The company envisions building facilities near power plants and consuming their waste carbon dioxide, so their cyanobacteria can reduce carbon emissions while they're at it.I had a WTF moment reading that line.
The system's inputs are sunlight, water and CO2.
Water can be piped in from anywhere. CO2 is in the atmosphere... EVERYWHERE.
The only input that is significantly impacted by production-facility location is SUNLIGHT.
Instead of saying "we'll build these things in the Southwest where the sunlight is constant" they make some lame statement about reducing carbon emissions.
What a foolish statement. The world's atmospheric CO2 is 100% fungible. Remove CO2 from Arizona and it's the same as removing it from Ohio. It doesn't matter.
The fact that they don't know this makes me highly suspicious about what other logical errors they are committing.
What they probably mean is the power plants can run on their stuff and they can suck in the CO2 from the stacks and have the /bactera/sun turn it into more non-fossil fuel to run the power plant.
Also, remember this article was most likely written by a journalist, not a scientist, so all details are questionable.