Direct Air Carbon Capture

• Direct Air Carbon Capture (DAC) is a technology that removes CO2 directly from the atmosphere
• The global DAC market is growing rapidly, with projections of significant expansion by 2034
• Current DAC deployment is limited, with only 18 operational facilities capturing about 8,000 tonnes of CO2 annually
• The technology faces challenges in efficiency, cost, and energy requirements
• There is ongoing debate about DAC's role in climate change mitigation strategies

Viewpoint 1: DAC is a Promising Climate Solution

‍TL;DR: Proponents argue that DAC is a necessary tool for achieving climate goals, offering flexibility in siting and scalability. Despite current high costs, they believe technological advancements and increased investment will make DAC more economically viable.

‍Snippets from around the web

‍"The Direct Air Carbon Capture Technology Market is characterized by rapid growth, technological innovation, and fierce competition. Companies ... The market revenue of USD 93.1 Million in 2024 is expected to grow up to USD 2046.3 Million by 2034." - Globe Newswire, https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/07/24/2917921/0/en/Direct-Air-Carbon-Capture-Technology-Market-Size-to-be-Worth-USD-2046-3-Million-by-2034-at-40-4-CAGR-Prophecy-Market-Insights.html

‍"Three DAC projects are currently under construction, with the largest two expected to come online in 2024 in Iceland (36 kt CO2/year) and in 2025 in the United States (500 kt CO2/year, with potential to scale up to as much as 1 000 kt CO2/year)." - International Energy Agency, https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture

‍"DAC has seen a surge in interest and investment over the past few years and a growing number of companies are entering the space. This is due to the understanding that carbon removal will increasingly be needed to meet national and global climate goals, along with benefits of DAC compared to other carbon removal approaches, which include few practical limits on scaling, relatively little land area use, and siting flexibility." - World Resources Institute, https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal

‍"To this end, there is a need for investment in DAC technology development and de-risking now, so that DAC can mature fast enough to meaningfully contribute to a portfolio of carbon removal approaches in the coming decades. Several governments have enacted various initiatives and funding programs to aid in the adoption of DAC and to overcome current grand challenges." - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8927912/

‍"Carbon Engineering's first large-scale commercial plant, being developed in west Texas with American partner 1PointFive, is expected to capture one megatonne per year when completed next year. 'Our business model is to license tech to partners who can enable rapid and widespread deployment. So we'd like this first plant to demonstrate how mega-tonne-scale DAC (direct air capture) is feasible, affordable and available,' says Guetre of Carbon Engineering's vision of fleets of direct air capture facilities working alongside renewable electricity, energy efficiency and other innovations in all sectors to tackle the climate crisis." - Canadian Geographic, https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-truth-about-carbon-capture/

‍Viewpoint 2: DAC is Inefficient and Costly

‍TL;DR: Critics argue that DAC is extremely energy-intensive and expensive compared to other carbon reduction methods. They contend that the technology's current inefficiency and high costs make it an impractical solution for addressing climate change.

‍Snippets from around the web

‍"All sorts of scenarios have been developed under the assumption that carbon capture actually reduces substantial amounts of carbon. However, this research finds that it reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it usually increases air pollution," said Jacobson, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social cost perspective, than replacing a coal or gas plant with a wind farm because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and always has a capture equipment cost. Wind replacing fossil fuels always reduces air pollution and never has a capture equipment cost." - Stanford Report, https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2019/10/study-casts-doubt-carbon-capture

‍"The reason is simple: Separating carbon dioxide from air, while technically straightforward, is outrageously expensive. In fighting climate change, the obvious question should always be: How can we avoid the most carbon dioxide per dollar invested?" - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/direct-air-capture-an-expensive-dangerous-distraction-from-real-climate-solutions/

"After analyzing details, watchdog organization Global Witness released a report in January 2022 accusing Quest of failing to live up to industry's lofty claims of capturing 90 per cent of CO2 from this particular way of generating hydrogen from natural gas. Instead, it calculated that the project captured only 48 per cent of CO2 produced — and just 39 per cent if the fuel stock's life-cycle emissions were considered. In either case, averred Global Witness, Shell wasn't being fully transparent." - Canadian Geographic, https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-truth-about-carbon-capture/

‍"Despite the benefits and flexibility, direct air capture is more costly per tonne of CO2 removed compared to many mitigation approaches and natural climate solutions as it is energy intensive to separate carbon dioxide from ambient air. The range of costs for DAC vary between $250 and $600 today depending on the technology choice, low-carbon energy source, and the scale of their deployment; for comparison, most reforestation costs less than $50/ton." - World Resources Institute, https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal

‍"Young et al. evaluate the economic viability of Direct Air Capture and Storage (DACS) technologies, projecting that while costs can significantly decrease to $100–600 per ton of CO2 by 2050 through strategic deployment, achieving the more optimistic target of $100 per ton is unlikely without substantial policy support." - Springer, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1557/s43581-024-00091-5

‍Viewpoint 3: DAC Is a Distraction From More Viable Solutions

‍TL;DR: Some experts argue that while DAC may have a role in addressing climate change, it requires careful implementation and strong regulations. They emphasize the need for a balanced approach that doesn't detract from emissions reduction efforts.

‍Snippets from around the web

‍"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that technofixes like DAC could delay more effective—and urgently needed—emission cuts, prolong the phaseout of fossil fuels, and increase the chances of missing climate targets. 'If deployed, DAC will do much more harm than good by perpetuating the lifespan of fossil fuel infrastructure and diverting resources away from far more effective and proven climate solutions like renewable energies and energy efficiency,' CIEL warns." - The Energy Mix, https://www.theenergymix.com/direct-air-capture-is-fossil-industrys-latest-smokescreen-critics-warn/

‍"While organizations like the IPCC indicate the need for significant amounts of carbon removal to meet our climate goals, care must be taken to ensure that ramping up DAC does not distract from essential attention and investment in other mitigation measures, especially to reduce fossil fuel use. Scientists indicate we will need both faster emissions reduction and carbon removal, and the amount of carbon removal needed is inversely proportional to how deeply we are able to cut emissions." - World Resources Institute, https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal

"Strong policy and private sector guardrails are needed to ensure countries and companies do not over-rely on carbon removal at the expense of emissions reductions. For example, the Science Based Target initiative's recent net-zero guidance requires companies to meet their climate targets by reducing more than 90% of their own emissions and using carbon removal to compensate for only the remaining 5-10% that they cannot directly mitigate." - World Resources Institute, https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal