Direct air capture

File:Direct Air Capture Process Flow Diagram using Caustic Soda.pngThere are the three stages of {{CO2}} capture in DAC: the contacting stage, the capture stage, and the separation stage. In the contacting stage, the DAC system transports atmospheric air containing {{CO2}} to the equipment using large-scale fans. Subsequently, in the {{CO2}} capture stage, {{CO2}} rapidly and effectively binds with liquid solvents in chemical reactors or solid sorbents in filters, which must possess binding energies equivalent to that of {{CO2}}. Later in the {{CO2}} separation stage, external energy sources facilitate the separation of {{CO2}} from the solvents or sorbents, yielding pure {{CO2}} and regenerated solvents or sorbents. Following the completion of these three stages, the separated pure {{CO2}} is either utilized or stored, while the recovered solvents or sorbents are recycled for reuse in the {{CO2}} capture process.{{Cite journal |last1=Li |first1=Guihe |last2=Yao |first2=Jia |date=September 2024 |title=Direct Air Capture (DAC) for Achieving Net-Zero CO2 Emissions: Advances, Applications, and Challenges |journal=Eng |language=en |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=1298–1336 |doi=10.3390/eng5030069 |issn=2673-4117 |doi-access=free}}{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}}

Generally, solid sorbents DAC (S-DAC) uses low temperature process DAC, while liquid (amine or metallic hydroxides) sorbents DAC (L-DAC) uses low or high temperature process.{{Cite journal |last=Lilonfe |first=Sylvanus |last2=Rodgers |first2=Sarah |last3=Abdul-Manan |first3=Amir F. N. |last4=Dimitriou |first4=Ioanna |last5=McKechnie |first5=Jon |date=2025-06-01 |title=Technical, economic and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions analyses of solid sorbent direct air capture technologies |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S277265682500020X |journal=Carbon Capture Science & Technology |volume=15 |pages=100380 |doi=10.1016/j.ccst.2025.100380 |issn=2772-6568|url-access=subscription }}{{Cite journal |last=Aghel |first=Babak |last2=Janati |first2=Sara |last3=Wongwises |first3=Somchai |last4=Shadloo |first4=Mostafa Safdari |date=2022-09-01 |title=Review on CO2 capture by blended amine solutions |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1750583622001335 |journal=International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control |volume=119 |pages=103715 |doi=10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103715 |issn=1750-5836|url-access=subscription }}{{Cite journal |last=Sinha |first=Anshuman |last2=Darunte |first2=Lalit A. |last3=Jones |first3=Christopher W. |last4=Realff |first4=Matthew J. |last5=Kawajiri |first5=Yoshiaki |date=2017-01-25 |title=Systems Design and Economic Analysis of Direct Air Capture of CO2 through Temperature Vacuum Swing Adsorption Using MIL-101(Cr)-PEI-800 and mmen-Mg2(dobpdc) MOF Adsorbents |url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b03887 |journal=Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research |volume=56 |issue=3 |pages=750–764 |doi=10.1021/acs.iecr.6b03887 |issn=0888-5885|url-access=subscription }} S-DAC and L-DAC feature different properties in terms of kinetics and heat transfers.{{Cite journal |last1=Desport |first1=Lucas |last2=Gurgel |first2=Angelo |last3=Morris |first3=Jennifer |last4=Herzog |first4=Howard |last5=Chen |first5=Yen-Heng Henry |last6=Selosse |first6=Sandrine |last7=Paltsev |first7=Sergey |date=2024-01-01 |title=Deploying direct air capture at scale: How close to reality? |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140988323007429 |journal=Energy Economics |volume=129 |pages=107244 |doi=10.1016/j.eneco.2023.107244 |bibcode=2024EneEc.12907244D |issn=0140-9883}} Currently, L-DAC and S-DAC represent two mature technologies for industrial deployment. Additionally, several emerging DAC technologies, including electro-swing adsorption (ESA), moisture-swing adsorption (MSA), and membrane-based DAC (m-DAC), are in different stages of development, testing, or limited practical application.

More recently, Ireland-based company Carbon Collect Limited{{Cite web|date=2021-07-02|title=Carbon Collect's MechanicalTree selected for US Department of Energy award|url=https://news.asu.edu/20210702-carbon-collect-mechanicaltree-selected-us-department-energy-award|access-date=2021-12-09|website=ASU News|language=en}} has developed the MechanicalTree™ which simply stands in the wind to capture {{CO2}}. The company claims this 'passive capture' of {{CO2}} significantly reduces the energy cost of Direct Air Capture, and that its geometry lends itself to scaling for gigaton {{CO2}} capture.

Most commercial techniques use a liquid solvent—usually amine-based or caustic—to absorb {{co2}} from a gas.{{Cite book|title=Introduction to carbon capture and sequestration|last1=Smit|first1=Berend|last2=Reimer|first2=Jeffrey A.|last3=Oldenburg|first3=Curtis M.|last4=Bourg|first4=Ian C|publisher=Imperial College Press|year=2014|isbn=9781783263295|location=London|oclc=872565493|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=StS3CgAAQBAJ}} For example, a common caustic solvent: sodium hydroxide reacts with {{CO2}} and precipitates a stable sodium carbonate. This carbonate is heated to produce a highly pure gaseous {{CO2}} stream.{{Cite web|url=https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf|title=Direct Air Capture of {{CO2}} with Chemicals: A Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs|date=1 June 2011|website=APS physics|access-date=2019-08-26|archive-date=2019-09-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190903151926/https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2019/07/direct-air-capture-recent-developments-and-future-plans/|title=Direct Air Capture: Recent developments and future plans|last=Chalmin|first=Anja|date=2019-07-16|website=Geoengineering Monitor|language=en-US|access-date=2019-08-27|archive-date=2019-08-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190826115711/http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2019/07/direct-air-capture-recent-developments-and-future-plans/|url-status=live}} Sodium hydroxide can be recycled from sodium carbonate in a process of causticizing.{{Cite journal | doi=10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00173 | title=Direct Capture of {{CO2}} from Ambient Air | year=2016 | last1=Sanz-Pérez | first1=Eloy S. | last2=Murdock | first2=Christopher R. | last3=Didas | first3=Stephanie A. | last4=Jones | first4=Christopher W. | journal=Chemical Reviews | volume=116 | issue=19 | pages=11840–11876 | pmid=27560307 | s2cid=19566110 | doi-access=free }} Alternatively, the {{CO2}} binds to solid sorbent in the process of chemisorption. Through heat and vacuum, the {{CO2}} is then desorbed from the solid.{{cite journal |last1=Service |first1=Robert |title=Cost plunges for capturing carbon dioxide from the air |journal=Science |date=7 June 2018 |doi=10.1126/science.aau4107 |s2cid=242097184 }}

Among the specific chemical processes that are being explored, three stand out: causticization with alkali and alkali-earth hydroxides, carbonation,{{cite journal |last1=Nikulshina |first1=V. |last2=Ayesa |first2=N. |last3=Gálvez |first3=M.E. |last4=Steinfeld |first4=A. |title=Feasibility of Na-based thermochemical cycles for the capture of {{CO2}} from air—Thermodynamic and thermogravimetric analyses |journal=Chemical Engineering Journal |date=July 2008 |volume=140 |issue=1–3 |pages=62–70 |doi=10.1016/j.cej.2007.09.007 |url=https://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/psi/islandora/object/psi%3A55397 }} and organic−inorganic hybrid sorbents consisting of amines supported in porous adsorbents.

The idea of using many small dispersed DAC scrubbers—analogous to live plants—to create environmentally significant reduction in {{CO2}} levels, has earned the technology a name of artificial trees in popular media.{{Cite web|last=Biello|first=David|date=2013-05-16|title=400 PPM: Can Artificial Trees Help Pull {{CO2}} from the Air?|url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/prospects-for-direct-air-capture-of-carbon-dioxide/|access-date=2019-09-04|website=Scientific American|language=en|archive-date=2019-09-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190904170823/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/prospects-for-direct-air-capture-of-carbon-dioxide/|url-status=live}}{{Cite news|last=Burns|first=Judith|date=2009-08-27|title='Artificial trees' to cut carbon|language=en-GB|work=BBC News {{!}} Science & Environment|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8223528.stm|access-date=2019-09-06|archive-date=2017-08-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170814024457/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8223528.stm|url-status=live}}Freitas RA Jr. Diamond Trees (Tropostats): A Molecular Manufacturing Based System for Compositional Atmospheric Homeostasis. IMM Report No. 43, 10 Feb 2010; http://www.imm.org/Reports/rep043.pdf.{{Expand section|date=September 2019}}

In a cyclical process designed in 2012 by professor Klaus Lackner, the director of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions (CNCE), dilute {{CO2}} can be efficiently separated using an anionic exchange polymer resin called Marathon MSA, which absorbs air {{CO2}} when dry, and releases it when exposed to moisture. A large part of the energy for the process is supplied by the latent heat of phase change of water.{{cite journal |last1=Lackner |first1=Klaus S. |title=The thermodynamics of direct air capture of carbon dioxide |journal=Energy |date=1 February 2013 |volume=50 |pages=38–46 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.012 |bibcode=2013Ene....50...38L }} The technology requires further research to determine its cost-effectiveness.{{cite web|url=http://energy.columbia.edu/?id=research_carbon_capture|title=Carbon Capture|website=Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121220210058/http://energy.columbia.edu/?id=research_carbon_capture|archive-date=2012-12-20|access-date=2019-09-06}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/prospects-for-direct-air-capture-of-carbon-dioxide/|title=400 PPM: Can Artificial Trees Help Pull {{CO2}} from the Air?|last=Biello|first=David|date=2013-05-16|website=Scientific American|language=en|access-date=2019-09-04|archive-date=2019-09-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190904170823/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/prospects-for-direct-air-capture-of-carbon-dioxide/|url-status=live}}

{{Main|Carbon dioxide scrubber#Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs)}}

Other substances which can be used are metal–organic frameworks (MOFs).{{Cite web|url=https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/03/17/a-better-way-of-scrubbing-co2/|title=A Better Way of Scrubbing {{CO2}}|last=Yarris|first=Lynn|date=2015-03-17|website=News Center|language=en-US|access-date=2019-09-07|archive-date=2017-12-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171225211331/http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/03/17/a-better-way-of-scrubbing-co2/|url-status=live}}

Membrane-based separation (m-DAC){{Cite web |title=Direct Air Capture - Energy System |url=https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture |access-date=2024-11-08 |website=IEA |language=en-GB}} employs semi-permeable membranes. This method requires little water and has a smaller footprint. Typically polymeric membranes, either glassy or rubbery, are used for direct air capture. Glassy membranes typically exhibit high selectivity with respect to Carbon Dioxide; however, they also have low permeabilities. Membrane capture of carbon dioxide is still in development and needs further research before it can be implemented on a larger scale.{{cite journal |last1=Castro-Muñoz |first1=Roberto |last2=Zamidi Ahmad |first2=Mohd |last3=Malankowska |first3=Magdalena |last4=Coronas |first4=Joaquín |title=A new relevant membrane application: {{CO2}} direct air capture (DAC) |journal=Chemical Engineering Journal |date=October 2022 |volume=446 |pages=137047 |doi=10.1016/j.cej.2022.137047 |s2cid=248930982 |hdl=10261/280157 |hdl-access=free }}

Electro-swing adsorption (ESA) has also been proposed.

Rock flour, soil ground into nanoparticles by glacier ice, has potential both as a soil conditioner and for carbon capture. Glacier melting deposits one billion tons of rock flour annually, and one ton of Greenlandic rock flour can capture {{convert|250|kg}} of carbon.{{Cite news |last=Dyer |first=Evan |date=2025-01-16 |title=Why acquiring Greenland is more than just a whim of Trump |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-greenland-security-resources-1.7431319 |access-date=2025-01-16 |via=CBC}}

DAC is a carbon negative technology, with its greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) estimated to range from 0.01 t{{CO2}} emitted per t{{CO2}} captured when renewable electricity is used to 0.65 t{{CO2}} emitted per t{{CO2}} captured when grid electricity and natural gas (NG) heating are used.{{Cite journal |last=McQueen |first=Noah |last2=Psarras |first2=Peter |last3=Pilorgé |first3=Hélène |last4=Liguori |first4=Simona |last5=He |first5=Jiajun |last6=Yuan |first6=Mengyao |last7=Woodall |first7=Caleb M. |last8=Kian |first8=Kourosh |last9=Pierpoint |first9=Lara |last10=Jurewicz |first10=Jacob |last11=Lucas |first11=J. Matthew |last12=Jacobson |first12=Rory |last13=Deich |first13=Noah |last14=Wilcox |first14=Jennifer |date=2020-06-16 |title=Cost Analysis of Direct Air Capture and Sequestration Coupled to Low-Carbon Thermal Energy in the United States |url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c00476 |journal=Environmental Science & Technology |volume=54 |issue=12 |pages=7542–7551 |doi=10.1021/acs.est.0c00476 |issn=0013-936X|url-access=subscription }}{{Cite journal |last=Deutz |first=Sarah |last2=Bardow |first2=André |date=February 2021 |title=Life-cycle assessment of an industrial direct air capture process based on temperature–vacuum swing adsorption |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00771-9 |journal=Nature Energy |language=en |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=203–213 |doi=10.1038/s41560-020-00771-9 |issn=2058-7546|url-access=subscription }}{{Cite journal |last=Chauvy |first=Remi |last2=Dubois |first2=Lionel |date=2022 |title=Life cycle and techno-economic assessments of direct air capture processes: An integrated review |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.7884 |journal=International Journal of Energy Research |language=en |volume=46 |issue=8 |pages=10320–10344 |doi=10.1002/er.7884 |issn=1099-114X|url-access=subscription }} The energy source emission factor of DAC is the primary driver of DAC's GHG emissions. The combination of renewable wind and grid electricity would also be carbon negative, providing high carbon removal benefits. The emissions factors for renewable wind and grid electricity are typically less than 0.1 t{{CO2}} emitted per t{{CO2}} captured if the wind plant supplies at least 50–80% of the plant capacity factor (capacity usage) when grid electricity emission factors do not exceed 0.3077 kg{{CO2}}/kWh. Higher grid electricity emission factors could still be used, but this would require their use to be less than 20% to achieve very high carbon removal.

Proponents of DAC argue that it is an essential component of climate change mitigation.{{cite book |author1=European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation |author2=European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors |date=2018 |title=Novel carbon capture and utilisation technologies |publisher=Publications Office |doi=10.2777/01532 |isbn=978-92-79-82006-9 }}{{page needed|date=March 2024}}{{Cite web|url=https://e360.yale.edu/features/pulling_co2_from_atmosphere_climate_change_lackner|title=Why {{CO2}} 'Air Capture' Could Be Key to Slowing Global Warming|last=Schiffman|first=Richard|date=2016-05-23|website=Yale E360|language=en-US|access-date=2019-09-06|archive-date=2019-09-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190903153142/https://e360.yale.edu/features/pulling_co2_from_atmosphere_climate_change_lackner|url-status=live}} Researchers posit that DAC could help contribute to the goals of the Paris Agreement (namely limiting the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels). The IEA estimates that at least at least 85 million tonnes and 980 million tonnes of CO₂ annually by 2030 and 2050, respectively, are needed to achieve net zero.{{cite web |date=April 2022 |title=Direct Air Capture / A key technology for net zero |url=https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/78633715-15c0-44e1-81df-41123c556d57/DirectAirCapture_Akeytechnologyfornetzero.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220410210408/https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/78633715-15c0-44e1-81df-41123c556d57/DirectAirCapture_Akeytechnologyfornetzero.pdf |archive-date=10 April 2022 |website=International Energy Agency (IEA) |page=18}} However, others claim that relying on this technology is risky and might postpone emission reduction under the notion that it will be possible to fix the problem later,{{cite journal |last1=Ranjan |first1=Manya |last2=Herzog |first2=Howard J. |title=Feasibility of air capture |journal=Energy Procedia |date=2011 |volume=4 |pages=2869–2876 |doi=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.193 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2011EnPro...4.2869R }} and suggest that reducing emissions may be a better solution.{{cite news |last1=Vidal |first1=John |title=How Bill Gates aims to clean up the planet |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-emissions-negative-emissions-technologies-capture-storage-bill-gates |work=The Observer |date=4 February 2018 }} It is important to see DAC as a complementary solution that is necessary in helping to achieve climate targets.

Opponents of DAC argue that the resources required to operate DAC technologies, are an immense burden that may outweigh the goal of the technology itself.{{Cite journal |last1=Realmonte |first1=Giulia |last2=Drouet |first2=Laurent |last3=Gambhir |first3=Ajay |last4=Glynn |first4=James |last5=Hawkes |first5=Adam |last6=Köberle |first6=Alexandre C. |last7=Tavoni |first7=Massimo |date=2019-07-22 |title=An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways |journal=Nature Communications |language=en |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=3277 |doi=10.1038/s41467-019-10842-5 |issn=2041-1723 |pmc=6646360 |pmid=31332176|bibcode=2019NatCo..10.3277R }} A 2020 analysis revealed that DAC 2 technology may be an unsuitable option to capture the projected 30 Gt-{{CO2}} per year as it requires an enormous amount of materials (16.3–27.8 Gt of NH3 and 3.3–5.6 Gt of EO) The same study found that DAC 1 technology requires at least 8.4–13.1 TW-yr (46–71% TGES), an estimate that was calculated with the exclusion of the associated energy costs for carbon storage. However, the IEA net zero approaches require CO2 capture from DAC in the magnitude of 0.1 Gt-{{CO2}} (980 million tonnes of CO₂) annually in 2050, which is significantly lower than 30 Gt-{{CO2}} per year that opponents of DAC were assessing.

Energy cost concerns were explored in 2021 and found that in order for DAC technology to maintain a carbon removal of 73-86% per ton of {{CO2}} captured, DAC would demand land occupation and renewable energy equivalent to what is needed for a global switch from gasoline to electric vehicles, with approximately five times higher material consumption.{{Cite journal |last1=Madhu |first1=Kavya |last2=Pauliuk |first2=Stefan |last3=Dhathri |first3=Sumukha |last4=Creutzig |first4=Felix |date=2021-10-28 |title=Understanding environmental trade-offs and resource demand of direct air capture technologies through comparative life-cycle assessment |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00922-6 |journal=Nature Energy |language=en |volume=6 |issue=11 |pages=1035–1044 |doi=10.1038/s41560-021-00922-6 |bibcode=2021NatEn...6.1035M |issn=2058-7546|url-access=subscription }} However, the material demand of DAC is mostly from common materials, such as steel, concrete and earth minerals (like zeolites and metallic hydroxides). The use of electric vehicle may require substantial accessibility to critical materials, and this limited availability of critical materials may not be able to sustain the demand needed for net zero.{{Cite journal |last=Zhang |first=Chunbo |last2=Yan |first2=Jinyue |last3=You |first3=Fengqi |date=February 2023 |title=Critical metal requirement for clean energy transition: A quantitative review on the case of transportation electrification |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666792422000348 |journal=Advances in Applied Energy |language=en |volume=9 |pages=100116 |doi=10.1016/j.adapen.2022.100116|hdl=10397/102284 |hdl-access=free }}

Some DAC technologies, especially liquid systems, require both high temperature heat and electricity. In these systems the electrical demand is made using natural gas, imported electricity from the grid, and oxyfuel combustion of natural gas.{{Cite journal |last1=An |first1=Keju |last2=Farooqui |first2=Azharuddin |last3=McCoy |first3=Sean T. |date=2022-11-01 |title=The impact of climate on solvent-based direct air capture systems |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306261922011588 |journal=Applied Energy |volume=325 |pages=119895 |doi=10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119895 |bibcode=2022ApEn..32519895A |issn=0306-2619}} This means that many DAC technologies are powered by fossil fuels, the very thing the technology is meant to eliminate reliance on.{{Cite report |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.62626/u78n-4ix8 |title=Direct Air Capture – Key to Permanent CO2 Reduction |date=2024 |publisher=Österreichischer Verein für Kraftfahrzeugtechnik|doi=10.62626/u78n-4ix8 |url-access=subscription }} However, from GHG emissions standpoint, DAC would generally be carbon-negative even if natural gas was used for heating, with emission factors of 0.3–0.65 t{{CO2}} emitted per t{{CO2}} captured. Thus, the aim of DAC of offsetting emissions could still be achieved.

DAC relying on amine-based absorption demands significant water input. It was estimated, that to capture 3.3 gigatonnes of {{CO2}} a year would require 300 km³ of water, or 4% of the water used for irrigation. On the other hand, using sodium hydroxide needs far less water, but the substance itself is highly caustic and dangerous. Additionally, it is important to note that different carbon removal technologies could have their design and operational advantages, for example, while nature-based solutions are cheap, DAC plant that captures 1 MtCO₂ per year using a land area of 0.4–1.5 km² (99–371 acres) is equivalent to the CO₂ capture rates of roughly 46 million trees, requiring approximately 3,098–4,647 km² (765,494–1,148,241 acres) of land.{{Cite journal |last=Fasihi |first=Mahdi |last2=Efimova |first2=Olga |last3=Breyer |first3=Christian |date=2019-07-01 |title=Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652619307772 |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |volume=224 |pages=957–980 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.086 |issn=0959-6526|doi-access=free }}{{Cite web |last=user |date=2019-11-26 |title=This Is The Impact Of 1 Million Trees |url=https://blog.tentree.com/this-is-the-impact-of-1-million-trees/ |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=THE ENVIRONMENTOR |language=en-US}}

DAC also requires higher energy input in comparison to traditional capture from point sources, like flue gas, due to the low concentration of {{CO2}}. Some authors give the theoretical minimum energy required to extract {{CO2}} from ambient air as 250 kWh per tonne of {{CO2}}, while capture from natural gas and coal power plants requires, respectively, about 100 and 65 kWh per tonne of {{CO2}}. The additional penalty from the use of fans to pump air could add a 10% to 30% energy penalty if DAC energy demand is 10 to 4 MJ/t{{CO2}}, respectively.

Practical applications of DAC include

• enhanced oil recovery,
• production of carbon-neutral synthetic fuel and plastics,
• beverage carbonation,{{Cite web|url=https://singularityhub.com/2019/08/23/the-promise-of-direct-air-capture-making-stuff-out-of-thin-air/|title=The Promise of Direct Air Capture: Making Stuff Out of Thin Air|last=Diamandis|first=Peter H.|date=2019-08-23|website=Singularity Hub|language=en-US|access-date=2019-08-29|archive-date=2019-08-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190829100722/https://singularityhub.com/2019/08/23/the-promise-of-direct-air-capture-making-stuff-out-of-thin-air/|url-status=live}}
• carbon sequestration,
• improving concrete strength,
• creating carbon-neutral concrete alternative,
• enhancing productivity of algae farms,
• enrichment of air in greenhouses
• liquid fuels
• enhanced coal bed methane

These applications require different concentrations of {{CO2}} product formed from the captured gas. Forms of carbon sequestration such as geological storage require pure {{CO2}} products (concentration > 99%), while other applications such as agriculture can function with more dilute products (~ 5%). Since the air that is processed through DAC originally contains 0.04% {{CO2}} (or 400 ppm), creating a pure product requires more energy than a dilute product and is thus typically more expensive. Capture carbon that is used for food typically requires CO2 with higher purity, ranging from 50+% followed by additional chemical processing. {{Cite journal |last1=Wilcox |first1=Jennifer |last2=Psarras |first2=Peter C |last3=Liguori |first3=Simona |date=2017-05-01 |title=Assessment of reasonable opportunities for direct air capture |url=https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6de5 |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=12 |issue=6 |pages=065001 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/aa6de5 |bibcode=2017ERL....12f5001W |issn=1748-9326|doi-access=free }}

DAC is not an alternative to traditional, point-source carbon capture and storage (CCS), rather it is a complementary technology that could be utilized to manage carbon emissions from distributed sources, fugitive emissions from the CCS network, and leakage from geological formations. Because DAC can be deployed far from the source of pollution, synthetic fuel produced with this method can use already existing fuel transport infrastructure.

Typical discourse surrounding DAC is relegated to its effectiveness at mitigating climate change/global warming issues.{{Cite journal |last1=Cox |first1=Emily |last2=Spence |first2=Elspeth |last3=Pidgeon |first3=Nick |date=August 2020 |title=Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0823-z |journal=Nature Climate Change |language=en |volume=10 |issue=8 |pages=744–749 |doi=10.1038/s41558-020-0823-z |bibcode=2020NatCC..10..744C |issn=1758-6798}} However, the majority of existing DAC facilities are small scale, And operate primarily to sell the captured CO2 for use in other products rather than permanently sequestering it.{{Cite journal |last1=Hosseini |first1=Seyed Mohsen |last2=Aslani |first2=Alireza |last3=Kasaeian |first3=Alibakhsh |date=December 2023 |title=Life cycle cost and environmental assessment of CO2 utilization in the beverage industry: A natural gas-fired power plant equipped with post-combustion CO2 capture |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352484722025872 |journal=Energy Reports |language=en |volume=9 |pages=414–436 |doi=10.1016/j.egyr.2022.11.200|doi-access=free }} DAC facilities that sell CO2 for beverage production operate with low recovery rates of around 4.7% and produces 58-tCO2 per day.{{Cite journal |last1=Hosseini |first1=Seyed Mohsen |last2=Aslani |first2=Alireza |last3=Kasaeian |first3=Alibakhsh |date=2023-12-01 |title=Life cycle cost and environmental assessment of CO2 utilization in the beverage industry: A natural gas-fired power plant equipped with post-combustion CO2 capture |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352484722025872 |journal=Energy Reports |volume=9 |pages=414–436 |doi=10.1016/j.egyr.2022.11.200 |issn=2352-4847|doi-access=free }} The use of DAC facilities for commercial purposes, reemphasizes the opinion of naysayers, that DAC is a ploy used by corporations to protect and promote financial interest.

Given the myriad of DAC applications, proponents of DAC argue that the political utility of the technology lies in its ability to create new employment opportunities.{{Cite journal |last1=Scott-Buechler |first1=Celina |last2=Cain |first2=Bruce |last3=Osman |first3=Khalid |last4=Ardoin |first4=Nicole M. |last5=Fraser |first5=Catherine |last6=Adcox |first6=Grace |last7=Polk |first7=Emily |last8=Jackson |first8=Robert B. |date=2024-04-03 |title=Communities conditionally support deployment of direct air capture for carbon dioxide removal in the United States |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01334-6 |journal=Communications Earth & Environment |language=en |volume=5 |issue=1 |page=175 |doi=10.1038/s43247-024-01334-6 |bibcode=2024ComEE...5..175S |issn=2662-4435}}

DAC Projects and their respective processes for Carbon removal and/or storage{{Cite journal |last=Erans |first=María |last2=Sanz-Pérez |first2=Eloy S. |last3=Hanak |first3=Dawid P. |last4=Clulow |first4=Zeynep |last5=Reiner |first5=David M. |last6=Mutch |first6=Greg A. |date=2022 |title=Direct air capture: process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges |url=https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=D1EE03523A |journal=Energy & Environmental Science |language=en |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=1360–1405 |doi=10.1039/D1EE03523A |issn=1754-5692|hdl=10115/19074 |hdl-access=free }}{{Cite web |date=2019-09-05 |title=Climeworks and Antecy join forces |url=https://climeworks.com/press-release/climeworks-ag-and-antecy-bv-are-joining-forces |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Climeworks |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Velev |first=Vasil |date=2024-08-24 |title=Carbon Collect Achieves Major DAC Milestone, On Track To Achieve Cost Of $200/t By 2030 |url=https://carbonherald.com/carbon-collect-achieves-major-dac-milestone-on-track-to-achieve-cost-of-200-t-by-2030/ |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Carbon Herald |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |title=Direct Air Capture Technology |url=https://carbonengineering.com/our-technology/ |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Carbon Engineering |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=iokenneth |date=2022-06-01 |title=Technology {{!}} Carbyon |url=https://carbyon.com/technology/ |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=carbyon.com |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |title=Orca is Climeworks' new large-scale carbon dioxide removal plant |url=https://climeworks.com/plant-orca |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Climeworks |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Direct Air Capture Prototype |url=https://www.daccity.com/#technology |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=www.daccity.com}}{{Cite web |title=How SMART-DAC works |url=https://www.co2circulair.com/how-smart-dac-works.html |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=CO2CIRCULAIR |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Our Technology |url=https://www.globalgae.com/our-technology |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Global Algae |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Process |url=https://hifglobal.com/process |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Default |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Direct Air Capture (DAC) appliances |url=https://hydrocell.fi/en/air-cleaners-carbon-dioxide-filters-and-dac-appliances/dac-appliances/ |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Hydrocell Oy |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |title=Mission Zero Technologies {{!}} Technology |url=https://www.missionzero.tech/technology |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=www.missionzero.tech |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=About – mosaicmaterials |url=https://mosaicmaterials.com/about/ |access-date=2024-12-17 |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2022-06-23 |title=What we do {{!}} Nordic Electrofuel |url=https://nordicelectrofuel.no/what-we-do/ |access-date=2024-12-17 |language=nb-NO}}{{Cite web |title=How our DAC solution works {{!}} Noya |url=https://www.noya.co/how-it-works |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=www.noya.co}}{{Cite web |title=Origen Carbon Technology, Direct Air Capture (DAC) |url=https://www.origencarbon.com/technology/ |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Origen Carbon |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Rolls-Royce secures funding to build Direct Air Capture demonstrator |url=https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2022/08-07-2022-rr-secures-funding-to-build-direct-air-capture-demonstrator.aspx#:~:text=Rolls-Royce%20has%20secured%20%C2%A3,removing%20CO2%20from%20the%20atmosphere. |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=www.rolls-royce.com |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Advanced Carbon Capture Technology {{!}} Skytree |url=https://www.skytree.eu/technology |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=www.skytree.eu |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Carbon-neutral fuels from air and electric power {{!}} |url=https://sunfire.de/en/news/carbon-neutral-fuels-from-air-and-electric-power/ |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=sunfire.de}}{{Cite web |title=Our Technology |url=https://www.sustaera.com/technology |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Sustaera |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |title=Technology |url=https://verdox.com/technology |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Verdox |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2021-02-08 |title=Climeworks works on sustainable Aviation Fuel from Air |url=https://climeworks.com/news/zenid-sustainable-aviation-fuel-from-air |access-date=2024-12-17 |website=Climeworks |language=en}}

• 53 DAC plants are expected to be operational by the end of 2024{{Cite web |date=2024-09-03 |title=DAC (Direct Air Capture) in 2024: Where do we stand? |url=https://klima.com/blog/dac-direct-air-capture-2024/ |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=Klima |language=en}}
• 93 DAC plants to be operating in 2030 with a combined capacity of 6.4-11.4 MtCO2/yr{{Cite web |last=Coalition |first=D. A. C. |date=2024-03-13 |title=Direct Air Capture Coalition and AlliedOffsets Unveil Global DAC Deployment Map |url=https://daccoalition.org/direct-air-capture-coalition-and-alliedoffsets-unveil-global-dac-deployment-map/ |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=Direct Air Capture Coalition |language=en-US}}
• By the end of 2024, 18 plants are scheduled to be operational in North America and 24 in Europe
• The leading countries in DAC include the US, Canada and European nations{{Cite web |last=Owen-Burge |first=Charlotte |date=2022-04-25 |title=Companies are sucking carbon from the atmosphere using 'direct air capture'. How does it work? |url=https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/companies-are-sucking-carbon-from-the-atmosphere-using-direct-air-capture-how-does-it-work/#:~:text=Of%20these,%2018%20are%20in,in%20development%20in%20the%20US. |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=Climate Champions |language=en}}

DAC technologies have been proposed to help China in its pursuit for carbon neutrality by 2060.{{Cite journal |last=Kim |first=Hanwoong |last2=Qiu |first2=Yang |last3=McJeon |first3=Haewon |last4=Clarens |first4=Andres |last5=Javadi |first5=Parisa |last6=Wang |first6=Can |last7=Wang |first7=Rui |last8=Wang |first8=Jiachen |last9=Jiang |first9=Hanying |last10=Miller |first10=Andy |last11=Cui |first11=Ryna |last12=Behrendt |first12=Jenna |last13=Ou |first13=Yang |last14=Yu |first14=Sha |last15=Fuhrman |first15=Jay |date=2024-11-01 |title=Provincial-scale assessment of direct air capture to meet China’s climate neutrality goal under limited bioenergy supply |url=https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad77e7 |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=19 |issue=11 |pages=114021 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ad77e7 |issn=1748-9326|doi-access=free }} Following the 2021 Glasgow Climate Conference, as the leading GHG emitter, China has begun the development of various low-emission strategies.{{Cite web |last=Prater |first=Hongqiao Liu, Simon Evans, Zizhu Zhang, Wanyuan Song, Xiaoying You, Joe Goodman, Tom |date=2023-11-30 |title=The Carbon Brief Profile: China |url=https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/index.html |access-date=2024-12-12 |website=Carbon Brief |language=en}} With China's commitment to DAC alone, global warming could decrease by approximately 0.2 °C–0.3 °C. Recent studies on deep decarbonization in China suggest that carbon neutrality can be attained with contribution from carbon capture and storage to dispose of multiple GtCO2 yr-1 point-source emissions.{{Cite journal |last=Kim |first=Hanwoong |last2=Qiu |first2=Yang |last3=McJeon |first3=Haewon |last4=Clarens |first4=Andres |last5=Javadi |first5=Parisa |last6=Wang |first6=Can |last7=Wang |first7=Rui |last8=Wang |first8=Jiachen |last9=Jiang |first9=Hanying |last10=Miller |first10=Andy |last11=Cui |first11=Ryna |last12=Behrendt |first12=Jenna |last13=Ou |first13=Yang |last14=Yu |first14=Sha |last15=Fuhrman |first15=Jay |date=2024-11-01 |title=Provincial-scale assessment of direct air capture to meet China’s climate neutrality goal under limited bioenergy supply |url=https://validate.perfdrive.com/9730847aceed30627ebd520e46ee70b2/?ssa=a5890237-47f0-46fc-aaba-0763bb8b2b2d&ssb=84242282455&ssc=https%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2Farticle%2F10.1088%2F1748-9326%2Fad77e7&ssi=cd22143a-cnvj-45a0-917e-11a3885e19bb&ssk=botmanager_support@radware.com&ssm=08342747451499548109578283308673&ssn=b6e2c18a4da66f444f48282a64c614c23176d5929363-1fca-46d8-97bca2&sso=9816ab1b-4df631e7ceb371fe2be43e6c9591a8ec2ca64b280a90c3bf&ssp=08942730691734005686173405334641036&ssq=43139714757585372305747575623910154880640&ssr=MjA4LjgwLjE1NC43NQ==&sst=Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Citoid/WMF (mailto:noc@wikimedia.org)&ssu=&ssv=&ssw=&ssx=eyJ1em14IjoiN2Y5MDAwZTc1NjNmYzQtYjdmZi00OWJlLThkMmUtZmUyNzkxMWFmYTYwMS0xNzM0MDQ3NTc1NTA5MC02YjI5NTYxMDAxNTU2OWY1MTAiLCJyZCI6ImlvcC5vcmciLCJfX3V6bWYiOiI3ZjYwMDAzMjVmMTg5Zi0xODNkLTQxMjQtYjQxYy1kNzdlYTA2ZTliZDExNzM0MDQ3NTc1NTA5MC1kOTFjYmMxYzg5NDk0Y2M4MTAifQ== |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=19 |issue=11 |pages=114021 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ad77e7 |issn=1748-9326|doi-access=free }} China has developed its own direct air capture (DAC) technology, called "CarbonBox," developed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and China Energy Engineering Corporation.{{Cite web |date=2024-07-29 |title=Direct Air Capture: How China wants to close the technology gap |url=https://table.media/en/climate/news/direct-air-capture-how-china-wants-to-close-the-technology-gap/ |access-date=2024-12-12 |website=Table.Media |language=en}} Each module can extract over 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, resulting in a 99% pure CO2 product. CarbonBox DAC facilities are the size of a shipping container, can be installed on site and utilize low-carbon energy sources to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.{{Cite web |last=Velev |first=Vasil |date=2024-08-06 |title=CarbonBox - China's Own Direct Air Capture Tech Passess Reliability Test |url=https://carbonherald.com/carbonbox-chinas-own-direct-air-capture-tech-passess-reliability-test/ |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=Carbon Herald |language=en-US}}

The Orca, pioneered by Zurich-based Climeworks with support from Microsoft in 2021, was the first large-scale DAC plant, claimed to be able to remove 4000 tons of CO2 annually{{Cite journal |last=Bailey |first=Kathleen |last2=Johnston |first2=Joe |date=2023 |editor-last=Faircloth |editor-first=Billie |editor2-last=Pedersen Zari |editor2-first=Maibritt |editor3-last=Thomsen |editor3-first=Mette Ramsgaard |editor4-last=Tamke |editor4-first=Martin |title=Passive Direct Air Capture: Breathing Cities |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-36320-7_38 |journal=Design for Climate Adaptation |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=603–614 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-36320-7_38 |isbn=978-3-031-36320-7|url-access=subscription }} this amount corresponds to approximately 1.75 million liters of gasoline.{{Cite journal |date=2024-06-27 |title=THE NEUTRALIZATION OF CO2 AS A NEW EMERGING MARKET: THE ORCA CASE. |url=https://doi.org/10.32755/sjcriminal.2024.01 |journal=Scientific journal Criminal and Executive System: Yesterday. Today. Tomorrow |volume=2024 |issue=1 |doi=10.32755/sjcriminal.2024.01 |issn=2617-0159|doi-access=free }} Howvever the actual performance has averaged 600 tonnes per year since it started operating, and fails to even extract sufficient CO2 to compensate for its own emissions.https://heimildin.is/grein/24581/ The DAC facility is located in Iceland, Hellisheidi, and is powered by the Hellisheidi Geothermal Power Plant.{{Cite web |title=Orca is Climeworks' new large-scale carbon dioxide removal plant |url=https://climeworks.com/plant-orca |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=Climeworks |language=en}} Orca consists of 12 amine-holding containers that collect a total of around 600 kg of CO2 per hour.{{Cite web |title=Sucking carbon dioxide from air in Iceland |url=https://cen.acs.org/environment/greenhouse-gases/Sucking-carbon-dioxide-air-Iceland/102/i17 |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=Chemical & Engineering News |language=en}} This facility operates in conjunction with CarbFix, an Icelandic technology firm. CarbFix takes the captured CO2 from the DAC facility and injects the CO2 into the Earth's crust (through mineralization) The mineralization process circumvents risks of fire and leaks, that are associated with alternative DAC technologies.

Octavia Carbon, founded by Martin Freimüller in 2022, is the first Direct Air Capture Company in the Global South.{{Cite web |title=Martin Freimüller |url=https://www.africatechsummit.com/nairobi/cth_speaker/wissal-ben-moussa/#:~:text=Martin%20is%20the%20founder%20and,Direct%20Air%20Carbon%20Capture%20company. |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=africatechsummit.com/nairobi/ |language=en-GB}} The company plans to develop DAC technology in alignment with the country's renewable grid and rich geology, both of which are suitable for CO2 storage.{{Cite web |last=George |first=Violet |date=2024-04-04 |title=Octavia Carbon Is Harnessing Kenya's Potential For Direct Air Capture |url=https://carbonherald.com/octavia-carbon-is-harnessing-kenyas-potential-for-direct-air-capture/ |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=Carbon Herald |language=en-US}} This project is still in its development phase, however, following support from the Kenyan government and international DAC companies, the team has swelled to employ 53+ individuals.{{Cite web |title=Octavia Carbon Company Profile 2024: Valuation, Funding & Investors {{!}} PitchBook |url=https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/515031-13#:~:text=Octavia%20Carbon%20has%2053%20total%20employees. |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=pitchbook.com |language=en}} In collaboration with Carbonfuture, Octavia Carbon now seeks to implement a breakthrough digital Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (dMRV) system for DAC.{{Cite web |title=Carbonfuture and Octavia Carbon Join Forces to Deploy the First Digital Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification System for Direct Air Capture Carbon Removal |url=https://www.carbonfuture.earth/magazine/carbonfuture-and-octavia-carbon-join-forces-to-deploy-the-first-digital-monitoring-reporting-and-verification-system-for-direct-air-capture-carbon-removal |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=www.carbonfuture.earth |language=en}} dMRV systems allow real-time data tracking across the entire carbon removal process. The current DAC pilot facility, Project Hummingbird, is located in Kenya's Rift Valley in Naivasha and is projected to capture and securely store 1000 tons of CO2 annually (1000tCO/yr).{{Cite web |title=Project: Project Hummingbird {{!}} Klimate |url=https://www.klimate.co/project/project-hummingbird |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=www.klimate.co |language=en}} Project Hummingbird will utilize the mineralization process by injecting the stored CO2 into the basalt rock formations native to the Rift Valley

File:The_cost_of_CO2_capture_using_direct_air_capture.jpg

One of the largest hurdles to implementing DAC is the cost of separating {{CO2}} from air.{{cite book |doi=10.17226/25259 |title=Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration |date=2019 |pmid=31120708 |isbn=978-0-309-48452-7 |s2cid=134196575 }}{{page needed|date=March 2024}}{{cite journal |last1=Fasihi |first1=Mahdi |last2=Efimova |first2=Olga |last3=Breyer |first3=Christian |title=Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |date=July 2019 |volume=224 |pages=957–980 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.086 |s2cid=159399402 |doi-access=free }} Although DAC implementation was initially and optimistically estimated to cost around $100–300 per tonne, as of 2023 it is estimated that the total system cost is over $1,000 per tonne of {{CO2}}. The Department of Energy estimated costs per tonne to be under $100, while other sources have estimated the cost to be much larger. {{As of|2023}}, it is estimated that the total system cost is over $1,000 per tonne of {{CO2}}. A recent investigation indicated that this high cost is due to the plant capacity in operation, typically less than 50,000 tonnes per annum. The cost of CO₂ capture is reported to be over $1000/tCO₂ captured for small-scale plants to estimates ranging from $94–232 per t{{co2}} captured for large-scale plants. The current largest DAC plant, Climeworks Mammoth, has a capacity of just 36,000 tonnes {{CO2}} per annum with a capture cost of $1,000 (£774) per t{{CO2}}. Increasing the capacity of DAC plants can leads to the benefits of economies of scale, with cost ranging from $94–232 per t{{co2}} captured for a 1 Mtpa plant. Large-scale DAC deployment can be accelerated by policy incentives.{{Cite web |last=Webb |first=David |date=August 9, 2023 |title=Achieving net zero: Why costs of direct air capture need to drop for large-scale adoption |url=https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/08/how-to-get-direct-air-capture-under-150-per-ton-to-meet-net-zero-goals/ |access-date=October 25, 2024 |website=weforum.org}}

Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the U.S. Department of Energy will invest $3.5 billion in four direct air capture hubs. According to the agency, the hubs have the potential to capture at least 1 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually from the atmosphere. Once captured, the CO₂ will be permanently stored in a geologic formation.{{cite web |url=https://www.energy.gov/oced/DACHubs#:~:text=Funded%20by%20the%20Bipartisan%20Infrastructure,America's%20global%20competitiveness%20in%20clean |website=Energy.gov |title=Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs }}

The Department of Energy invested $1.2 billion to further developments of direct air capture facilities in Texas and Louisiana. These projects are the result of initial selections from President Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law {{Cite web |title=Biden-Harris Administration Announces Up To $1.2 Billion For Nation's First Direct Air Capture Demonstrations in Texas and Louisiana |url=https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-12-billion-nations-first-direct-air-capture |access-date=2024-10-18 |website=Energy.gov |date=11 August 2023 |language=en}}

{{Main|Carbon Engineering}}

Carbon Engineering is a commercial DAC company founded in 2009 and backed, among others, by Bill Gates and Murray Edwards. {{As of|2018||df=}}, it runs a pilot plant in British Columbia, Canada, that has been in use since 2015 and is able to extract about a tonne of {{co2}} a day. An economic study of its pilot plant conducted from 2015 to 2018 estimated the cost at $94–232 per tonne of atmospheric {{co2}} removed. A publication in 2025 agreed with the cost estimates by Carbon Engineering, under the conditions that the DAC plant capacity would be at least 1 Mtpa to achieve capture costs of $97–168/gross tCO₂ captured [$126–170/net tCO₂ captured] in 2025 and $87–140/gross tCO₂ captured [$93–142/net tCO₂ captured] in 2050. Furthermore, this study also agreed with Climeworks estimates of more than $1000/tCO₂ captured if the DAC plant capacity is less than 0.05 Mtpa (50,000 tonnes annually). The current largest DAC plant, Climeworks Mammoth is just 36,000 tonnes per annum.

Partnering with California energy company Greyrock, Carbon Engineering converts a portion of its concentrated {{CO2}} into synthetic fuel, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.

The company uses a potassium hydroxide solution. It reacts with {{CO2}} to form potassium carbonate, which removes a certain amount of {{CO2}} from the air.

{{Main|Climeworks}}

Climeworks's first industrial-scale DAC plant, which started operation in May 2017 in Hinwil, in the canton of Zurich, Switzerland, can capture 900 tonnes of {{CO2}} per year. To lower its energy requirements, the plant uses heat from a local waste incineration plant. The {{CO2}} is used to increase vegetable yields in a nearby greenhouse.{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-carbon-idUSKBN1CG2D4|title=From thin air to stone: greenhouse gas test starts in Iceland|last=Doyle|first=Alister|date=2017-10-11|work=Reuters|access-date=2019-09-04|language=en|archive-date=2019-09-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190901215905/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-carbon-idUSKBN1CG2D4|url-status=live}}

The company stated that it costs around $600 to capture one tonne of {{CO2}} from the air.{{cite journal|title=Sucking carbon dioxide from air is cheaper than scientists thought|last1=Tollefson|first1=Jeff|date=7 June 2018|journal=Nature|volume=558|issue=7709|page=173|doi=10.1038/d41586-018-05357-w|pmid=29895915|bibcode=2018Natur.558..173T|s2cid=48355402|doi-access=free}}{{Request quotation|date=November 2023|reason=source behind paywall}}

Climeworks partnered with Reykjavik Energy in Carbfix, a project launched in 2007. In 2017, the CarbFix2 project was started{{Cite web|url=https://www.climeworks.com/public-update-on-carbfix/|title=Public Update on CarbFix|date=2017-11-03|website=Climeworks|language=en-GB|access-date=2019-09-02|archive-date=2019-08-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190826112716/https://www.climeworks.com/public-update-on-carbfix/|url-status=live}} and received funding from European{{Nbsp}}Union's Horizon{{Nbsp}}2020 research program. The CarbFix2 pilot plant project runs alongside a geothermal power plant in Hellisheidi, Iceland. In this approach, {{CO2}} is injected 700 meters under the ground and mineralizes into basaltic bedrock forming carbonate minerals. The DAC plant uses low-grade waste heat from the plant, effectively eliminating more {{CO2}} than they both produce.{{Cite news|url=http://www.powermag.com/test-of-carbon-capture-technology-underway-at-iceland-geothermal-plant/|title=Test of Carbon Capture Technology Underway at Iceland Geothermal Plant|last=Proctor|first=Darrell|date=2017-12-01|work=POWER Magazine|access-date=2019-09-04|language=en-US|archive-date=2019-08-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190826225130/https://www.powermag.com/test-of-carbon-capture-technology-underway-at-iceland-geothermal-plant/|url-status=live}}

On May 8, 2024, Climeworks activated the world's largest DAC planet named Mammoth in Iceland. It will be able to pull 36,000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere a year at full capacity, according to Climeworks, equivalent to taking around 7,800 gas-powered cars off the road for a year.{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/climate/direct-air-capture-plant-iceland-climate-intl/index.html|title=The 'world's largest' vacuum to suck climate pollution out of the air just opened. Here's how it works|last=Proctor|first=Darrell|date=2024-05-08|work=CNN|access-date=2024-05-16|language=en-US}} This plant is reported to capture {{CO2}} at a cost of $1,000 (£774) per t{{CO2}}.{{Cite web |date=2024-08-05 |title=Is carbon capture an efficient way to tackle CO2? |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clmydee2grno |access-date=2025-04-17 |website=BBC News |language=en-GB}} This high cost is primarily due to the size of the plant as product cost generally decreases with economy of scale. It is reported that for a 1 Mtpa {{CO2}} plant, DAC cost would generally be within $94–232 per tonne of atmospheric {{co2}} removed.

Global Thermostat is private company founded in 2010, located in Manhattan, New York, with a plant in Huntsville, Alabama. Global Thermostat uses amine-based sorbents bound to carbon sponges to remove {{CO2}} from the atmosphere. The company has projects ranging from 40 to 50,000 tonnes per year.{{Cite web|url=https://globalthermostat.com/|title=Global Thermostat|website=Global Thermostat|language=en-US|access-date=2018-12-07|archive-date=2018-11-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181109150348/https://globalthermostat.com/|url-status=live}}{{Verify source|date=August 2019}}{{Third-party inline|date=August 2019}}

The company claims to remove {{CO2}} for $120 per tonne at its facility in Huntsville.{{Dubious|date=November 2023|reason=cannot find anywhere on its website to buy at that price}}

Global Thermostat has closed deals with Coca-Cola (which aims to use DAC to source {{CO2}} for its carbonated beverages) and ExxonMobil which intends to start a DAC{{Non breaking hyphen}}to{{Non breaking hyphen}}fuel business using Global Thermostat's technology.

Soletair Power is a startup founded in 2016, located in Lappeenranta, Finland, operating in the fields of Direct Air Capture and Power-to-X. The startup is primarily backed by the Finnish technology group Wärtsilä. According to Soletair Power, its technology is the first to combine Direct Air Capture with buildings' HVAC systems. The technology captures {{CO2}} from the air running through a building's existing ventilation units inside buildings for removing atmospheric {{CO2}} while reducing the building's net emissions. The captured {{CO2}} is mineralized to concrete, stored or utilized to create synthetic products like food, textile or renewable fuel. In 2020, Wärtsilä, together with Soletair Power and Q Power, created their first demonstration unit of Power-to-X{{Cite web|title=Expo 2020 Dubai: The key to clean air inside Finland Pavilion? Carbon dioxide|url=https://gulfnews.com/expo-2020/pavilions/expo-2020-dubai-the-key-to-clean-air-inside-finland-pavilion-carbon-dioxide-1.1624371469375|access-date=2021-07-28|website=gulfnews.com|date=28 June 2021 |language=en|archive-date=2021-07-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210728044157/https://gulfnews.com/expo-2020/pavilions/expo-2020-dubai-the-key-to-clean-air-inside-finland-pavilion-carbon-dioxide-1.1624371469375|url-status=live}} for Dubai Expo 2020, that can produce synthetic methane from captured {{CO2}} from buildings.

{{Main|Prometheus Fuels}}

Prometheus Fuels is a start-up company based in Santa Cruz which launched out of Y Combinator in 2019 to remove CO₂ from the air and turn it into zero-net-carbon gasoline and jet fuel.{{Cite web|url=https://www.science.org/content/article/former-playwright-aims-turn-solar-and-wind-power-gasoline|title=This former playwright aims to turn solar and wind power into gasoline|last=Service|first=Robert F.|date=2019-07-03|website=Science {{!}} AAAS|language=en|access-date=2020-01-23|archive-date=2019-10-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191006130909/https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/former-playwright-aims-turn-solar-and-wind-power-gasoline|url-status=live}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/in-silicon-valley-the-quest-to-make-gasoline-out-of-thin-air|title=In Silicon Valley, the Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air|last=Brustein|first=Joshua|date=2019-04-30|newspaper=Bloomberg.com|access-date=2020-01-23|archive-date=2020-01-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129010245/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/in-silicon-valley-the-quest-to-make-gasoline-out-of-thin-air|url-status=live}} The company uses a DAC technology, adsorbing CO₂ from the air directly into process electrolytes, where it is converted into alcohols by electrocatalysis. The alcohols are then separated from the electrolytes using carbon nanotube membranes, and upgraded to gasoline and jet fuels. Since the process uses only electricity from renewable sources, the fuels are carbon neutral when used, emitting no net CO₂ to the atmosphere.

Heirloom's first direct air capture facility opened in Tracy, California, in November 2023. The facility can remove up to 1,000 U.S. tons of {{CO2}} annually, which is then mixed into concrete using technologies from CarbonCure. Heirloom also has a contract with Microsoft in which the latter will purchase 315,000 metric tons of {{CO2}} removal.{{cite news |last1=Plumer |first1=Brad |title=In a U.S. First, a Commercial Plant Starts Pulling Carbon From the Air |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/climate/direct-air-capture-carbon.html |work=The New York Times |date=9 November 2023 }}

• Center for Negative Carbon Emissions of Arizona State University{{cite news| last=Clifford| first=Catherine| title=Carbon capture technology has been around for decades — here's why it hasn't taken off| publisher=CNBC| date=February 1, 2021| url=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/31/carbon-capture-technology.html| access-date=November 21, 2021| archive-date=November 21, 2021| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211121025920/https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/31/carbon-capture-technology.html| url-status=live}}
• Carbfix – a subsidiary of Reykjavik Energy, Iceland{{cite news| last1=Sigurdardottir| first1=Ragnhildur| last2=Rathi| first2=Akshat| title=This startup has unlocked a novel way to capture carbon—by turning the fouling gas into rocks| work=Fortune| date=March 6, 2021| url=https://fortune.com/2021/03/06/carbon-capture-storage-rocks-net-zero-carbfix-startup-iceland/| access-date=November 21, 2021| archive-date=November 21, 2021| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211121025918/https://fortune.com/2021/03/06/carbon-capture-storage-rocks-net-zero-carbfix-startup-iceland/| url-status=live}}
• Energy Impact Center – a research institute that advocates for the use nuclear energy to power direct air capture technologies{{cite news| last=Takahashi| first=Dean| title=Last Energy raises $3 million to fight climate change with nuclear energy| work=VentureBeat| date=February 25, 2020| url=https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/25/last-energy-raises-3-million-to-fight-climate-change-with-nuclear-energy/| access-date=November 21, 2021| archive-date=January 12, 2021| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210112122823/https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/25/last-energy-raises-3-million-to-fight-climate-change-with-nuclear-energy/| url-status=live}}
• [https://www.missionzero.tech/ Mission Zero Technologies] — a startup in London, UK{{cite news| last=Patel| first=Prachi| title=Carbon-Removal Tech Grabs Elon Musk's Check Millions poured into XPrize effort to pull CO2 out of the sky| work=IEEE Spectrum| date=May 28, 2022| url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/carbon-removal-x-prize-finalists| access-date=June 16, 2023| archive-date=May 28, 2022| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220528160248/https://spectrum.ieee.org/carbon-removal-x-prize-finalists| url-status=live}}
• [https://www.carbyon.com Carbyon] – a startup in Eindhoven, the Netherlands

Within the research domain, the ETH Zurich team's development of a photoacid solution for direct air capture marks a significant innovation. This technology, still under refinement, stands out for its minimal energy requirements and its novel chemical process that enables efficient CO2 capture and release. This method's potential for scalability and its environmental benefits align it with ongoing efforts by other companies listed in this section, contributing to the global pursuit of effective and sustainable carbon capture solutions.{{Cite web |last=Kazmer |first=Rick |date=2024-04-10 |title=Scientists make breakthrough in pollution removal with liquid that bubbles like cola: 'Our process … requires much less energy' |url=https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/carbon-capture-technology-pollution-light/ |access-date=2024-04-14 |website=The Cool Down |language=en-US}}

In the United States there is conflict between politicians and politically unaffiliated environmental advocates on Direct Air Capture as it relates to economic benefit and efficiency in improving climate change associated risks.

One of the main grievances climate campaigners have is in regards to how DAC is perceived to be at best, a costly irrelevance to the more pressing need to cut emissions and, is a ploy that is utilized to maintain the fossil fuel industry's status quo, and perpetuate pollution {{Cite news |last=Milman |first=Oliver |date=2023-09-12 |title=The world's biggest carbon capture facility is being built in Texas. Will it work? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/12/carbon-capture-texas-worlds-biggest-will-it-work |access-date=2024-10-25 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}} The Stratos Project, was purchased by Occidental Petroleum for $1.1 billion. This investment is regarded by some as an attempt to extend the longevity of the fossil fuel industry. The Stratos project is ultimately owned by Occidental Petroleum, an American oil company that bought Carbon Engineering on November 3, 2023 for $1.1bn and views carbon removal as a sort of future-proofing for its industry.{{Citation |last1=Nolan |first1=Peter A. |title=On the state's choice of oil company: risk management and the frontier of the petroleum industry |date=2011-12-08 |work=Oil and Governance |pages=121–170 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511784057.006 |access-date=2024-10-25 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |last2=Thurber |first2=Mark C.|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511784057.006 |isbn=978-1-107-00442-9 |url-access=subscription }} Jonathan Foley, executive director of Project Drawdown (a research-based plan to reverse global warming and stop climate change){{Cite web |last=Simons |first=Daniel |date=2022-09-01 |title=Project Drawdown: The World's Leading Climate Solutions Database Is Growing |url=https://earth.org/project-drawdown/ |access-date=2024-10-25 |website=Earth.Org |language=en}} regards DAC technology as a greenwashing exercise, that mitigates climate change issues but does not seek to solve them. The Consumer's Association of Penang perceive DAC to be something that exacerbates the climate crisis, and is fundamentally against the principle of climate justice.{{Cite web |title=Reject Carbon Capture and Storage – Consumers Association Penang |url=https://consumer.org.my/reject-carbon-capture-and-storage/ |access-date=2024-11-15 |website=consumer.org.my}}

A study conducted in 2024, analyzed the conditional support of DAC technologies in the United States. The study revealed that most of the participants who were familiar with DAC technology and had concerns about climate change had questions regarding the moral hazards of DAC technology. Participants expressed disdain for the possibility that DAC might allow companies to continue pollutive practices while greenwashing their public image was raised across all focus groups. Other participants worried that DAC technology would be used as a front by fossil fuel corporations, to create the illusion that something was being done to combat climate change without contributing real benefit to the environment.

Environmentalist opposition to DAC often concerns the ecological impacts of the associated energy infrastructure.{{Cite journal |last1=Batres |first1=Maya |last2=Wang |first2=Frances M. |last3=Buck |first3=Holly |last4=Kapila |first4=Rudra |last5=Kosar |first5=Ugbaad |last6=Licker |first6=Rachel |last7=Nagabhushan |first7=Deepika |last8=Rekhelman |first8=Ester |last9=Suarez |first9=Vanessa |date=2021-08-01 |title=Environmental and climate justice and technological carbon removal |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1040619021000932 |journal=The Electricity Journal |series=Special Issue: Carbon Capture and Storage Today: Applications, Needs, Perceptions and Barriers |volume=34 |issue=7 |pages=107002 |doi=10.1016/j.tej.2021.107002 |bibcode=2021ElecJ..3407002B |issn=1040-6190|doi-access=free }} Complications associated with the impact DAC may have on air quality in specific communities are called into question as well. Some critics of DAC are in opposition to the technology because of the locations they tend to be placed in, as some feel that these projects are always developed in poor areas, objectors expressed that they feel "experimented on."{{Cite news |last=Blaeser |first=Jessie |date=May 18, 2023 |title=Americans like direct air capture, with caveats |url=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/the-long-game/2023/05/18/americans-like-direct-air-capture-with-caveats-00097566 |access-date=November 15, 2024 |work=Politico |pages=1–2}}

Another study focusing on perceptions of DAC technology from climate concerned persons from the United States and the United Kingdom found similar results. A theme across all groups was the perception of DAC as a technology that is incongrous with the vision for a sustainable society. Participants reported DAC to be "reactionary" to climate change as opposed to a viable solution to it. A consistent theme across all workshops was the idea that CDR does not necessarily reflect people's ‘vision’ for a sustainable future society: “The survey also showed that "very few people believed that CDR deals with the root cause of emissions." The study revealed that the overall perception was that DAC is merely an intervention that fails to address the root cause of climate change and instead sustains the contributors to the crisis itself.'

Political opposition to DAC technology has also been related to doubts in the feasibility of DAC development and deployment at scale. Technologies analogous with DAC such as CCS and BECCS have been subject to immense public opposition.{{Cite journal |last1=Erans |first1=María |last2=Sanz-Pérez |first2=Eloy S. |last3=Hanak |first3=Dawid P. |last4=Clulow |first4=Zeynep |last5=Reiner |first5=David M. |last6=Mutch |first6=Greg A. |date=2022 |title=Direct air capture: process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges |url=https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=D1EE03523A |journal=Energy & Environmental Science |language=en |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=1360–1405 |doi=10.1039/D1EE03523A |issn=1754-5692 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10115/19074}} These technologies have also been characterized by multiple failures and aborted projects, contributing to the already persistent doubt regarding the credibility of DAC projects.{{Cite journal |last1=Erans |first1=María |last2=Sanz-Pérez |first2=Eloy S. |last3=Hanak |first3=Dawid P. |last4=Clulow |first4=Zeynep |last5=Reiner |first5=David M. |last6=Mutch |first6=Greg A. |date=2022 |title=Direct air capture: process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges |url=https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/ee/d1ee03523a |journal=Energy & Environmental Science |language=en |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=1360–1405 |doi=10.1039/D1EE03523A |issn=1754-5692|hdl=10115/19074 |hdl-access=free }}

Some environmentalists believe that the 3.5 billion investment in DAC is a "dangerous gamble" that puts the lives of frontline communities at risk.{{Cite web |title=Biden's Direct Air Capture Push is Dangerous for Us All - Climate Justice Alliance |url=https://climatejusticealliance.org/direct-air-capture/ |access-date=2024-11-22 |website=climatejusticealliance.org|date=24 May 2022 }} The Institute of Policy studies regards this decision to be risky because "the promise of DAC may never materialize" and should the deployment of this technology fail, the result will be only harm on frontline communities in "new and unacceptable ways". Surveys revealed that among those against DAC Trust in local government was generally low, in addition to mistrust in fossil fuel companies who sponsor DAC development. Environmentalists lack of faith in the bipartisan infrastructure law grew after a 2020 Treasury Department Inspector General investigation revealed that 90% of the tax credits used for carbon capture operations were done so without verifying that any carbon was being captured.{{Cite web |last=Crowder |first=Caleb |date=2024-06-05 |title=Is Carbon Capture Just Climate Delusion? |url=https://ips-dc.org/is-carbon-capture-just-climate-delusion/ |access-date=2024-11-22 |website=Institute for Policy Studies |language=en-US}} Additionally, the IRS decision to not release information about which companies are benefiting from these new investments in DAC increases uncertainty among people who are concerned how their taxes are paying for DAC development.

A poll taken in 2023 assessing the opinions on Direct Air Capture based on political party affiliation found that, 42% of Democrats were strongly in favor of DAC, 34% of independent voters were in favor while only 28% of Republicans indicated their fervent support of DAC technology. However, despite the negative response from the climate conscious community, politically, DAC technology has received Bipartisan support in government.{{Cite web |title=Biden-Harris Administration Announces Up To $1.2 Billion For Nation's First Direct Air Capture Demonstrations in Texas and Louisiana |url=https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-12-billion-nations-first-direct-air-capture |access-date=2024-10-25 |website=Energy.gov |date=11 August 2023 |language=en}}

The reason for Bipartisan support for DAC seems to be due to two merits, the environmental benefit of DAC and the potential economic advantages.{{Cite journal |last1=Malm |first1=Andreas |last2=Carton |first2=Wim |date=2021-03-16 |title=Seize the Means of Carbon Removal: The Political Economy of Direct Air Capture |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/hima/29/1/article-p3_1.xml |journal=Historical Materialism |volume=29 |issue=1 |pages=3–48 |doi=10.1163/1569206X-29012021 |issn=1465-4466|doi-access=free }} Republicans argue that DAC can provide economic advantages to the countries and local areas hosting these facilities through job creation, increase tax revenue and economic diversification.{{Cite web |title=Direct Air Capture Measures in U.S. Climate Policy {{!}} World Resources Institute |url=https://www.wri.org/us-climate-policy-implementation/sectors/direct-air-capture#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20its%20climate,economic%20diversification%20of%20disadvantaged%20communities |access-date=2024-11-16 |website=www.wri.org |language=en}} The economic utiltiy DAC also provides is protection for fossil fuel industries as many including ExxonMobil have donated generously to DAC research and development. Bipartisan support stems from the perception of DAC as a solution that satisfies economic and environmental concerns. However, despite bipartisan support for DAC in congress, a survey conducted in 2024 revealed that "Republicans and Independents were significantly less likely than Democrats to support the development of DAC in and near their communities and in the U.S."

Much of the discourse surrounding DAC comes from environmental activists, and though there are discrepancies in how Republicans and Democrats view DAC, these differences are generally relegated to the perception of the benefits DAC offers.{{Cite news |last=Begert |first=Blanca |date=June 24, 2024 |title=Trump can't cool Republicans' ardor for this climate tech |url=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-climate/2024/06/24/trump-cant-cool-republicans-ardor-for-this-climate-tech-00164782 |access-date=November 15, 2024 |work=Politico |pages=2–3}} Some view DAC as a feasible solution to combat global warming (primarily Democrats), whereas Republicans support for DAC lies in the way the technology will not interfere with the economic interests of fossil fuel companies.{{Cite journal |last1=Bolsen |first1=Toby |last2=Palm |first2=Risa |last3=Kingsland |first3=Justin T. |date=2022-02-17 |title=Effects of Conspiracy Rhetoric on Views About the Consequences of Climate Change and Support for Direct Carbon Capture |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2021.1991967 |journal=Environmental Communication |language=en |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=209–224 |doi=10.1080/17524032.2021.1991967 |bibcode=2022Ecomm..16..209B |issn=1752-4032|url-access=subscription }}

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has come under scrutiny for a variety of reasons but primarily because the technology is energy intensive, requires large land changes/usage and has the potential to leak carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.{{Cite web |last=Shaw |first=Sara |date=2021-01-01 |title=A Leap in the Dark:The Dangers of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) |url=https://www.foei.org/publication/bioenergy-carbon-capture-storage-beccs-report/ |access-date=2024-11-22 |website=foei.org}} Environmentalists argued that BECCS was an infeasible option because of the emissions that the project would produce. BECCS is proposed as a solution based on the assumption that bioenergy would be carbon neutral. This assumption was found to be incorrect because many believe that the deforestation, logging and land required to accommodate this technology would offset the amount of carbon the technology removes. Individuals concerned with protecting animal life also argue that increasing demand for land for BECCS would be an additional threat to biodiversity. Opponents also argue that the risk of a Carbon Dioxide leak outweighs the potential benefits if the technology functions properly. Carbon dioxide that is stored underground has a high risk of leakage, and the consequences of a major leak could be catastrophic.{{Cite web |title=Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage - Energy System |url=https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/bioenergy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage |access-date=2024-11-22 |website=IEA |language=en-GB}} "Atmospheric CO2 levels could spike significantly, especially if a leak were to occur from a major storage site." Anxiety surrounding the possibility of a CO2 leakage is common worry among those who doubt DAC.

• Artificial photosynthesis
• Carbon dioxide removal
• CityTrees
• Smog tower

{{reflist}}{{Climate change}}

Category:Carbon dioxide removal

Category:Carbon dioxide

Category:Geoengineering

Category:Sustainability

Category:Direct air capture