RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

McGrath writes: "A Canadian company, backed by Bill Gates, says it has reached an important threshold in developing technology that can remove CO2 from the air."

The pilot plant has been built in British Columbia and is extracting about a ton of CO2 every day. (photo: CARBON ENGINEERING)
The pilot plant has been built in British Columbia and is extracting about a ton of CO2 every day. (photo: CARBON ENGINEERING)

Key 'Step Forward' in Cutting Cost of Removing CO2 From Air

By Matt McGrath, BBC

11 June 18

A Canadian company, backed by Bill Gates, says it has reached an important threshold in developing technology that can remove CO2 from the air.

arbon Engineering has published a peer-reviewed study showing that they can capture carbon for under $100 a tonne.

This would be a major advance on the current price of around $600 per tonne.

The company says their immediate goal is to produce synthetic liquid fuels made from carbon and renewable energy.

Science sceptics

Technological "fixes" to the carbon emissions driving climate change have always been regarded with some suspicion by scientists.

Plans to build solar shields in space or to seed the seas with materials to soak up carbon have been seen as dangerous and a distraction to the more mundane but difficult task of getting people to cut their emissions.

However, plans to capture CO2 directly from the air have been regarded as somewhat more substantial - essentially mirroring the actions of trees.

The idea was first developed by a scientist called Klaus Lackner in the mid 1990s and since then a small number of technology companies have built expensive prototypes of carbon removing devices.

Last year, a Swiss company called Climeworks unveiled a direct air capture installation that extracted carbon and supplied it to a neighbouring greenhouse to fertilise tomatoes and cucumbers.

Now, Canadian firm Carbon Engineering say they have taken a big step forward on cutting the costs of direct air extraction.

Set up in 2009 with funding from Microsoft's Bill Gates and Canada oil sands financier Norman Murray Edwards, their pilot plant has been running since 2015, capturing about one tonne of CO2 per day.

The process works by sucking air into a modified cooling tower with fans, where it comes into contact with a liquid that reacts with the CO2.

After several processing steps, a purer stream of CO2 is extracted and the capturing liquid is returned to the air contactor.

A previous study carried out by the American Physical Society in 2011 suggested that the cost per tonne of direct air capture would be around $600. But Carbon Engineering say that by adapting existing technologies they have been able to slash this significantly.

"This is a real step forward, and it's not just our company saying it," Prof David Keith from Harvard University, and a founder of Carbon Engineering told BBC News.

"I hope this changes views about this technology from being this thing which people think is a magic saviour which it isn't, or that it is absurdly expensive which it isn't, to an industrial technology that is do-able and can be developed in a useful way."

Prof Keith's "useful way" is not to simply suck carbon out of the air but to use the extracted gas as a key raw material for synthetic liquid fuel. The company is currently making around one barrel a day by combining the pure CO2 with hydrogen derived from water, using renewable energy.

"What Carbon Engineering is taking to market is first of all carbon neutral fuels, in that sense we are just another emissions-cutting technology, there is no net removal from the atmosphere," he said.

"We see our long-term fuels plant as being roughly 2,000 barrels a day, but the next one we build will be the first real commercial plant but will be 10 times smaller than that - we are developing that right now, looking for very cheap solar or wind power and looking for investors."

Better than biofuel?

The firm believes that this approach to liquid fuel has major advantages over biofuels in that it uses far less land and water. Prof Keith said that if their fuel gets the same subsidies as other carbon neutral approaches then they will be able to raise funds and build plants very quickly.

Others in the industry welcomed the fact that Carbon Engineering were bringing down costs, but felt that further incentives from governments were needed for carbon capture, utilisation and storage to achieve its potential.

"Although direct air capture cost of around $100 per tonne is still somewhat steep, in our current situation where sticks and carrots for similar technologies are sorely lacking, the cost can only be brought down through further development and streamlining of individual technologies and conjugated processes," Edda Sif Aradóttir, from Reykjavik Energy told BBC News.

She has been involved in a project in Iceland where CO2 from direct air capture is being turned into rock, deep underground.

"The biggest challenge we are facing is, however, that the words agreed on in the Paris agreement must be followed by actions. The technical solutions to climate change are already available but national legislations do not provide enough incentive or obligations for them to be applied at a large scale. This must change quickly if we are to fulfil the Paris agreement," she explained.

Those involved with Carbon Engineering are acutely aware of the challenges. Prof Keith said there "are a hundred ways in which we can fail".

However he believes the question of decarbonising aviation and heavy transportation cannot be met by electric vehicles alone.

"For liquid fuels we need better answers, this approach, CO2 from the air plus hydrogen you get from renewables to make fuels, that's the pathway."

The study has been published in the journal Joule. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+1 # Thinking 2018-06-11 23:27
If burning 100 gallons of fossil fuel releases a ton of carbon dioxide(2000 pounds), and re-collecting the carbon dioxide costs $100, the cost of burning the (currently $300-400) fuel for useful purposes is quite high.
+1 # economagic 2018-06-12 08:51
The article is pretty vague on details, but I can't get their numbers or yours to add up. The 2,000 pounds of CO2 per 100 gallons of gasoline is correct, per US Energy Information Administration. But as the inventor states, this process does not sequester carbon, processing it instead to be burned again.

The claim is that the cost to capture the CO2 and turn it into one barrel of liquid fuel (the size of the "barrel" is not specified, but a barrel of petroleum is 42 gallons) is $100, but it requires an an unspecified amount of renewable energy to provide the hydrogen and run the reaction to combine it with the carbon. It is not clear whether the $100 includes the cost of this energy. If so, their output would be liquid fuel comparable to gasoline at about $2.50/gallon.

Even if it does, I strongly suspect that they are leaving out other major costs. That is, I think they are counting only the direct costs of operating the plant (probably not even all of those), and considering everything else from the construction of the plant itself to transportation and storage of the finished product as "externalities" to be foisted off on others, just as much of the cost to society of burning carbon has always been ignored because it occurs at the back end, after extraction, processing, and consumption. This is a fundamental problem with classical-tradi tion economics, and politicians and corporations want to keep it that way, to the detriment of us all.
0 # Texas Aggie 2018-06-12 06:09
It would be wonderful if this turns out to be feasible, but so many advances in technology and medicine have failed to fulfill their early promises. Maybe this will be the exception like the internet or personal computers. Go for it.
+2 # wcandler1 2018-06-12 09:23
The original article quote a cost of $96 to $232 per ton of CO2, this is reported by the BBC as $100 per ton of carbon! A ton of carbon produces 3.67 tons of CO2..... So the cost of removing the CO2 produced from 1 ton of carbon is $352 to $ 851. AND NOBODY NOTICES! Clearly we have no prospects of survival.
+2 # economagic 2018-06-12 09:38
Oops, yes. In the first paragraph the article says the process removes a tonne of CARBON from the air for $100. Farther down is says the process removes a tonne of CARBON DIOXIDE per DAY.

The decline of journalism, due I believe in large part to the "communication" major in many colleges and universities, also results in people writing routinely on subjects in which they have no background.
+3 # draypoker 2018-06-12 09:41
There are vast amounts of potential energy that do not add to the CO2 in the atmosphere. I have used methane made from agricultural waste for cooking and lighting, and know of farms where it is used to power many machines. It recirculates the CO2.

We need to stop using coal and oil, and make use of biological energy on a very large scale.
0 # lfeuille 2018-06-12 20:14
"Set up in 2009 with funding from Microsoft's Bill Gates and Canada oil sands financier Norman Murray Edwards, their pilot plant has been running since 2015, capturing about one tonne of CO2 per day."

That this was funded by Gates, who thinks there is a tech solution to everything and a Canadian oil sands baron does not inspire confidence. On the surface it seem like an excuse to delay phasing out fossil fuels. The money they are spending could better be
used elsewhere.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.