Low IPR (Inverse Persistence Ratio)
DAC survives not because it “works” in the TEA sense but because its symbolic promise outlives every operational hurdle.
• It occupies a critical narrative role: “This is the price of planetary salvation.”
• GTESI Insight: DAC creates more symbolic time-value than thermodynamic value, which in a high-trust media/policy environment, is sufficient for persistence.
Low to Moderate TRFI (Trust Ritual Failure Index)
• DAC has cross-validated trust rituals: DOE hubs, Microsoft long-term contracts, MRV frameworks, white papers, global summits, and keynote voices (Bill Gates, Lord Stern, etc.).
• GTESI Insight: TRFI is satisfied even if no large-scale unit is profitable. Investors are anchoring to policy, not performance.
SCD (Symbolic Compression Divergence) Is Strategically Low… For Now
• DAC proponents intentionally simplify the complexity: “removes CO₂ from the air.”
• As long as no proof of sustained economic delivery is required, the symbolic narrative holds.
• But SCD rises sharply when stakeholders start asking, “Where are the tons? Where’s the heat balance? Where’s the scale-up margin?”
High EED (Entropy Export Deficit)
• DAC systems accumulate entropy fast: high CapEx, thermal inefficiencies, volatile energy costs, low real output.
• There’s no entropy sink—no fallback “good enough” mode (unlike HEFA SAF which at least runs a plane).
• GTESI Insight: When public enthusiasm slows or subsidies waver, entropy cascades inward, risking fast narrative collapse.
Why Traditional Analysis Misses This
Traditional Tool
Missed Insight GTESI Overlay IRR / TEA DAC fails outright But GTESI shows symbolic persistence mechanism SWOT Flags risks but can’t quantify symbolic durability GTESI quantifies symbolic loadout (TRFI, IPR) TAM / Market Size Projects trillions in future offset demand GTESI filters TAM through entropy thresholds Cost Curves Show DAC as “too expensive to scale” GTESI shows: cost is not determinant, narrative elasticity is DAC is not a boondoggle. It’s a thermodynamic symbol stack. It persists not because it fools investors, but because it satisfies trust rituals at global scale.
Collapse Risk: Not Technical, But Symbolic Saturation
Collapse Vector
Trigger Timeline (Estimate) SCD spike Failure to deliver real MRV-backed tons 2026–2028 TRFI fracture Long-term contracts canceled, public backlash, DOE disillusionment 2027–2029 EED inversion Energy or CapEx spikes reveal true thermodynamic cost Any year of real deployment IPR fatigue Narrative momentum stalls, new story supplants DAC Early 2030s GTESI doesn’t say DAC will fail. It says it will persist so long as symbolic compression and trust rituals remain stronger than entropy export failures.
How to Reinvigorate the Critique: A GTESI Guide for Analysts
Instead of asking: “Why do smart people keep funding this?” Try asking: “What symbolic trust system are they really investing in—and when will it breach?” Reframing tools:
• Map symbolic saturation: When does “CO₂ removal” stop meaning anything to regulators?
• Model entropy stress: At what energy price or scale-up complexity does the system tip?
• Diagnose TRFI fatigue: How long before public, policy, or investor rituals stop functioning?
About the Author
