special.
That's what the Earthshotnomination means, so it's very
important to us.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
I think we hear that a lot.
We've had other Earthshotnominees on and it's almost.
I mean, whilst it would belovely to win a million pounds,
wouldn't it?
And I'll ask you in a momentwhat that might do for the
business, so think about thatone.
But we hear a lot from nomineesthat actually just the exposure
, just the media profile.
The interest is that whatyou're finding?
Speaker 2 (29:58):
yes, but it's the recognition, it's the fact that
that you qualify for anomination, that's the key thing
, and then there's a lot ofpublicity generated out of that.
But it carries a lot of weightin the community, in the, in the
customer community and theinvestor community.
It's recognised as a seriousaward and therefore a nomination
(30:22):
is considered serious.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
Gotcha.
So there's a financial spin-offthere as well, in that it makes
you more attractive toinvestors because you've got
that recognition.
Absolutely Cool.
What would a million pound mean?
What are you going to use amillion pound on when you win it
?
Speaker 2 (30:41):
well, uh, the million pound would help us build the
first 6 000 ton generation 3system, and that will be
tremendously welcome.
It would help us on our journeyto build that system.
And 6,000 tons is the standardunit that we want to provide to
(31:06):
the developers of DAC farms.
So up until now, most of thecarbon capture systems are
operating in hundreds of tons.
We want to have a standarddeployment block, so to speak,
like Lego, you know of 6,000tons and then you can populate
(31:26):
as many of these.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
Help me understand that.
In my simple brain, lego worksfor me.
Actually, I understand Lego.
You link stuff together.
But what does 6,000 tons mean?
Is that a kind of overtimecapacity?
Speaker 2 (31:41):
That's the annual capture rate of the module.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
So a single unit is taking 6,000 ton of CO2 out of
the atmosphere in a year.
Exactly Got it.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
And then you just, and then that scale yeah, and
then the key thing you have toachieve is you have to achieve a
cost per ton capture of aroundsomewhere between 100 and 200
euros a ton.
There's the magic number thatwill enable the the widespread
adoption, direct air capture ofcarbon around the world, and at
(32:19):
the moment we can capture CO2with the Generation 3 system at
about 165 euros a tonne.
And if you have waste heat,which is a huge bonus, if you
have waste heat you can get thatdown to around 100 euros a time
, maybe a little under that.
And now you're talking seriousopportunities for the developers
(32:44):
.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
Now, I think that brings us to the end, Gwilym,
unless you've got a littlecloser question for us.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
I do.
My closer is always.
Speaker 4 (32:53):
Quite silly though I do, my clothes are always quite
silly though, so let me justexplain it to Ray, though first.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
So.
So Gwilym will ask me, and thenhe'll ask you, ray, and then he
won't realise this, but I'mgoing to then spring the
question back on him.
What Lee doesn't realise isthat I've already know my answer
and built the question aroundhaving a good answer to it.
And I'm sure Lee's never donethat to me, I've never done that
to you, obviously.
So so, ray, this conceptobviously, uh, started through a
university research project andit's leading something
(33:27):
fantastic and world changing,hopefully as well.
Um, lee, you've studied, you'vegot multiple degrees, as I
recall, so you've studied lots.
What's legacy?
Not, in anything useful?
Willem, I was going to say whatlegacy do you see from your
studies that um, that you'd likeyou'd put your point to?
Speaker 4 (33:43):
oh no.
So I, I already have my legacyand sorry, I'm going to be a
little bit serious for a momentbecause I'm quite proud of my
legacy.
So my, my degrees, multipledegrees, as you know, we're in
education, educational theory,educational leadership, and I
was only reading something theother day.
So I introduced, largely forteachers in further education,
qualified teacher status andthat was as a result of my
(34:05):
second master.
So my second master's was onteacher professional identity
and one of the outcomes of thatwas qualified teacher, learning
and skills status for teachersin further education and
trainers in the workplace andthe like.
So, yeah, have my legacy.
No one will ever remember it'sme, but I do so.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Yeah, it's like a serious answer god, I'm
regretting asking this questionnow when I get to my answer, but
anyway, um and and and ray, Imean you know negate is a huge
um legacy.
Anything else you kind of lookback on through your studies and
through your work and researchthat you're proud of, is this
the thing that you really pointto, something that you want to
(34:41):
kind of think about as you goforward?
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Yeah, you know, the thing that drives the passion
and the commitment to makesomething happen is the belief
that science can make adifference to climate change.
(35:05):
You know that collectively wecan get together and we can
actually make a difference,actually make a difference.
And it's the difference betweendriving a car and being a
passenger in a car.
You know If you're driving acar at high speed, but yet it's
(35:27):
safe, you know you're going toget there, whereas everybody
else is scared in the back.
So it is with climate change.
If you're working withtechnologies that you can see
will make a significantdifference to global warming,
(35:49):
even though they are still inthe early days, then you don't
have the fear and that deepconcern that everybody I talk to
has about climate change,because you know that we can
make a difference and thatscience can make a difference to
the rate of development ofclimate change and to global
(36:13):
warming.
So I guess, if we achieve ourobjective, and if we achieve the
objective of helping developersbuild enormous stack farms who,
in the end, capture billions oftons of CO2 and put it
(36:33):
underground for all time, thenI'd be a happy man and say, okay
, there's a legacy, there's anachievement that was worth doing
lee, before you say anything,we can either go to my really
pure I'll answer or we can stopabout now.
Speaker 4 (36:52):
No, no, there's no way you're getting away with it,
because I know, I know thisquestion came from some I.
So, knowing what you did, Ican't see how you're ever going
to have changed the world, mate.
So so what's your legacy?
Speaker 1 (37:06):
um, so well, obviously, lee, you've had a
massive impact on the nationaleducation system, hopefully set
a you know an example globally.
And, ray, you're literallytrying to make climate change go
away and bring us back to wherewe should be.
So I'd love to compete withthat.
But I didn't know where thiswas going when I came up with
the question, and I'm just goingto point to my stint as head of
(37:27):
publicity for my collegehomebrew society, which I think
also at the time was veryimpactful.
A lot of people really enjoyedit.
Beer wasn't great, I'm notgoing to lie, but good defence.
But we can cut that bit, Ithink, and just stick on
improving the world.
Speaker 4 (37:44):
I think that stays in .
Speaker 1 (37:46):
I really regret that.
Speaker 4 (37:48):
No, so, ray, thank you so much for coming on.
Sorry that you had to suffer mylearned colleagues' rubbish
attempt to close a question Onthe next podcast.
It will go back to me doingthem, grill them I think okay
yeah, thanks again, ray, forcoming on.
Thanks again for um hosting withme.
Just a little shout out to ourlisteners.
(38:08):
Obviously we say this everytime, but if you can leave us a
little review on whicheverplatform you listen to the
podcast on, that'd be greatbecause it helps other people
find us.
And, gullum, I'll see you nexttime.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.