I was reading a (typical) consulting article from BCG entitled.”Shifting the Direct Air Capture Paradigm” giving a “classic”, somewhat optimistic view of how we can bring the costs down of Direct Air Capture.

The authors start with, “Even though it is still nascent, DAC could play a critical role in delivering on net zero.”

Sorry, convince me.

They outline that “the cost of DAC (the end-to-end cost of CO2 removal including final storage) will need to fall from $600 to $1,000 per ton of CO2 today to below $200 per ton and ideally closer to $100 per ton by 2050, and preferably earlier.”

Is this where I get my magic wand out, wave it a few times, and this scenario will happen?

The classic comment is then made “This cost reduction would dramatically accelerate demand, encouraging private developers to build more capacity and making the technology affordable for the world”-

Well, then that’s the end of the story. Come on!

I find these articles not greatly helpful in addressing the hardened reality of this.

Let me stick with the article, as it lets me shake my head a few times and plea a little more.

BCG asks: “the question is whether it is reasonable to project significant cost reductions—of 75% or more—to deliver a climate solution supported by market demand. We (BCG) have examined this question deeply using BCG’s proprietary DAC cost model and our detailed analysis of seven DAC developers.”

Well that’s ok, we can all relax; they (BCG) have a cost model of existing developers.

They go on to say. “However, it will be a challenge, particularly given the timeframe involved. Solar installation costs have declined by over 90% over the past 40 years. We must deliver a similar reduction in DAC costs to achieve scale in the gigatons but in just over half the time.”

Then the final clincher for me was “A massive step up in investments, government support, collaboration models, and broader industry engagement will be required.”

Well case closed, we have the answer- let’s go massive……….yet we get to the Energy Dilemma for all emerging technologies, be this DAC, Hydrogen, Storage, flexible and modern Grids, Heat Pumps etc., etc.

As BCG correctly put this here for DAC, replace this list in my mind for any other new Technology options trying to move from emerging, nascent, experimental into proven technologies that can scale. This is our current Energy Dilemma

BCG nicely summaries this:

Business As Usual Is Not an Option

While we believe affordable DAC is feasible, a business-as-usual approach will not get us there within the time that we have. We need to be realistic and understand the forces that are holding DAC back. Here are some of the main ones:

• The technology’s high costs mean that few customers (normally large companies) are willing to sign on to early-stage DAC projects at the scale required. At the same time, suppliers of key components aren’t investing sufficient resources in development.
• Policy support is still nascent despite recent incentives, such as the $180 tax credit for every ton of permanently stored CO₂ announced in last year’s US Inflation Reduction Act.
• Companies are carrying out development within walled gardens to protect their intellectual property rather than adopting the more collaborative approach that will be needed to drive greater learning and standardization and that will enable players to move at the rapid speed required.
• Net zero accounting standards limit companies’ ability to count CO₂ removed using permanent CDR technologies such as DAC against their scope three targets, discouraging investment.
• Capital costs are high because investors and lenders are reluctant to put money into the technology without greater certainty around future demand.

Due to these negative forces, investment in DAC is a small percentage of the amount needed to drive the technology down the cost curve.

Here is the MOST IMPORTANT message for the Energy Transition– it is not “usual.”

Until we can crack these substantive sets of investment barriers across nearly all emerging Energy technologies, we get suggestions like the one BCG offers.

When will the day come when all the Consulting Companies recognize writing these articles shows a level of prowess but gives the communities they advise the justification not to make these investments or commitments- “Let’s leave this to others. It is far too risky.”

I appreciate the reminder of the difficulties from articles like these, and thousands do similar jobs of confirming all the barriers and restrictions and providing the “list” of why not to do something. Articles or reports they “just stand tall for a momentary minute” written for existing or potential customers? Often they are simply fueling the case for INACTION.

I wish consultants would finally lead in powerful, influencing ways not play to the existing.

Consulting Companies are a powerful, influencing force, they can advise, change, shape and influence so much, but they have to decide on a collective substantial leading position far more as they have the “ears” of government, Industry, Investors, Fund providers etc.

I would like to believe we can get beyond Articles such as this”Shifting the Direct Air Capture Paradigm” that briefly confirm the difficulties and offer a limited “call to action” to wrap up the article. Does it do true justice to this issue or show true expertise?

Energy Transitions need comprehensive road maps, incredible coordination and cross-collaborations and as BCG rightly say, “Business As Usual Is Not an Option.”

Then please apply the same to the Consulting industry- tackle complex challenges with better resolve. Business as Usual should NOT be your option as the Energy Transition is so unusual, imperative and necessary and “upends” all of what we have. or previously relied upon.