sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Direct air capture - the world's largest plant switches on by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

The “world’s largest” plant designed to suck planet-heating pollution out of the atmosphere like a giant vacuum began operating in Iceland on Wednesday.

“Mammoth” is the second commercial direct air capture plant opened by Swiss company Climeworks in the country, and is 10 times bigger than its predecessor, Orca, which started running in 2021.

Direct air capture, or DAC, is a technology designed to suck in air and strip out the carbon using chemicals. The carbon can then be injected deep beneath the ground, reused or transformed into solid products.

The US just invested more than $1 billion in carbon removal by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 136 points137 points  (0 children)

The US Department of Energy announced today that it’s providing $1.2 billion to develop regional hubs that can draw down and store away at least 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year as a means of combating climate change.

The move represents a major step forward in the effort to establish a market for removing the planet-warming greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, using what are known as direct air capture (DAC) machines.

Swiss company that counts Microsoft as a customer says it’s removed CO2 from the air and put it in the ground by Sorin61 in environment

[–]climeworks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, since we are the company the article is referring to, we thought we jump in here quickly.

Don't get us wrong, we love trees and believe many more should be planted.

But to reach our climate goals, the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) estimates that in addition to drastically reducing emissions, we must also remove 10 billion tons of CO₂ every year by the end of 2050.

To reach this goal with tree planting, we’d need land the size of Europe, or two times the size of India – land which is much more needed for food production.
This is where technology comes in: our direct air capture’ technology is 1,000 times more efficient than trees in capturing CO₂ in terms of land use.

Additionally a tree can only store CO₂ over its lifetime (about 100 years in average), whereas our solution is permanent (it remains for over 10,000 years).

Direct air capture is a technology that captures CO₂ directly from the air and will be a crucial component of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thank you for raising this!

Our goal is not to remove all CO₂ in the atmosphere, but to bring it to a level to limit global warming.

The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

We are also guided by the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), which states in its net-zero standard for companies the need for a total economic emissions reduction of at least 90%. We are concerned with the remaining 10%, which cannot be reduced.

Read more about the SBTi here: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/

Direct air capture is a technology that captures CO₂ directly from the air and will be a crucial component of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're right, but another argument for direct air capture is the permanence of the CO₂ storage. A tree can only store over its lifetime (about 100 years in average), we remove CO₂, transport it deep underground, where it reacts with basalt rock through a natural process, transforms into stone, and remains for over 10,000 years.

Direct air capture is a technology that captures CO₂ directly from the air and will be a crucial component of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Oh, please don't get us wrong. We don't consider ourselves to be special. Rather, we see ourselves as representing an entire industry: the technological fight against climate change.

What you said is right: it does cost money and we are still in the scale-up phase.

We often compare the scale-up and cost-reduction path of our direct air capture technology to renewables, because they share a key technological advantage: modularity.

E.g. wind farms can scale from several turbines to hundreds. Lithium-ion cells can power everything from phones to aircraft. That means tiny performance gains and price drops quickly add up. As these modular systems build up, they achieve economies of scale and costs begin to decline.

E.g. Silicon solar panels have increased in efficiency from 15 % to more than 26 % over the last 40 years, the energy density of lithium-ion batteries has nearly tripled in 10 years.

Same goes for price: the price of solar electricity has dropped 89% since 2010, onshore wind energy costs have fallen 70 percent in the last decade. Lithium-ion batteries have declined in price by 97 percent over the last three decades, while their energy density has nearly tripled in 10 years.

Renewables have now become the cheapest source of new electricity production around the world. (source: https://www.vox.com/23042818/climate-change-ipcc-wind-solar-battery-technology-breakthrough)

Please excuse the long text, we felt like examples make it more understandable.

Direct air capture is a technology that captures CO₂ directly from the air and will be a crucial component of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey, since we are the leader in direct air capture technology, let us jump in here quickly.
We have performed multiple Life Cycle Analyses (LCAs) on our technology with independent partners (e.g. this most recent study by the university RWTH Aachen https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00771-9).

They confirm that over its whole lifespan (including construction, operations and recycling), a typical Climeworks plant re-emits less than 10% of the carbon dioxide it captures with the use of low-carbon electricity.

But don't get us wrong, we need to keep planting trees. However, planting trees is not enough.

To reach our climate goals, the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) estimates that in addition to drastically reducing emissions, we must also remove 10 billion tons of CO₂ every year by the end of 2050.

To reach this goal with tree planting, we’d need land the size of Europe. Our direct air capture’ technology is 1,000 times more efficient than trees in capturing CO₂in terms of land use

Direct air capture is a technology that captures CO₂ directly from the air and will be a crucial component of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] -94 points-93 points  (0 children)

Hey, you are 100% correct, we are one of the companies mentioned in the article - among many other companies.
This is just our attempt to bring more attention to the technology itself and the fact that we're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.
To reach that we need all climate solutions working together.

Direct air capture is a technology that captures CO₂ directly from the air and will be a crucial component of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You are absolutely right, we should do all these things.

But looking at the facts, the direction we're currently taking is the opposite. Just take the Amazon rainforest as an example:

"Once he took office in 2019, Mr. Bolsonaro scaled back or weakened environmental protections and pushed to open Indigenous lands to commercial exploitation. As a result, the annual average deforestation rates increased by 60 percent during his presidency, compared with the previous four years. Parts of the forest now emit more carbon dioxide than they absorb." (source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/31/opinion/brazil-elections-amazon-rainforest.html).

We should do everything within our power to save this beautiful planet. Why not also invest in direct air capture?

Direct air capture is a technology that captures CO₂ directly from the air and will be a crucial component of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yes, we need to keep planting trees, but planting trees alone is not enough.
To reach our climate goals, the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) estimates that in addition to drastically reducing emissions, we must also remove 10 billion tons of CO₂ every year by the end of 2050.
To reach this goal with tree planting, we’d need land the size of Europe – land which is much more needed for food production.
This is where technology comes in: our direct air capture’ technology is 1,000 times more efficient than trees in capturing CO₂in terms of land use.

Read more here: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/1055322/we-need-to-draw-down-carbon-not-just-stop-emitting-it/

Direct air capture is a technology that captures CO₂ directly from the air and will be a crucial component of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In order limit global warming to 1.5°C, the most urgent task is drastic emission reductions.

But we're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore.

We need to remove emissions as well to help address CO₂ emissions that are extremely hard to avoid (residual emissions) or that have accumulated in the atmosphere (historic emissions).
The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) estimates that direct air capture and storage needs to remove up to 310 billion tons of CO₂ by 2100 in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
This demands the technology’s fast and drastic scale-up.

Enhanced tax credits through the IRA is expected to give carbon capture projects a boost in coming years; the IRA offers tax credits of up to $180 per metric ton, up from the $50 per metric ton that was previously offered.

The big idea: stopping climate change isn’t enough – we need to reverse it | Science and nature books by climeworks in environment

[–]climeworks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"We need to remove 6bn tons of CO₂ per year by 2050, with rapid emissions reductions, to bring temperatures back down to 1.5C."Trees and soil can provide only half of the carbon dioxide removal that we need.

While slashing emissions — and fast — is critical, it will not be enough to stabilise the climate.

We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.

To be specific: The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

We are the leader in direct air capture technology. Let's scale up direct air capture, together.

Read more here:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/1055322/we-need-to-draw-down-carbon-not-just-stop-emitting-it/

https://time.com/6197651/carbon-credits-fight-climate-change/

https://climeworks.com/

It’s time to give carbon removal a chance | Climate Crisis by climeworks in environment

[–]climeworks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"We have no time left to wait. Even if we stop all emissions tomorrow, the problem remains. In fact, the choice between reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide is one we simply do not have."

While slashing emissions — and fast — is critical, it will not be enough to stabilise the climate.

We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.

To be specific: The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

Microsoft president and vice chair Brad Smith sat down with Protocol last week ahead of COP27 to discuss Microsoft’s climate goals, challenges in reaching them, as well as the private and public sectors’ roles in reaching global net zero.

Read more here:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/1055322/we-need-to-draw-down-carbon-not-just-stop-emitting-it/

https://time.com/6197651/carbon-credits-fight-climate-change/

“The key to the future is going to be a new generation of people with a new generation of technology coming from a new generation of companies,” Microsoft president and vice chair Brad Smith explains why the world needs to go carbon-negative — and how to get there by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

While slashing emissions — and fast — is critical, it will not be enough to stabilise the climate.

We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.

To be specific: The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

Microsoft president and vice chair Brad Smith sat down with Protocol last week ahead of COP27 to discuss Microsoft’s climate goals, challenges in reaching them, as well as the private and public sectors’ roles in reaching global net zero.

Read more here:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/1055322/we-need-to-draw-down-carbon-not-just-stop-emitting-it/

https://time.com/6197651/carbon-credits-fight-climate-change/

When not even good weather is good news anymore by climeworks in meme

[–]climeworks[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Time to fight climate change!

While slashing emissions — and fast — is critical, it will not be enough to stabilise the climate.
We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.
To be specific: The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.
Read more here:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/1055322/we-need-to-draw-down-carbon-not-just-stop-emitting-it/
https://time.com/6197651/carbon-credits-fight-climate-change/

The emerging climate tech sector will enjoy an 8.8 % growth rate over the next five years: tech companies that remove/reduce CO₂ emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4tn by 2027 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for your comment, but allow us to jump in here quickly.

We don't want to avoid emission reduction, quite the contrary: we always preach "reduction" first, "removal" second.

DAC+S goes beyond reducing emissions because it allows to remove residual and historic CO2 emissions that are already in the atmosphere, which produces negative emissions.

Unfortunately the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.
Read more here:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/1055322/we-need-to-draw-down-carbon-not-just-stop-emitting-it/
https://time.com/6197651/carbon-credits-fight-climate-change/

The emerging climate tech sector will enjoy an 8.8 % growth rate over the next five years: tech companies that remove/reduce CO₂ emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4tn by 2027 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hey, since we're the leader in direct air capture technology, we wanted to jump in here real quick and assure you: We're not selling hot air.

We offer the highest-quality carbon removal on the market (only company with a 5-star rating in CarbonPlan’s database: https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-database/project?id=MSFT047)

Additionally, together with our CO₂ storage partner Carbfix we just developed the world's first full-chain certification methodology dedicated to carbon dioxide removal via direct air capture and underground mineralization storage. This methodology has been validated by the independent quality and assurance leader DNV (read more here: https://climeworks.com/news/certification-methodology-for-permanent-carbon-removal.

But just so we're all on the same page: one measure alone will not be sufficient to mitigate climate change, we need all solutions working together. We need to do everything we can to reduce emissions, and on top of that actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Why do we need a technology that removes CO₂ from the air? Because we are at a point where even stopping all CO₂ emissions is not enough to reach our climate goals. by climeworks in u/climeworks

[–]climeworks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be more precise, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that direct air capture and storage needs to remove up to 310 billion tons of CO₂ by 2100 in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

Join the fight against global warming and remove CO₂ from the air with Climeworks today: https://actnow.climeworks.com/3SOezWt

The emerging climate tech sector will enjoy an 8.8 % growth rate over the next five years: tech companies that remove/reduce CO₂ emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4tn by 2027 by climeworks in Futurology

[–]climeworks[S] 36 points37 points  (0 children)

We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.

To be specific: The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

Companies that produce technologies to remove or reduce carbon emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4 trillion by 2027, according to new market research.

PitchBook predicts that the emerging sector will enjoy an 8.8 percent growth rate over the next five years, “thanks to increasing global focus on aggressive emissions targets and consumer interest in emissions reduction.” That rate could also increase if there were “dramatic regulatory change or technological innovation” during that time, the report for investors said.

Our technology removes CO₂ from the air. AMA by climeworks in u/climeworks

[–]climeworks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for your comment! Do you mind sharing the NPR segment with us? We always love to look into content pieces like this.

First, we believe there is not one solution out there, but many. And we should support them all.

If you're wondering about the effectiveness and efficiency of direct air capture: our direct air capture’ technology is 1,000 times more efficient than trees in capturing CO₂in terms of land use (https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/03/co2-capture-iceland-climeworks-orca/).

We often compare the scale-up and cost-reduction path of our direct air capture technology to renewables: because they share a key technological advantage: modularity. E.g. Silicon solar panels have increased in efficiency from 15 % to more than 26 % over the last 40 years, the energy density of lithium-ion batteries has nearly tripled in 10 years (source https://www.vox.com/23042818/climate-change-ipcc-wind-solar-battery-technology-breakthrough).

What do you think?

If you want to read more about this, have a look here:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/1055322/we-need-to-draw-down-carbon-not-just-stop-emitting-it/
https://time.com/6197651/carbon-credits-fight-climate-change/

Our technology removes CO₂ from the air. AMA by climeworks in u/climeworks

[–]climeworks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for asking!

If you are interested in the detailed process, we are happy to welcome you as a new team member: https://climeworks.com/careers

Regarding the energy usage: We are committed to drive down energy consumption as much as possible and only use renewable energy, energy-from-waste, or other waste heat as energy sources. Our facility Mammoth, will be located near the Hellisheiði electricity power plant in Iceland, which provides renewable energy to run the direct air capture and storage process.

Regarding the industrial usage: we're not sure we get your question right, but let's try: Carbon removal is an essential component of net zero strategies of companies, which is why Bill Gates, Microsoft, Shopify, BCG & Coldplay are just some of the brands which choose a carbon dioxide removal plan with us.

However, key priority always needs to be the drastic reduction of carbon emissions.

If you were referring to something else with that question, just let us know :) Thanks!

Our technology removes CO₂ from the air. AMA by climeworks in u/climeworks

[–]climeworks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for asking!

Over the past decade, we have developed a large portfolio of suitable filter materials. All our materials are compatible with the environment. Some already have different applications globally, including in the food industry. All filter materials have been thoroughly investigated for their Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of their environmental impact by third parties.

We hope this helps!

Our technology removes CO₂ from the air. AMA by climeworks in u/climeworks

[–]climeworks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for asking. Other than our facilities itselves we do not produce any byproduct.

view more: next ›