Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Launch HN: AirMyne (YC W22) – Capturing CO2 from air at industrial scale
198 points by markcyffka on March 17, 2022 | hide | past | favorite | 192 comments
Hi HN, we are Sudip and Mark, founders of AirMyne (https://www.airmyne.com, but there’s nothing there yet). We’re building an industrial-scale process/plant to capture and remove CO2 from air, so it can be piped to nearby sequestration facilities and injected underground—a process that requires less energy and capital equipment than other leading solutions.

Companies spent over $1B on CO2 offsets last year, sourced primarily from landowners and project aggregators claiming to protect forested lands. Over the past few years, interest in more permanent forms of CO2 removal have led to the pilot-scale commercialization of novel bio-oil/biochar/biomass, direct air capture, mineralization, and ocean processes, but these are not yet available with sufficient capacity to meet demand. There is no silver bullet, but we believe removing CO2 from air with an industrial chemical process offers the most realistic and scalable path forward.

Capturing and sequestering CO2 from air is a huge engineering challenge. The dilute concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (~400ppm) means a system operating at 100% capture efficiency would still need to process 2500 tons of air to capture just 1 ton of CO2. Significant energy is then required to release CO2 from the capture medium. On top of that, compressing and injecting CO2 underground requires controlling for gas leakages, dry ice blockages, and the corrosive conditions created when concentrated CO2 comes in contact with trace water vapor.

Our approach goes back to the fundamentals of acid/base chemistry. CO2 acts as an acid and will bind to a base, whether in the liquid phase or on a solid surface. We have developed a process to bring air in contact with a base substrate that captures CO2 molecules while letting N2 and O2 molecules pass through. After energy is applied, CO2 is desorbed from the substrate for downstream treatment and compression. This reversible process allows for a single stage “air in, CO2 out” system where 1 ton of substrate could capture >1000 tons of CO2 over its useful lifetime.

In the lab, we have demonstrated this approach at a gram-level scale and believe the process offers favorable energy use, planned capex/opex costs, and process complexity compared to existing solutions. (We’d love to show you a video but can’t do that yet—the chemistry & physical embodiment of the system are areas where we’re developing core IP and that process still involves some secrecy at this stage.)

As we scale this process, we are initiating discussions with other companies who can help us inject captured CO2 deep underground so it can be sequestered for geologic time scales. Sequestration technologies have improved their compression and injection processes over the years, and an emerging regulatory landscape is starting to take shape to accelerate the deployment of CO2 injection wells and mineralization projects in the US, the EU, and around the world. We intend to colocate our CO2 capture near injection facilities to minimize transport logistics.

Sudip and I both come from industry. At Honeywell, Sudip invented and scaled the low-global-warming refrigerant 1234yf used in automotive air conditioning systems, as well as a variety of products used to make displays, computer chips, sensors, solar modules, and electrical components. I invented formulations at BASF now widely used in the manufacture of silicon carbide power electronics for EVs, solar inverters, and other high power electric devices. We bring a systems engineering perspective to the C02/climate problem—our focus is not only developing, but also derisking and scaling industrial systems/processes into a business case suitable for large industrial stakeholders.

Eliminating existing emissions is the most urgent and important challenge we face to keep the climate habitable, but removing CO2 from the atmosphere will likely be needed too. Tackling this problem head-on opens up other fascinating possibilities. By focusing on the “extreme user” case of removing dilute CO2 from air, we might develop unique innovations or insights applicable to the point-source capture of more concentrated CO2 streams such as industrial flue gases. And just as natural gas (methane) was a commercially useless molecule until oil companies started capturing it and finding a use case, we believe that if CO2 can be captured from air and made useful, it could become the feedstock for an industry of similar scope and scale.

We are thrilled to launch as a YC W22 company - we couldn’t ask for a more forward-looking community of folks open to buying, supporting, or otherwise engaging with climate solutions like ours. Grateful for your time and happy to take your questions! We are at hello@airmyne.com if you want to reach out.

p.s. dang took out all our footnotes but if you want references for any of the above, please ask!



I want to be excited about this, but it's capturing CO2 as CO2 gas, not sequestering CO2 in a form that keeps it out of the atmosphere.

If you pay a lot of money in process and power to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere or out of exhaust gases and then use it in chemical processes other than ones which sink the carbon into long lasting solid, liquid, or oceanic absorption form you're just burning money and power to make yourself feel good, you aren't actually denting the global climate change problem because all that CO2 will just end up back in the atmosphere once it's been used in the industrial processes.

You also can't use storage of gaseous (or liquid) CO2 as a way to sequester climatically meaningful amounts of CO2. We've added around 600 billion tons of CO2 to that atmosphere since 2000. If we want to use sequestration to roll back the changes we've done to the atmosphere, we almost certainly need to sequester at least that much, if not more out of the atmosphere. Do a quick calculation on how big a set of storage tanks you need to hold that amount of gaseous or liquid CO2, and compare that volume to the volume of a mountain (or mountain range) near you. Then think about maintaining those tanks in perpetuity and you'll see why you have to get the CO2 stashed in solid or room temperature stable liquid form.

I'm by no means critical or dismissive of this tech, it sounds great, but we're still a long way from pulling off the sequestration that's actually needed at the scale that's needed.


Huge amounts of CO2 can be injected into Saline Aquifers

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015WR01...

Capturing CO2 from a power plant, biofuel factory, oil refinery, petrochemical plant or other point source and disposing of it underground is a developed technology. Very little of that is happening because the financial incentives aren't there and the financial incentives that do exist go to carbon sequestration schemes which are low-cost, low-quality and generally not measurable (pay us $ and we won't cut down these trees... for now, let's crush some rocks and apply sand to the beach and hope for the best, ...)

With aquifer injection you can measure the gas going in but there are also questions such as: how long does the CO2 stay there? do you have seismic problems?

This scheme is similar to aquifer injection but is more secure at the expense of requiring unusual rock formations and 25 tons of water for every ton of CO2 captured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbfix

I think it gets way too much press but assuming energy is available you can build a direct air capture in a place where you have reactive rocks and water.


We agree that saline aquifers are be a compelling strategy given the huge volumes available & measurement capabilities you mentioned. As verification standards emerge in the (currently nascent & somewhat fragmented) CO2 removal ecosystem, precise & accurate quantification is going to be a huge driver to differentiate the highest-quality CO2 removal solutions.


Thats only 6,250 gallons of water.. less than a single 10K water truck you've seen everywhere.

THe question is how many tons does this plan to produce over what period?


If you want to delay the impact of climate change by 1 year by sequestering one year of of CO2 added to the environment through saline sequestration, that's about 40 billion 10K water trucks worth of storage, or about 40 Lake Tahoes turned into saline storage ponds, and you need to add that much storage capacity every year just to keep atmospheric CO2 from getting worse than it is (you're not yet to the scale of reducing atmospheric CO2 at this rate). The oceans have enough volume for this, but most other containers are too small to be meaningful.


Hopefully this will help people realize it will be a lot more impactful to reduce GHG emissions as a priority rather than focusing on trying to capture and store the growing output. Yes both can help, but first stop the bleeding.


K, I would like to pose the following Q

--

What ~~would be the balance btwn the effort for climate change, vs,~~

What the heck are we doing?

We keep talk of CO2 offsets, and Sequestering...

WE FUCKING NEVER SPEAK OF PROCESS OPTIMIAZATION WHICH REDUCE CO2 T BEGIN WITH??? !!!

Band-aid much bitch. WTF?!


It’s hopeless.

Feel so powerless.


Why? There are ~8 billion humans to get stuff done — it’s not all on your shoulders. Even if only 1% of the world both can and will fix it, it’s still in the realm of stuff that can be fixed.


and zero fictitious dollars to fund such motivation to fix.

Only dollars too fund(sustain) suppression....


"""Amid the COVID-19 crisis, the global market for Clean Energy Technologies estimated at US$283.9 Billion in the year 2020, is projected to reach a revised size of US$452.8 Billion by 2027""" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p05817952/Global-Clean-Energy-T...

And that’s just the people who want to get rich while saving the world, not charities like Greenpeace, or government interventions like Feed-In Tariffs and fuel taxes.


> We're still a long way from pulling off the sequestration that's actually needed at the scale that's needed.

How so? The simple fact that natural gas and oil still exists, when it comes from 100 million year old biomass, proves beyond a shadow of doubt that geological sequestration holds its integrity at geological timescales.

We have also been injecting CO2 at a rate of 1 million tonnes per year at the Sleipner field in the North Sea since 1996, and extensive 3D timelapse seismography shows the CO2 is permanently trapped.

Think about that - we have been demonstrating CO2 storage at scale since before the launch of the first Palm Pilot.


The existence of oil shows CO2 can be stored in solid or liquid form, but doesn't show we know how to convert CO2 into that stored form at scale or keep our hands off it once it's stored that way. It's easy to burn oil, it's hard to make it, and it's harder still to not burn it when you know it's readily available.


CO2 is in the dense supercritical state at the temperature and pressure conditions in storage reservoirs. It's density is between 750 and 850 kg/m3 then (water is 1000). You just have to compress it and pump it down there, and it will stay like that.

Honestly, the storage part is a solved problem from the feasibility side. The remaining challenges are mainly cost optimization, across all of capture, transport and storage.

And the biggest hurdle is forcing businesses to actually pay for the currently externalized cost of CO2 emissions.


I agree with your thermodynamics, I'm just concerned about finding a volume big enough to store climatically meaningful amounts of CO2 in that form. 40 billion metric tons per year of CO2 in the form you describe is around 30 billion cubic meters, and you need to find that much storage volume every year just to keep things from getting worse. If you want to actually make a dent, like rolling things back to the year 2000 (which likely isn't enough, but is a real impact), that's more like 600 billion metric tons or 450 billion cubic meters. That's roughly equivalent to 400 mountains 5000 feet tall. It's a huge volume of material we're talking about finding a place to store if we're actually trying to make a real dent in climate change.


If you asked a pre-industrial person how in the world it would be possible to source, refine, and distribute enough crude oil to power the modern world they would quote some similarly breathless numbers. It's possible because there's a motivation to do it. Simple as that. If we had a similar level of motivation to sequester our excess carbon we could start planning to do that tomorrow and have it done within a decade or three. You can't sequester all the worlds carbon in one place, just like you don't pull it all out of the ground in one place. Big problems seem less so when you realize that solutions are usually distributed.


I don't have the sources or exact numbers on hand, but I remember reading that the world's extractive & production processes create something like ~4 billion tons of oil, ~4 billion tons of iron, ~x billion tons of cement, and ~50 billion tons of sand, per year. These industries developed over many years and as you note are distributed globally. With market demand and regulatory pressure, we believe achieving CO2 removal across different modalities at the giga-ton scale is possible in our lifetimes.

That being said, we try to bring a conservative approach to our scaleup plan. The most immediate challenge is demonstrating CO2 removal at the megaton scale (1 million tons per year) to validate the process and meet short-term demand for voluntary offsets.


For context, Global Natural Gas production is approximately 4,000 billion cubic meters per year.

To sequester the world's carbon emissions, we would need to move and store <1% the volume per year.


That's apples to oranges: we don't store anything like a year's worth of gas.

And anyone in Europe can tell you that natural gas transfer and storage is far from a solved problem.


The idea is not to actively store it, but dump it somewhere where it will store itself.

Europe is a great example of how we have the technology to transfer huge amounts of gas, and the challenges are largely politics and capital.

Nordstream #1 moves 60 billion m3 of gas 1,200 km and cost ~$10 billion


We also got calculations that yielded literal mountains ranges of carbonate... That's not to say carbonate cannot be part of the solution, but maybe it is unlikely to be the only solution.


Inject CO2 into basalt formations, and over the course of a year or so it will turn into rock. There are already several pilot programs doing this, and it's very scalable.

Other projects apply energy to turn the CO2 into liquid fuel. Of course that returns the CO2 to the atmosphere, but it'll be a long time before we electrify long-haul jets so it'd be great if their fuel were carbon-neutral.


>Inject CO2 into basalt formations...

Thanks for this comment - the calculations I'd been doing in the GP comment and elsewhere where pretty darn depressing and this approach you're mentioning is very exciting in that it bypasses the fundamental storage volume problems most other sequestration methods face by leveraging the interstitial spaces inside existing rock volumes, and also exciting in that it leverages undersea rock formations for even lower impact. Thanks for pointing me to this.

For others interested in learning more you might hit [0] or [1].

[0]https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/02/19/solid-carbon-ma...

[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0011-8


There are a few startups exploring this and also PNNL is doing great public work on this topic as well. https://youtu.be/osXq-k84LpA?t=2177


Thanks, Mark - do you (or anyone else reading this) happen to know offhand any of the startups targeting this approach?


We don't claim to be experts on this subfield & this is may not be an exhaustive list, but Carbfix, 44.01, and the Solid Carbon coalition are some that come to mind to check out. We don't speak for those companies but just want to point out some areas to check out.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1390435 <-- a non-commercial study on this topic.

https://youtu.be/osXq-k84LpA?t=2177 <-- a webinar that addresses this topic



This is sort of crazy. Presumably industry will use liquid CO2 for the foreseeable future. Pulling it from the atmosphere instead of ground is a huge net benefit.


Most of the gasses we pull from the ground are byproducts of oil and natural gas production. We don't pull them from the ground because we want them on their own, we just go ahead and capture them because they are coming up with the stuff we want for fuel - they'll still continue to be captured (or worse vented to the atmosphere) as long as we're pulling those fuel sources from the ground.

Industrial CO2 also mostly comes not from the ground but from other industrial processes.


We use so much CO2 (on beverages, inert atmospheres, cooling devices, fire extinguishers, etc). Does all of it come as side-product of some industrial process? Or do we burn extra fuels to get it?


Most all of it comes as a side product. The amount of CO2 used for the applications listed pales in comparison to the amount used for urea (fertilizer) production.


What is different is that urea requires a power source that creates more CO2 than the chemical process uses. So you will certainly (as long as you are using fossil fuels) have a source available.

Those things I mentioned buy their CO2 on the market. I have no idea where it comes from.


Urea production requires ammonia, and the production of ammonia produces co2 in large quantities. It's not without reason the two are almost always loacted closely


Great point & not so often talked about. Something like 230Mton of CO2 are used each year, a little more than half goes straight to urea production. By contrast only about 10% goes to the food/bev, medical, and other applications we are more familiar with on a day-to-day basis.

plot showing the breakdown with some gov't sources. --> https://www.iea.org/reports/putting-co2-to-use


> use it in chemical processes other than ones which sink the carbon into long lasting solid

There are not many chemical reactions that 'fix' CO2. The compound is pretty low energy. Kind of a analogous to 'feed' bacteria with plastics.

The Swiss start-up Climeworks [1] has a business model built around actually already is in operational mode when it comes to pumping CO2 into the ground in Iceland.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/worlds-largest-...


Capturing CO2 should be just that, capturing. Capturing and transforming is just costing more problem that other people have to deal with (creating more byproducts, consuming energy and other resources in the process). If it turns out that there is a market for CO2 gas then the product can be used as is, as opposed to burning coal back to CO2. If not, then you will have other companies solving the problem of turning it back to carbon. That's always been how problems are solved, divide an conquer


Isn't the idea to pump the captured co2 underground, where the proper reactions take place to turn this more or less into rock ? I'm not sure anyone was suggesting to actually store the co2 long term as a gas or liquid


What happens if you bring CO2 to insane temperatures? Will that break C from O2? Could we reuse the stored heat somehow?


Could we put them into pods and throw them at Mars so we start dumping Co2 on Mars for Musk's Mars Mushroom Mart! too grow.


The rocket you use to sling them at Mars will produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than it could carry to Mars.

And this is completely ignoring the CO2 cost of building the rocket.


Remember the slingshot company?

THAT is a viable reason for them


Even then, the amount of energy required to accelerate the CO2 to escape velocity will still result in more CO2 being created.


Well, then.

We should just put this entire debate to bed, shouldn't we?

JUST ONE MORE THING

Go fuck yourself


Could? Yes. It'd probably be the most expensive way to get rid of CO2, though.


> Could? Yes. It'd probably be the most expensive way to get rid of CO2, though.

So? I in this context that is a plus not a minus!


How is that a plus? If it's more expensive it means you're pulling less CO2 out of the atmosphere than if had gone with a cheaper method.


WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU CONCERNED WITH EXPENSE RATHER THAN SURVIVAL?

---

Serious question.

-- musk. (and ppl like Thiel cooncerned with eternal life (Rocks, Roths, etc)....


Lovelock (of the Gaia Hypothesis) had the bright idea to put all the CFCs onto all the old ICBMs and launch them at Mars to kick start the greenhouse effect there.


Ah yes, this was all planned from the start, we actually need that CO2! Wait a second... wouldn't it be more efficient to transport solids and burn them on mars?

Okay, I only responded because of the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon. I watched a video about lovelock and Gaia Hypothesis yesterday.


I am dismissive of this tech. On the face of it.

CO2 stored underground, at huge expense? What could possibly go wrong with that?


Yeah. It kinda smells like fracking 2.0 to me in terms of what the potential unforeseen consequences could be... and look what happened there.


It should be much more cost-effective to float wind turbines to pump surface water to benthic depths. Then, the whole ocean is your CO2 collection surface. You might also pump water from (lesser) depths to the surface to distribute over coral reefs to relieve both heat and pH. (Picture a line of these some miles seaward, all up and down the Great Barrier Reef.)

The wind turbine nacelle could be substantially cheaper than in the typical electrical generating turbine, instead coupling mechanically or hydraulically to the water pump.

Some people worry that this would saturate the deep ocean with CO2. A bit of calculation shows this is an idle concern: the shallow ocean is already being saturated with CO2, with immediately dire consequences, and there is overwhelmingly more deep ocean water than surface water. So long as atmospheric CO2 falls off over the coming century, there would no long-term problem.

Geoengineering that tackles the root problem, CO2, is fundamentally different from schemes that only (e.g.) try to block insolation. Other engineering is going on to tackle upstream CO2 emission, but we have a huge stock of CO2 already built up in the atmosphere that will need to be drawn down.


I think the problem with that approach is that it would be harder to establish a regulatory framework were you can get "I sequestered CO2 credits" if your pumps are out in the ocean and pumping the CO2 into deeper waters. The capturing facilities inland are easier to audit and regulate.

So yeah maybe it's better for the planet but since it's harder to regulate it would be tricky to get funding to build that if the potential profit comes from the government intervening to set a price for the CO2 removal you are doing.


Pumped water volume and pH are easy to measure, precisely identifying how much CO2 is being sequestered. These could be reported continuously via satellite link.

It doesn't cost any less to keep a wind turbine and pump still than to leave it running, so there will be no incentive to cheat.


I was not thinking it was a technological challenge, I was more concerned about how useless governments in general are at regulating stuff that happens in the sea. There's no civil arm of the government that runs around in boats inspecting and certifying stuff.


I don't know anything specifically about wind turbine maintenance, but if its anything like everything else I know about, it probably does cost more to have 99% uptime than it does to have 80% uptime.


Conceded. But with automated reporting from metering equipment, it would be easy to tell when it stopped working, and if that meant the money stopped, you would be motivated to get out there and get it going again.

We will need thousands of these things, all over the world. Maybe even millions.


You should build this! This is one of those "all of the above" moments.


Today we see a moment when popular interest, need, capital, and talent are converging on a willingness to to try new things with a path to success. Who knows how long the window will last. We must try to advance any path that has some chance of succeeding and has a technically/commercially viable path forward.


This is really well said. As a person who lived through the first dot-com boom, this feels a lot like the 90's. There are way more ideas than there are viable paths forward. But among these ideas, there's at least a handful of future giants.


It could be profitable if you sold carbon credits. The pH and water volume may be measured accurately on the way through, precisely identifying exactly how much CO2 is being sequestered.

I don't know how the carbon credit economy works. I would welcome enlightenment.


As I know there are some standards like https://www.goldstandard.org/ and https://verra.org/ . They audit the projects that claim to remove CO2 from the atmosphere worldwide and issue CO2 credits. These credits then can be sold to companies that want to offset their emissions. Usually OTC deals, sometimes involving brokers as well. There's also https://www.cblmarkets.net/ , which is one of the big marketplaces where such deals are happening.

I've heard deals with prices in the range of $0.5 to $5 per tonne CO2 equivalent. There's also a decentralized protocol that aims to move these credits onchain (https://toucan.earth/), their BCT (Base Carbon Tonne) token price is currently around $3.1.

As stated in the post, last year ~$1B worth of credits are sold. One McKinsey report expects it to be around $50B at 2030.

There are much more details of course, but these are the basics as I know.


Churning ocean water is a terrific idea. Especially the added benefit protecting habitats. Thanks for sharing.

--

I also have no clue about the economics of carbon capture. Maybe ask David Roberts? He has always answered my emails. (Note he's currently on vacation.)

Roberts is my current primary source for climate and energy policy news. He definitely talks to all the right people, eg Saul Griffins.

Here's a sample of his articles which may be relevant to your question:

These uses of CO2 could cut emissions — and make trillions of dollars [2019] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/11/13/208395...

A simpler, more useful way to tax carbon [2020] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/8/17/2137073...

Volts podcast: Sen. Tina Smith on the promise of a Clean Electricity Payment Program [2021] https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-sen-tina-smith-on-the

Volts podcast: Rebecca Dell on decarbonizing heavy industry [2022] https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-rebecca-dell-on-decarb...


Where did you learn about this idea? I've been trying to get up to speed on climate change solutions and I thought I heard just about everything but this is the first I've heard this solution and it sounds like it might make total sense. Are there companies developing these pump mills?


Also, wouldn't it be even nicer to pump up the cold water? That way you decrease the acidity of the surface water more strongly, increasing the acidic uptake of the surface water, and you also cool it down more.

If we did that for example in the East Australian Current north of Vanuatu, we might help out the Great Barrier Reef a little, moderating both the temperature and the acidity. It's like 3 birds with one stone.

I guess pumping up has the additional complexity of having the intake all the way down at 2KM, which is also where you'd need to do the maintenance. But maybe you could float up the entire pipe for maintenance.

Seems a similar idea has been proposed, but from a depth of a mere 40m: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/07/plan-col....


Yes, there is lots of room for development, and connected ideas.

Where waves are available, the wind turbine might not be needed. Waves tend to happen mostly where water is shallow. Anyway, idea is that you have a big, floating, anchored fabric tube with rim held above mean surface level, that waves slop into. Once water is in, the only exit is way down deep. So more water slops in all the time, and moves down under the weight of what comes in after it.

Then, you need no wind turbine, no pumps, no moving parts at all; just anchors, floats, a surface frame, and a few thousand square yards of very tough fabric.

The tube doesn't need to go straight down. It could collect water in (relative) shallows and exhaust it some distance off, at cost of just more fabric.


A proposal showed up here on HN, maybe a month ago. I will try to find it. It seems like a good place to invest.


I'm not a marine or ocean expert, but won't pumping large amounts of surface water to benthic depths have a huge impact on the marine life, currents and so on?


We are already making a huge impact on marine life, today, with increasingly disastrous consequences. This reduces that impact.


This doesn't remove CO2 from the ocean, right? It instead mixes the ocean better to increase the total CO2 absorbed in the ocean, reducing atmospheric CO2?

It sounds like a cool idea but is not really related to what AirMyne is trying to do! Lots of ideas are promising and people need to be working on all of them


AirMyne is trying to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it attached to rocks underground. Pumping surface water down sequesters surface water down deep that recently collected CO2 from the atmosphere, and exposes incrementally less-saturated surface water to collect more.

The important difference is not how the CO2 is collected, or where it ends up. Ultimately, what matters is how much mass of CO2 is collected per unit cost, and how much CO2 is collected in total. I.e., how profitable is it, and how much difference does it really make? We need methods that can move CO2 out of the atmosphere by, ultimately, billions of tons per week.


Not to derail the OP discussion; but, how does one go about pumping water to great depths? That sounds like it would require immense energy to do on any large scale. Also thinking of the maintenance on the presumably narrow vertical pipe going miles(?) below the ocean.


It does take energy to pump water. How much is easy to calculate. But if the energy is provided by capturing wind, the cost is just the fixed capital expenditure to buy the wind turbine and pump, plus (as always) maintenance on the turbine, pump, and plumbing.

Maintaining a pipe, even one a half-mile long, is pretty cheap. (It has floats along its length, so it doesn't need to be especially strong.) Probably the biggest maintenance chore is keeping the intake from being fouled with barnacles, something most easily handled by replacing linings periodically.


Hmm, off the top of my head I think that it takes as much energy to pump water down a 1-foot tube as it would for a 1000-foot tube. It's like rotating a long loop of chain on a pulley, but in three dimensions. One liter of water goes down the tube, one liter of water comes up around the tube. Both sides weigh equal amounts so there's no net force. Of course, overcoming inertia to get the water moving and keeping it moving despite friction might be significant. Ironically, a consequence of the oil industry is that we have powerful pumps that are proven to be economical in moving large amounts of liquids long distances through pipes :)


> Both sides weigh equal amounts so there's no net force.

Water at 40m depth has a different pressure than at the surface level. Pumping at the surface and releasing at depth will have significant water pressure difference.

(A quick Google later). At 40m, it's 5atm or roughly 75psi pressure.

(Another quick Google). Oil pipelines run at a higher order of magnitude as that, so it's doable but would return energy, increasing as you go deeper.


Gravity takes care of the pressures. If you put a long pipe vertically in the water, with its bottom open and its top sticking up a couple meters on top, and then put some water into the top of it, what happens to the water column inside?

You do not need to get the water at the surface to 10, or 100, or 1000 atm. You just need a long pipe that goes all the way to the bottom.

Likewise for transporting water upward.


There is significant friction between the water and the tube that needs to be accounted for. The longer the tube, the more friction there is.


But the bigger its cross section, and the slower the water inside moves, the less friction there is. A fabric tube 10 or 20 feet across would work as well as a pipe. It could stick up a few feet above the surface, and the pump just lift water over the edge into it.


Sounds like it would also directly cool surface water, by replacing it with very cold deep water.

That cooling would directly reduce current average earth temperatures, in addition to the CO2 impact on long term heating / cooling.


Not sure in which measure this "cooling" (of oceans only) would have any impact on other parameters of global climate, but that's a project I'd be eager to work on anyways.


The ocean surface, when colder, absorbs heat from the atmosphere. But the effect of removing CO2 is much more important because CO2 blocks heat that comes in every day from space from escaping back to space. And, acidifies the ocean top, damaging the food chain at its roots.


"CO2 acts as an acid and will bind to a base, whether in the liquid phase or on a solid surface. We have developed a process to bring air in contact with a base substrate that captures CO2 molecules while letting N2 and O2 molecules pass through"

Interesting, and of course worth noting that many geological events have done exactly this when calcium bearing rock (chemically basic) is exposed and weathered, capturing carbon as calcium carbonate. See, e.g. the hypothesis that the uplift of the Himalayas contributed to a past ice age[1].

One way to grasp the scale of the problem of sequestering our current level industrial emissions is to imagine assembling a calcium surface comparable to that of the Tibetan plateau. That's not to minimize the value of potential sequestration solutions here, which as you note will definitely need to be coupled with emissions reductions. Just that we need to, in effect "move mountains" to get this to work.

[1] https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstrac...


Great point. Cheers.


As I understand it, the most efficient, scalable, and long-term effective climate solution remains olivine carbonation as proposed by efforts like Project Vesta [0]. I take the point that any and all solutions should be explored at this time of critical importance, but there's a risk that sexier, more high tech approaches gain disproportionate momentum for reasons separate from the science. Is there an obvious explanation for why this or other geoengineering schemes haven't taken a leading role either in the discourse or implementation of carbon capture and sequestration?

[0] https://www.vesta.earth/


Why bother with 400ppm when there are so many, well, "burning sites" untapped?

The intuitive counter-argument is that long term there shouldn't be any "burning sites" left and that capturing all burning sites would only ever get us to zero but not to negative emissions, but that's not true when you include burning sites that run on biological sources. Let plants deal with the 400ppm problem, use those plants as fuel, sequester where those plants are burnt. Negative emissions.


Thanks for the question, copying from an earlier comment which touches on similar point --

"Great question. We'd love to capture point-source CO2 from factory flue gas where it is orders of magnitude more concentrated (often >10%) than in air (~400ppm). And fundamentally, there is no reason our process cannot be applied for this type of CO2 capture. For now, we are choosing to focus on air for 2 reasons:

1) Market. Early buyers of CO2 credits are primarily looking to get very clean accounting of who gets credit for the CO2 removed, and will pay a premium for anyone who can do it. If a buyer (say, a software company) pays for a polluting chemical factory or power plant to capture some of its emissions, it requires complex multi-party contracts & the incentives between the parties are often conflicting. That being said, point-source CO2 removal is absolutely needed & a huge opportunity/problem and more work is needed from a technology/policy side.

2) The "extreme user" case. If we give 100% focus to solving the more challenging problem of removing CO2 from air, we may gain learnings & knowledge that will translate to an improved point-source capture process, whether from an energy/efficiency/cost perspective."


Ah, ok.

"We try to tackle the crazy problem because if we can almost do that we should be quite good at the reasonable ones" sounds like a communication problem unnecessarily attached to the physical one.


Given the dilution problem, I’ve been wondering if a decentralized approach is ultimately better. Can we build some cheap system that people could just simply put on top of their homes and let the wind do the movement? Individually each system would remove little, but if enough participants were involved (perhaps it’s even government mandated to have), then the costs would be shared as would be the scale.

Would love thoughts.


Great question. We believe it becomes an issue of storage, logistics, supply chains, transport, and so on. We approach it this way: if we build & install 1,000,000 decentralized car-sized capture systems that capture, say, 1 ton of CO2 a year, that is going to require 1,000,000 CO2 absorption/desorption systems (cost/energy/embedded CO2), 1,000,000 high-pressure compression systems (cost/energy/embedded CO2), as well as installation, delivery, system maintanance & repair, etc. Then we have to collect the CO2 when the decentralized units are full - again, not easy, since CO2 likes to leak when stored/transported under pressure. When deployed over a large geographic area, the problem gets more complex since it must be monitored & managed with many nodes in the system.

That's not to say a decentralized system can't be done. If someone can do it & it costs less than us, that's good for the world. But coming from years in the chemical manufacturing world, we believe that humans have learned a lot, especially over the past 2-3 centuries, how to build huge chemical production facilities that make (relatively) efficient use of power & resources to process ton-scale quantities of materials. We have experience in bulk-scale chemical facilities for other chemical processes, and know that when they work, they can work really well. So we believe that bulk industrial scale is the fastest/cheapest way for CO2 removal from air in a way that can be deployed fast enough & in an economically-sustainable way to meet existing/forecast demand for voluntary CO2 credits & eventually to tip the needle through large-scale deployment.


There was an art project a couple of years ago to clean up smog.

https://www.studioroosegaarde.net/project/smog-free-project


This would be equivalent to trees, where you then store the tree forever before it dies, and even assuming you can plant and then store those trees using 0 energy it really doesn't make much of a dent.


I would love to see a page on your website where you compare yourselves (in a fair and transparent way) to the best plant that does the same thing. I am not knowledgeable in the field. But there will be some algae or mangroves that get CO2 out of the air.

I would love to see that comparison. Incl. the aspect that the plant does not need to be repaired, multiplies on its own, etc.


The problem with plant based sequestration is that it is a net neutral proposition unless you can bury the plants. All the talk about forests being so great(and they are, just not as carbon sinks) ignores the complete lifecycle, which is only as negative as the sustained volume of the forest, assuming you started from just dirt. If that forest ever burns, it's all back in the atmosphere again.


This might be true of conventional crops like corn or soy but this article [1] implies kelp farming in oceans could sequester carbon from the atmosphere for a long time.

"So the kelp will sink to the ocean bottom in the sediment, and become, essentially, part of the ocean floor..."

1.https://www.npr.org/2021/03/01/970670565/run-the-oil-industr...


Of course there is always the possibility that things could burn but forests that burn do grow back eventually. Plant-based sequestration should not be written off. A planet covered by X% of forest vs Y% where X%>Y% has more sequestered carbon. If that X% is long-term stable, i.e. if the forests are preserved and curated on a long-term basis, then so is that carbon. Forests are also an enjoyable natural environment for humans, which is an added bonus.


When we say "plant based sequestration" we are (I for one am) not talking forests. Carbon sequestration in forests is wilfully ignoring the economic and practical drawbacks:

Forests only sequester carbon as they grow. After that they are carbon neutral. You end up with land that cannot be used for any economic purpose. (The creatures and plants that live in it have a value too, but that is not part of this argument).

After that, at some point, in a year, ten years, a hundred years, the forest burns. And all the carbon is released.

A pointless waste of time. We do it because we are obsessed with things we can count (one tree, two trees....) and fixated on the short term.

There is a better way: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167...

Increase depth of top soil all over our agricultural land. It increases productivity and sequesters carbon. But it has no profit centre and is hard to measure, and given our "big man" capitalist culture that is the problem.

We really must stop producing CO2. That is the only answer that does not steal the future from our children


> Forests only sequester carbon as they grow. After that they are carbon neutral. You end up with land that cannot be used for any economic purpose. (The creatures and plants that live in it have a value too, but that is not part of this argument).

I will be paraphrasing the science articles I have read lately...

Planting new trees on bare land does not work to capture CO2. So if you deforest an area and then re-plant, you put a lot of extra CO2 into the atmosphere. Like 30% of the trees you harvest go into durable things (like houses) and the rest will decompose and release its carbon. After you leave the ground bare, it starts spewing CO2 from the soil. This is a major carbon source. New trees you plant will EVENTUALLY soak up more CO2, but canopy closure needs to happen before that can happen. Since the young trees are planted with considerable spacing, the soil CO2 source outpaces the tree CO2 sink for many years before the balance shifts.

Mature forests throughout history probably did tend to be carbon neutral on average, yes. This is ignoring ecological changes... like... maybe forest conversion to other landscapes and fires were balanced by healthy forest uptake. I digress.

These are not normal times, and CO2 concentration is very high. Because of that, old-growth or mature forests may be significant sinks of CO2. The best strategy for us to draw down more with forests is to leave as much mature forest untouched as we can.


burn or decompose same thing, trees are a buffer not a solution, unless you cut down, bury deep, then regrow.


cut diwn and use it for furniture and buildings. We could replace concrete with wood.


It’s a very inefficient (in time, and total carbon captured) way of doing it is the problem.



> unless you can bury the plants.

Maybe this is a naive question: but why not bury plants? We got into this mess by digging up long-buried plants, so why not literally reverse the process? With intentional effort, maybe this could be a viable solution? (Probably not -- but I'm curious why.)


No need to. Trees bury about half their biomass as roots. Then leaves and branches fall on the ground and bury older leaves and branches. Of course it's long and inefficient (because of fungus, bugs...) but plants do it without our input so we need to let them do their thing. Calling this process net neutral is a falsehood.

Of course it's not enough to balance human emissions. Sequestering carbon in fields, as pointed out, is a win-win solution which may do a large part in canceling emissions.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_agriculture#Carbo...

Possible. Practical. Increases productivity.


What about building houses and furniture with the wood?


That is typically only sequestering the carbon for 20-50 years. In the end, the house is torn down, or the furniture burned. Very little lasts for more then a century, and basically nothing lasts for more than a millennia.

Deep underground sequestration is the only viable strategy if your goal is total CO2 reduction in the atmosphere.


What if you develop an animal that eats the plants, and then when they die they are buried, such that after the decomposition process all that's left is a fossil? I don't see how that could go wrong unless someone digs up the fossils later on for use as a fuel, but that seems like such a ridiculous an unlikely scenario ha ha ha!


When the animal eats the carbon (as a food source), it combines the carbon with oxygen and exhales...


Or the animals turn out to be delicious and people start coking them.


One of the things I really like about regenerative agriculture (there are so many things to like) is that it makes eating meat cool again.


> Deep underground sequestration is the only viable strategy if your goal is total CO2 reduction in the atmosphere.

That is untrue. So untrue it seems like a deliberate lie.

The only solution is to stop pumping CO2 in into the atmosphere.

There are mitigations. Building huge machines to sequester relatively small amounts of carbon in underground chambers is probably a mitigation. It seems to me that there are better ways and these sorts of ideas are not worth the opportunity cost.


Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels 100%, we still have too much carbon in the atmosphere no?


Yes but not too much that we can't just wait it out. It's not like the planet is a hot fireball right now. If you wanted to make the planet more hospitable to humans, you would most likely attempt to stop desertification and deforestation rather than attempt CO2 capture. Increased water retention will help with droughts more than a 1°C reduction in global temperatures.

Of course, we are going to see far more than a 1°C increase which is why it is worth doing.


It's not a terrible solution, but you need specific trees of specific thicknesses for it to be possible at all (and these aren't always the same trees best suited for rapid growth). Selecting the most carbon-intensive plants and then turning them into biochar is probably better for long-term sequestration.


Sorry to get to this question late. There is some good discussion below on the possibilities of bio-based and nature-based solutions. We see bio-based solutions as having a great advantage in the short term since the feedstocks are concentrated & the collection is fairly straightforward. But we believe that these technologies may have a hard time getting to bulk scale as land & logistics become a concern.

Most likely, industrial/engineered solutions and nature-based/bio-based/ocean-based solutions will need several years to evaluate which paths are most viable. We wish everyone luck in this challenge for the world's sake!


Have you looked into technology to turn CO2 into a solid? Like here: https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/turning-co2-into-so...

Also could the process be adapted to use sources of waste heat like from nuclear power, solar or geothermal?


We are exploring a number of conversion pathways, but our right now our focus is on capture, removal, and sequestration underground.

The process could potentially use waste heat & that is something we are thinking about as we think about plant design, potential locations, and partners.


Whats the energy cost per ton of CO2 removed?


Right now, it's >5MWh/ton using lab scale equipment. At 1 million ton per year scale, we expect closer to 1-2MWh/ton.


To put that in perspective, pure graphite or carbon (basically equivalent to anthracite) releases about 2.5 MWh of heat per ton of CO2 produced.

Pure methane (if fully combusted) releases about 5.6 MWh of heat her ton of CO2 emitted.

Oil is somewhere in between.

In terms of electrical or mechanical (ie useful, low-entropy) energy produced per tonne of CO2 emitted, HHV efficiency typically 25-50%, so between 0.625 and 1.25 MWh/tonne of CO2 per tonne of coal and 1.4-2.8MWh/tonneCO2 for methane.


That's >18 GJ/tonne, with a goal of 3.6 to 7.2 GJ/tonne, making it much less efficient than post-combustion capture (which I think tends to aim for <2 GJ/tonne now).

Why not just do post-combustion capture if it's cheaper and more effective?


It should be done more but stronger tax & regulatory incentives are needed to encourage point-source polluters to adopt CO2 capture for emissions from industrial processes & energy production. It is very difficult to convince, say, a software company to pay for/subsidize the cleanup of another company's/utility's dirty process, because of the complex incentives & liabilities involved.

(Would love for an entrepreneur to come up with a way to find a market solution to this matching problem -- AirMyne might want to bid to be the technology platform on which such a CO2 capture system is built!)


Does that exclude the energy cost involved in injecting CO2 into a reservoir? Also, what would be the energy cost of converting captured CO2 to a more stable form (CaCO3, aka limestone), or a commodity such as methanol?


The energy estimate includes the costs of compression & injection using some figures in publicly available resources that look at CO2 removal end-to-end. Co-locating the capture as close as possible to removal/injection site (e.g. minimizing transit logistics) helps to keep the energy & financial costs low.

However at this stage, we are more focused on scaling our capture process so it can be integrated to injection/sequestration later on at a pilot plant scale.


Where do you envision this energy to come from and in which timescale? would that be electricity only or a mix? Thank you.


so ~40 PWh just to keep up with the carbon emitted each year. a mere 1000x more than the global electrical output.

and we're still arguing about whether fission is good in the year of our lord 2022


As you mentioned, I'd love to see the carbon that's captured from the air turned into something valuable like building materials. Or do something wild and have a worldwide monument building contest where captured carbon is used to make incredible sculptures and artworks.

Injecting it underground is just turning waste into waste, which depends entirely on regulatory controls to become sustainable; though of course, developing an efficient process for capture is a hugely important step.

I'm curious what the latest developments are on finding a use case for captured CO2?


> Or do something wild and have a worldwide monument building contest where captured carbon is used to make incredible sculptures and artworks.

I wondered about the scale here. In 2020 we emitted 34.81 billion tons of CO2 from fossil fuels[1]. Now that's much more than what I can lift, or even imagine. So let's say we want to build Pyramid of Giza sized monuments out of that. The Pyramid of Giza weigh about 5.75 million tons[2].

That means that if we want to soak all the yearly emission into monuments we need to find place for about 6000 Pyramid of Giza sized ones. That's a lot of monuments to go around. And then next year we repeat again. I'm not sure this will scale.

> Injecting it underground is just turning waste into waste, [...]

Yes? That's where the carbon was stored for hundreds of millions of years and it was fine there until one day humans figured out a way to get it out and spread it into the atmosphere. The problem is not that we have a moral objection to CO2 on principle. The problem is that it's screwing up the atmosphere.

1: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions 2: https://weightofstuff.com/how-much-does-the-pyramid-of-giza-...


Right now we're focused on getting our capture/removal process working at scale, but we are keeping a close eye on the use cases since that is a big part of the conversation. There are many great teams working on the usage problem right now & are excited to see where they take things.


The numbers seem to indicate some challenges. This is just back of the envelope and this isn't my field so I may be misinterpreting the data, but it looks like extracting 1 million tons of CO2 per year has the following costs (at lab scale values):

* > 1 Billion dollars

* > 5 Million MWhr

Assuming 200 Kg/MWhr of CO2 emissions produced by electrical generation (I believe the average carbon intensity in the USA is over 400 Kg/MWhr) the emissions produced (just for the electricity to do the extraction) is 1 Million Tons of CO2.

Thus, it looks like with the current estimates the process costs 1 Billion dollars and doesn't reduce CO2 at all. Like ethanol, I wonder if this process will be worth it in the end. I don't know what raw materials it requires and how much CO2 is generated in their extraction and production. It's possible that your belief that at industrial scale the CO2 intensity and dollar cost will go down, but are you even accounting for the CO2 cost of manufacturing the facility, transportation of raw materials, etc.


Great points. We are using lab scale equipment today, and as trained engineers we want to be conservative to any forecasts we share publicly since unrealistic claims will not help us or anyone in this space get to where we want to go. We have spent many months building models, demonstrating at a lab scale, & talking to experts to get their feedback, and now we see the most value will come from actually building our pilot plant to get a much clearer sense on the real financial/energy costs & to identify which process parameters need the most focus.

Coming from the chemical manufacturing world, we have (painful) experience modeling & planning for new processes & know that cost/energy models of new processes can only get us so far.

That being said, we see a path forward for our process at scale and are motivated to make it a reality.


If you're setting this up at enough scale to matter, you're going to need more power than is available today anyway. As long as you're building new, it would make sense to build renewable or nuclear.


Yes, but wouldn’t it be better to simply replace dirty power generation with this new renewable electricity rather than expending all of the renewable power on this hypothetical CO2 extraction facility. At some point, I suppose, the overall carbon footprint of our world’s electrical generation will come down to the point where CO2 extraction will be a net win. Right now it’s not clear to me.


Ideally, sure, but then when we replace electricity sources we still have all the things we weren't able to electrify, and we're faced with scaling up something like this from scratch. We need the fastest path to net zero including things like cement and ships and long-haul jets and agriculture, and all that adds up to more than our emissions from electricity. Fastest path probably includes getting a head start on negative emissions.


Probably stupid idea, but why don’t you put your system at the end of a factory co2 output There you ll have more than 400ppm ?


Great question. We'd love to capture point-source CO2 from factory flue gas where it is orders of magnitude more concentrated (often >10%) than in air (~400ppm). And fundamentally, there is no reason our process cannot be applied for this type of CO2 capture. For now, we are choosing to focus on air for 2 reasons:

1) Market. Early buyers of CO2 credits are primarily looking to get very clean accounting of who gets credit for the CO2 removed, and will pay a premium for anyone who can do it. If a buyer (say, a software company) pays for a polluting chemical factory or power plant to capture some of its emissions, it requires complex multi-party contracts & the incentives between the parties are often conflicting. That being said, point-source CO2 removal is absolutely needed & a huge opportunity/problem and more work is needed from a technology/policy side.

2) The "extreme user" case. If we give 100% focus to solving the more challenging problem of removing CO2 from air, we may gain learnings & knowledge that will translate to an improved point-source capture process, whether from an energy/efficiency/cost perspective.


That's what most carbon capture tech seeks to do, this would be direct carbon capture from the air. You are completely correct in assuming this is highly inefficient. As long as we are still blasting new CO2 into the atmosphere, it will always be easier to capture it at the source. Direct air capture only becomes significant when we get access to enough clean energy to power the absurdly inefficient technology. Thermodynamically, even if you are capturing at max efficiency, it still sucks (something like 250kwh+ minimum to extract 1ton of CO2, not even close to reality). We need either abundant renewables or fusion/fission energy to make it viable.


Is there a risk that sequestered CO2 gets released later by accident?

Have you looked into sequestering it into calcium carbonate? It's extremely stable and harmless to the environment. Just sink it to the bottom of the ocean with all the other sea shells.


In short, there is always that risk. We are exploring with partners how to minimize it.

Subterranean mineralization is a fascinating path too and may help with some leakage concerns.

We believe that CaCO3 can work in some small-scale contexts but it takes up a lot of volume/mass when done at industrial scale -- finding somewhere to put all the CaCO3 is a challenge, as is moving it there and avoiding negative impacts that come with it. Someone else in this thread made a good comment about this too.



Where are you getting all that CaO and why isn't it used by the construction industry instead of burning CaCO2 to get CaO? I am asking this because I might have to build a lime kiln and I would rather avoid that hassle if it is possible.


Actually it's not CaCO2 it's CaCO3, otherwise known as limestone.

And they're not burning it they're roasting it by putting in lots of energy to naturally drive off the CO2 content as a gas due to the high heat. Leaving you with CaO which is the chemical representation for lime.

The fly in the ointment is that the limestone is already the ideally captured form of carbon itself.

Limestone is still being heavily removed from the ground too and tonnes are being roasted into the lime that the concrete industry needs. Rather than just leaving it in the ground where it has been safely sequestered by nature for zillions of years.

More buildings could just be built directly from blocks of the limestone itself, maybe that would have significant environmental impact.

Yes, that nice white lime sure is an ideal active alkaline CO2 absorber because it naturally wants to turn back into limestone again by itself, like other alkalies do not. So the lime eventually does absorb CO2 back from the atmosphere as the cement hardens.

But each tonne of lime can only capture the same amount of carbon that was given off from the original limestone to begin with, and that was at great expense of energy.

If this could be clean energy the best you would do would be carbon neutral, unless the CO2 released from roasting the limestone could be captured at the source.

But what are you going to absorb it with if not more lime?

Plus you've got to first get it out of the ground and then back in to the ground afterward.

Thinking about things going in & out of the ground, elsewhere in the messages there is a good estimate of the density that pure compressed CO2 would have if pumped directly into supercritical storage underground. And that's about the same density as the original crude oil had so that's basically both a barrel-for-barrel and tonne-for-tonne equivalence. That means a barrel of (liquified, pressurized) CO2 needs to be put back underground for every barrel of oil removed. And a tonne of oil is basically 3 barrels but a tonne of CO2 is contained in 1600 tonnes of atmospheric air so you need to process 44000000 cubic feet of air to get one tonne of CO2 since gases are light when they're not under pressure and/or chilled/cryogenic storage. That's enough air to fill 150 Goodyear blimps. Just to get enough liquid CO2 to fill a pressure container about the size of 3 oil barrels, if your air-removal process is 100 percent efficient. Then you can break even.

If you want to truly cut back on atmospheric CO2 levels you're going to have to remove more than one barrel of CO2 for every barrel of oil produced and gas leaked worldwide.

Interestingly, many oil fields which are considered "expired" (because their production has declined below positive economic returns) still contain sizable percentages of the original oil beyond that which can be readily recovered under natural pressure or continued pumping. Still right there in the pore space of the oil-bearing rock.

These formations are also the ones that can be expected to have a barrel of storage space for every barrel of oil that had been removed, so it might be a good place to put equal quantities of CO2.

Oil companies have already injected CO2 into a central well of a once-productive field, and it uses up a lot of CO2 but the outer wells then start producing better for a while so additional salable oil is a (by)product of the procedure. But since the napkin math says it's a barrel-for-barrel equivalence they have to be able to get the CO2 way cheaper per barrel than they can sell the oil for. Or even an oil company can't afford it and they're getting more oil in the process. I'm not so sure how anybody else would fare.

As far as pressurized CO2 escaping from oil formations and oil field equipment, I don't think it would be any easier to eliminate all leaks forever than for methane, where progress is being made but we are far from there already.


While I applaud your needed technologies, I was curious if you had any plans to foster relationships/partnerships with any "clean" (read cleaner) energy solutions to power your energy needs for carbon capture and sequestration?


Right now, there is an ongoing discussion between a huge variety of stakeholders -- CO2 removal startups/companies, academics, regulators, 3rd-party verification standard-setting bodies, etc. -- to figure out what kind of life cycle analyses (LCAs) are required at the planning stages, and what verification frameworks will be needed post-capture/sequestration stages, to ensure that CO2 removal from air is removing more CO2 than it emits.

In many of these discussions, and in the studies/analyses which drive them, moving to cleaner sources of energy makes a lot more sense given the total CO2 removed vs. CO2 produced/embodied in the system.

It is a complicated question and it really depends on what temperatures your process requires, where in the world you decide to build your removal system, if cleaner energy is available there (& at what cost), how you need to compress/store/transport the CO2 so it can be injected or converted into something else, and so on. Cleaner energy like geothermal, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. are not always co-located near the best injection sites and there are questions of whether DAC is the best usage for cleaner energy resources vs. for general grid deployment.

To make a very long story short, cleaner energy makes CO2 removal a lot more sensible to pursue at scale, so that is where we are aiming as we think about the long-term system design.


What's your cost of capture per ton?


Today at lab scale it is quite high at >$1000 ton. At the 1 million ton per year scale, we expect our process to come in at <$100/ton.


So as long as CO2 certificates are more expensive than your solution, it makes sense to opt for your solution? Do you see any other scenario's where companies will want to use your solution? Is this the cost including storage?

Does this use amines as well or is it a different chemical reaction?


Lots of good questions - thanks.

As long as a) the total cost people are willing to pay for CO2 removal gives sufficient margins vs. the cost required to capture it, b) the end-to-end process actually removes substantially more CO2 than it emits, c) the resources allocated to pursue more CO2 removal makes sense vs. other uses (biased, but we think so), and d) the sequestration is done in a well-characterized & verifiable way, we think it makes sense.

Many companies & stakeholders are working right now to define in what contexts CO2 removal makes sense for them. We have LOIs from multiple companies who want access to our CO2 removal capacity as soon as it becomes available.

The CO2 captured from our process could be used for any number of applications if there is an economic/policy reason to pursue it. Fuels, fertilizers, and many other materials can use CO2 as a feedstock, and many startups are actively working on this problem from different angles. Startups are injecting atmospheric CO2 into concrete with great success. There is no reason we couldn't adjust our business model to divert CO2 captured with our process to these applications.

Our <$100/ton cost projection includes storage. PNNL has some great public resources, including on Youtube, that go into more detail the total cost of storage.

Can't comment on what chemistry we use, but amines are effective at capturing CO2 and have been used industrially for that purpose for decades.


<$100/ton

If you'll achieve that then this has to be done. France has a CO2 emissions of about 5ton per capita per year (which is pretty low for an industrial nation). But if we get all industrial countries into that ballpark or even lower, then we could just invest another $500 per person each year and are at net zero.


Thanks for the comment. Companies that are very action-oriented on slashing their emissions are already starting to look to CO2 removal projects as the next frontier to maximize their impact, now that the lowest-hanging emissions reductions are complete. Public sector entities (cities, states/provinces, countries) may be in the wings.

We agree that eliminating CO2 emissions must be the primary & most urgent goal, while CO2 removal solutions like ours can be developed in parallel to meet immediate early market demand & prepare (e.g. get costs down, validate & improve the tech, get the regulations set up) for future deployment.


Obviously, if you achieve that it's a huge victory. Best of luck!


Thank you - we appreciate it!


What's your energy cost of capture per ton ?*


Right now, it's >5MWh/ton using lab scale equipment. At 1 million ton per year scale, we expect closer to 1-2MWh/ton.


> After energy is applied, CO2 is desorbed from the substrate for downstream treatment and compression.

Is this the most energy intensive part of the process? What kind of energy do you apply? (heat?)


You are absolutely correct that desorption is the energy-intensive step in many CO2 capture systems that have been publicly proposed. I can't get into the specifics, but keeping the desorption energy as low as possible is a major focus of our time/efforts as we design & scale our process.


This looks promising, best of luck.

A lot of technologies to solve waste problems have been invented and launched, but very few get used at a large scale.

Some questions:

What do you see as the biggest roadblocks to adoption of your product? What makes AirMyne more attractive than the existing options? https://time.com/6125303/direct-air-carbon-capture-infrastru...


We think our solution will be faster to deploy than other solutions and operate at a lower total cost + energy usage. I know it's a vague answer, but our design is anchored in minimizing capex, minimizing process steps/complexity, and minimizing novelty in our supply chain as much as possible. We see that cost/energy/embodied CO2/speed to scale might be optimized by focusing on these areas, but we will also learn as we go.


Your process sounds similar to how CO2 is scrubbed from the submarine using AMINE, while I'm sure you can't speak to it yet, but is it a similar process?


You are right that amines are great at removing CO2 and other acid gases from input gas streams and has been used in submarines/natural gas/many other industries. Can't speak publicly to our process just yet!


>We have developed a process to bring air in contact with a base substrate that captures CO2 molecules while letting N2 and O2 molecules pass through. After energy is applied, CO2 is desorbed from the substrate for downstream treatment and compression.

This sounds very similar to how Verdox[0] is approaching the problem. What sets your approach apart?

[0] https://verdox.com/


That's basically the default approach that's been used for >100 years.

[Patent US1783901A](https://patents.google.com/patent/US1783901A/en ) (1930-ish) shows the basic closed-loop configuration that most folks build from.

Gist is to sorb acid-gas (like CO2) into a basic-solvent (e.g., aqueous monoethanolamine), then heat it up to release the acid-gas. Then the regenerated-solvent can be reused.

Making the process closed-loop may've been more of a focus around 1930. Before that, I think there were some patents showing open-loop designs (this is, designs where the solvent isn't regenerated-and-reused).


Thanks for the question, we'd rather not speak to anyone else's technology, except to say that we support anyone working to advance CO2 removal [copied from comment below, trying to keep up with all the questions/discussion!]


Do you have any policy regarding collaboration with the fossil fuel industry?

(I'm asking because most past carbon capture projects are actually enhanced oil recovery projects, and the accounting they do for co2 avoided is... sometimes really creative. From what I'm aware Climeworks is not directly collaborating with the fossil fuel industry and does not do EOR, which I think is why they have a relatively good reputation.)


Thanks for the question. It's a tough & good one we want to take it directly as we can.

At our early stage, we are focused on developing our capture technology & thinking carefully how to best partner with folks who can do sequestration.

The fossil fuel companies know how to compress & inject gases underground at huge industrial scale. They, as well as the oilfield services companies that support them, have expertise that is difficult to access otherwise: they know how to build & monitor wells, find & characterize saline aquifers & other geologic formations where CO2 can be stored, and so on. Coming from our industrial background, we know that their expertise in these areas is not something we want to categorically ignore. Applications with the EPA for Class VI (non-EOR) wells are in the pipeline process around the US, and similar injection-only wells are being built/planned in other parts of the world and we are keeping a close eye on those developments. In addition, mineralization is a possible path too.

I wish we could give a clearer answer. No doubt it's a complex question & we are thinking about it carefully in our planning.


See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_flooding

Down in Texas there are places you can drill and get CO2 just like you drill for methane, oil, helium, etc. Since the late 1970s this has been a profitable business without anyone being paid for CO2 disposal.


Congrats on the launch and good luck!

Whenever you're past the secrecy stage, I'd love to see a blog post or video to learn more about your approach.


We trained at big engineering companies so secrecy is our M.O.! For better or worse...

We can & must show more to the community as we get to pilot scale. We know that people/society needs to see more physical examples CO2 removal to realize that it's possible. And it looks cool too!


Why CO2 from air vs. extraction from seawater? I remember seeing some papers (e.g. [0]) suggesting the from seawater route was way more efficient per m^3 processed with a lot less environmental disturbance.

[0] https://doi.org/10.1021/ie502128x


Can someone explain the concept of a ton of air to me? Is the air measure as if it was compressed into a solid?


The density of air is about 1.2 kilograms per cubic meter (water is 1000 kg/m3). So, it'd take about 830 cubic meters of air to make a ton (1 m x 1 m x 830), or a cube with each side of length 9.4 meters or about 30 feet.

A ton is a ton, regardless of phase (solid, liquid, gas, feathers)


The relationship between pressure, volume, and temperature for 1 ton of air (mass) can be characterized reasonably well by the ideal gas law PV=nRT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law


Weight a container in a vacuum chamber. Then put the air inside it, seal and weight it again. It's enough air that the full container weights a ton more than empty.

If you compress it, it keeps the same weight (to any reasonable precision), but you won't get it into a solid.


What kind of opex costs are we looking at? How much would it cost, for example, to direct air capture the equivalent of the amount of CO2 produced from burning a barrel of oil? (Leaving sequestration costs aside for someone else to minimize of course)


What are the environmental and economioc costs of producing 1 tonne of substrate? It seems a glaring hole in your post.


Hi HN, we need to sign off for a bit & get back to building.

So grateful for your questions & engagement.

Be well & cheers - Mark & Sudip


why cant we use filter at the point of production and collect them as separate garbage ?


Great question. Point source capture & removal/conversion solutions from flue emissions are desperately needed, as are tech/policy solutions to help eliminate emissions to begin with!

For now, we are focusing on CO2 removal from air to align with market/"extreme user" angles, as described in some comments above.



Where is the energy coming from to sequester the CO2?

I hope it won't be from fossil fuels.


Hi, great question, I hope we addressed it here from comment above:

"Right now, there is an ongoing discussion between a huge variety of stakeholders -- CO2 removal startups/companies, academics, regulators, 3rd-party verification standard-setting bodies, etc. -- to figure out what kind of life cycle analyses (LCAs) are required at the planning stages, and what verification frameworks will be needed post-capture/sequestration stages, to ensure that CO2 removal from air is removing more CO2 than it emits. In many of these discussions, and in the studies/analyses which drive them, moving to cleaner sources of energy makes a lot more sense given the total CO2 removed vs. CO2 produced/embodied in the system.

It is a complicated question and it really depends on what temperatures your process requires, where in the world you decide to build your removal system, if cleaner energy is available there (& at what cost), how you need to compress/store/transport the CO2 so it can be injected or converted into something else, and so on. Cleaner energy like geothermal, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. are not always co-located near the best injection sites and there are questions of whether DAC is the best usage for cleaner energy resources vs. for general grid deployment.

To make a very long story short, cleaner energy makes CO2 removal a lot more sensible to pursue at scale, so that is where we are aiming as we think about the long-term system design."


Whats the difference in your method to the one used by Climeworks?


We'd rather not speak to anyone else's technology, except to say that we support anyone working on CO2 removal & have only gratitude & respect to pioneers in this ecosystem, including Climeworks, who paved the way for CO2 removal to be a part of the larger climate conversation.


why do people try to do carbon capture from the air when the concentration of CO2 is like 3 orders of magnitude higher in the ocean


Trees.

We could simply plant trees.


I think you are completely mistaken in your endeavor. Please plant trees and care for the soil, since your scheme will never do anything for biodiversity. You are just trying to cut us all off from the source of life.


I appreciate your comment & we hope to convince you otherwise as we get more process data from getting to pilot scale & beyond. Biodiversity is already being harmed today by the droughts, fires, floods, human migration patterns, etc. caused by ongoing global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, and this harm may likely only get worse in the decades to come without the development of solutions that make an attempt to reverse things.


Foreseeable economic constraints of incentive structures provide no capacity for handling a direct bypass of the natural process of life. The form of business you are creating short-circuits the ecosystem because the free market economy does not possess the intelligence that is built into the natural process.

Please understand, this is not as simple as you think.


*deforestation due to climate-influenced movement of arable land e.g. desertification also harms biodiversity as well


So, what are YOU doing for biodiversity ganzuul?


I keep the pollution that my workplace produces down and avoiding unnecessary consumerism & plastic packaging. Voting with my wallet for the green premium.


Can't we do both approaches?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: