flowchart TB
subgraph "Direct Air Capture"
A[Ambient Air] --> B{DAC Technology}
B --> C[Liquid Systems]
B --> D[Solid Sorbent]
C --> E[Hydroxide Solution]
D --> F[Chemical Filters]
E --> G[CO2 Captured]
F --> G
end
subgraph "Utilization Pathways"
G --> H{CO2 Use Cases}
H --> I[Geological Storage]
H --> J[Enhanced Oil Recovery]
H --> K[Synthetic Fuels]
H --> L[Industrial Use]
K --> M[Jet Fuel]
K --> N[Diesel]
K --> O[Gasoline]
L --> P[Steel Production]
L --> Q[Concrete]
L --> R[Carbon Fibers]
end
subgraph "Energy Requirements"
S[Energy Source] --> B
S --> T[Electrolysis for H2]
T --> K
U[Renewable Energy] -.-> S
V[Nuclear] -.-> S
W[Grid Power] -.-> S
end
style A fill:#ECF0F1
style G fill:#27AE60
style K fill:#3498DB
style I fill:#E74C3C
pulling carbon from thin air: the dac reality check
why i’m cautiously optimistic about carbon engineering
09-Jul-25
the $100 question
sitting here between jobs, i’ve been diving deep into direct air capture (dac) technology. partly because it’s fascinating. partly because everyone from bill gates to murray edwards is investing in it. but mostly because it represents something i’ve been thinking about: engineering solutions that actually scale.
carbon engineering has long claimed they can pull co2 from the air for about $100/tonne. real-world costs are proving more complex. having modeled ccs projects at $35/tonne operational costs, i know how quickly economics can shift. but here’s the kicker: they say we need tens of thousands of these plants to make a dent.
that’s not a bug. it’s a feature. let me explain.
the technology landscape
there are two main approaches:
liquid systems: pass air through chemical solutions (think giant industrial washing machines for air)
solid systems: use filters that chemically bind with co2 (like a furnace filter on steroids)
both work. both have trade-offs. classic engineering.
the squamish story
carbon engineering’s been running a pilot in squamish, bc since 2015. not a rendering. not a concept. actual hardware pulling co2 from actual air for a decade now.
their design captures about a million tonnes per year. that’s equivalent to taking 250,000 cars off the road. sounds impressive until you realize we need tens of thousands of these plants.
but here’s what caught my attention: they’re not just storing the co2. they’re making fuel.
air to fuel: the plot twist
this is where it gets interesting for someone energy-agnostic like me. they’re taking captured co2, combining it with hydrogen from water electrolysis, and making synthetic fuels.
reported production costs vary, but carbon engineering has claimed under $4/gallon is achievable. current market prices are higher, but trending down.
let that sink in. we’re talking about carbon-neutral gasoline that’s getting closer to fossil fuel prices. with carbon pricing and low-carbon fuel standards, it’s becoming competitive.
why this matters (beyond the obvious)
having worked on renewable projects, i know the achilles heel: energy density. batteries are heavy. really heavy.
consider: - a container ship needs 4,500 tonnes of bunker fuel to cross the pacific - an electric version would need 100,000 tonnes of batteries - that’s 40% of its cargo capacity gone
synthetic fuels solve this. same energy density. same infrastructure. just circular carbon instead of fossil carbon.
the nuclear angle
here’s something most analyses miss: small modular reactors (smrs) could be perfect for dac. constant baseload power. high-temperature heat for processes. even hydrogen production at reactor core temperatures (530°c).
remember my pathways ccs analysis? operational costs matter. pairing dac with nuclear could dramatically improve economics.
reality check time
let’s be honest about challenges:
scale: 70,000 gas stations in the us alone. building tens of thousands of dac plants isn’t trivial. we’re still in the hundreds, not thousands.
energy requirements: capturing co2 takes energy. making fuel takes more. if that energy isn’t clean, we’re just shuffling deck chairs.
costs: capture costs vary wildly. some claim $100/tonne, others see $600+. add fuel synthesis and infrastructure. the economics are still evolving.
competition: batteries keep improving. hydrogen’s getting cheaper. fossil fuels aren’t going quietly.
the investment landscape
flowchart LR
subgraph "Active Players"
A[Carbon Engineering] --> B[Commercial Scale]
C[Climeworks] --> D[Multiple Plants]
E[Global Thermostat] --> F[Scaling Up]
end
subgraph "Key Investors"
G[Bill Gates] --> A
H[Murray Edwards] --> A
I[Occidental Petroleum] --> A
J[Chevron] --> A
end
subgraph "Deployment"
A --> K[Texas: Major Facility]
C --> L[Iceland: CarbFix Operating]
A --> M[BC: Fuel Production]
end
subgraph "Current Economics"
N[45Q Tax Credit: $85-180/t]
O[Carbon Markets: Variable]
P[Canada Carbon Price: $80/t]
N --> K
O --> M
P --> K
end
personal take
five years ago, i would have dismissed this as too expensive. but i’ve learned something: deployment drives down costs. solar went from $76/watt to under $0.30/watt. wind turbines got 10x bigger and 90% cheaper per mwh.
dac is following a similar path, though slower than hoped. the $100/tonne target remains elusive at scale, but costs are dropping.
what excites me isn’t just the carbon removal (though that’s important). it’s the circular economy potential. we have trillions in hydrocarbon infrastructure. synthetic fuels let us use it while going carbon neutral.
the uncomfortable truth
we need everything. renewable electricity for what we can electrify. hydrogen for heavy industry. synthetic fuels for aviation and shipping. and yes, probably some fossil fuels during transition.
carbon engineering isn’t a silver bullet. but it’s a real bullet, and we need all the ammunition we can get.
looking forward
watching this space closely. the large-scale deployments are the real test. if they hit their cost targets consistently, expect rapid scaling.
for investors: this is infrastructure play meets climate tech. long-term contracts, government support, multiple revenue streams. but execution risk remains high.
for engineers: fascinating technical challenges. thermodynamics, chemistry, process optimization at scale. lots of problems left to solve.
for policy makers: carbon pricing at $170/tonne in canada makes the economics interesting. but we need more than price signals.
final thoughts
my solar panels produce clean electricity. great for my house, useless for a 787. synthetic jet fuel from atmospheric co2? now we’re talking.
sometimes the best solution isn’t the most elegant. it’s the one that actually works with the world we have, not the world we wish we had.
dac might be that solution. or part of it. either way, it’s worth watching.
currently modeling: what would a dac plant powered by smr look like economically? initial numbers are… interesting. also wondering if my chemical engineering friends from university days have ended up in this space.
reflection: we built 70,000 gas stations. we electrified a continent. building thousands of dac plants isn’t crazy. it’s just the next infrastructure challenge. question is whether we move fast enough.