At the most basic level, carbon-capture technology is not new, but it has attracted a lot more attention in recent years amid discussions about how best to transition to a net-zero world by 2050. Efforts to ramp up carbon capture have faced a number of hurdles, however, including the difficulty in capturing some emissions at the point where they’re generated. That’s where direct air capture (DAC) — which essentially works as a large-scale air filter and can be located just about anywhere — comes into play. In today’s RBN blog, we take a closer look at the still-emerging technology and its limitations, a project in Iceland that is the largest currently in operation, and plans by Occidental Petroleum to make Texas home to the world’s largest DAC facility.
We’ve already covered a lot of topics related to carbon capture in this blog series, starting with the basics of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Then we covered the federal 45Q tax credit and legislation that could expand its size and reach to encourage more CCS projects as well as some of the underlying economic and technological reasons why project successes have been limited so far. We followed that up by checking out some of the projects aiming to capture carbon including the Houston CCS Innovation Zone, the biggest project currently taking shape, along with three proposals to capture emissions from ethanol plants in the Midwest that were also the subject of a recent Drill Down Report.
More recently we examined why variable costs can make some projects uneconomic, which is an especially important factor in the development of DAC technology. Carbon-capture projects are the most economic when CO2 emissions are highly concentrated, making them easiest to capture. For that reason, ethanol production, ammonia production and natural gas processing — each with a CO2 source stream concentration of 99% or higher — are ideal candidates for carbon capture, which is why there are several projects planning to do just that. The central challenge for DAC technology is that it operates at the other extreme, as CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of regular air.
About the song
“Way Down in the Hole” was written by Tom Waits and appears as the second song on side two of Waits' 10th studio album, Franks Wild Years. The song was used as the theme song for the HBO crime drama series, The Wire. The series ran for five seasons from 2002-08. In addition to Waits’ version, a different recording of “Way Down in the Hole” was used for each season, including versions by The Blind Boys of Alabama, The Neville Brothers, DoMaJe, and Steve Earle. Personnel on the Waits record were: Tom Waits (vocals, pump organ), Marc Ribot (guitar), Greg Cohen (bass), Michael Blair (drums, percussion), Ralph Carney (sax), and Angela Brown, Leslie Holland, and Lynne Jordan (backing vocals).
Franks Wild Years was recorded during 1987 at Universal Recording in Chicago, and The Sound Factory and Sunset Sound in Hollywood. The album contains songs written for a play of the same name. Several songs from the album have appeared in television shows, movies, and stage productions. Produced by Waits, the album was released in August 1987 and went to #115 on the Billboard Top 200 Albums chart.
Tom Waits is an American songwriter, singer, musician, and actor. He began his professional career performing on the San Diego folk circuit as a teen in the late 1960s. He moved to Los Angeles in 1972, where he worked as a songwriter before securing his first record deal with Asylum Records. He has released 17 studio albums, three live albums, seven compilation albums, two soundtrack albums, and 24 singles. His songs have been covered by many artists from different genres. Waits has appeared in over two dozen motion pictures. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2011. His last tour was in 2008 and his last LP, Bad as Me, was released the same year. He has a featured role in the movie Licorice Pizza, which was released in the U.S. in November 2021 and received an Oscar nomination for Best Picture.
Comments
Of all of the things I have read about DACs, I haven't read how efficient they are in removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Are DACs able to remove 90% of the 400ppm of CO2, or is it lower? Is it any better than a tree?
In reply to DAC efficiency by Mark Pernik
Thanks for taking the time to read today's piece.
I haven't found a direct comparison in terms of efficiency, but scale and resources seem to be main issues that would limit the planting of more trees as a single solution. The articles I read doing my research for this blog and others seem to show a pretty wide consensus that planting enough trees to meet carbon-reduction goals isn't feasible. Trees also require resources that can come at premium, such as suitable land and water. DAC has its own issues, but you can put it almost anywhere, including areas that wouldn't be suitable for a lot of other uses.
This blog post mentions that the Orca project in Iceland is run by geothermal energy, but what will the Oxy plant run on? Will it run on fossil fuels, defeating the purpose?
In reply to Oxy DAC powered by renewable energy? by Jessie Boucher
Thanks for taking the time to read the blog.
Carbon Engineering says its DAC technology can be powered either by renewable power or natural gas. If it's powered by gas, the carbon dioxide emissions would be sequestered along with whatever is captured by the DAC system itself.