Produce Bio Oils

Direct air capture (DAC) is an industrial process that captures CO₂ from the air and then injects it deep underground for permanent, geologic storage. This process is energy-intensive. Therefore, DAC can only be effective for net carbon removal if it does not generate high levels of emissions during the process. This requires that DAC be powered by zero- or low-carbon energy sources and that the captured carbon is permanently stored rather than used for emission-generating applications. Unlike the situation for many other carbon removal methods, the amounts of CO₂ captured and stored using DAC can be reliably measured, which is an advantage in the carbon marketplace. However, the effectiveness of DAC has been extremely low so far. DAC is also expensive, up to US$1,000/t CO₂ removed and stored. Substantial funding to support DAC development has come from fossil-fuel interests or their government proxies, which view carbon capture as a strategy to extend society’s use of fossil fuels. Therefore, there is a risk that DAC could be used to delay or avoid emissions reductions and perpetuate or even expand fossil-fuel production and use. Based on this risk, as well as the functional and financial challenges for scaling this technology to remove globally meaningful amounts of CO₂, we conclude that DAC is “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.
Based on the difficulty of capturing low concentrations of CO₂ from the air and the associated technological, energy consumption, and financial challenges facing DAC, it is unlikely that this climate technology can be scaled up to remove globally meaningful amounts of CO₂. Furthermore, based on the current financial and policy support for DAC from fossil-fuel interests, there is a clear risk that the technology will be used to enable and perpetuate the production and use of fossil fuels, which is antithetical to solving the climate crisis. Therefore, we conclude that deployment of DAC is “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.
Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
---|---|---|
Ready | Is it ready? | No |
Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
Effective | Does it consistently work? | No |
Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | No |
Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | Yes |
Cost | Is it cheap? | No |
DAC is a suite of engineered technologies that remove CO₂ directly from the atmosphere, concentrate it, and then inject it underground for permanent storage. CO₂ is captured from the atmosphere by moving large volumes of air, usually with large fans, past a reactive material that selectively binds CO₂, either a solid sorbent (referred to as solid-DAC or S-DAC) or a liquid solvent (referred to as liquid-DAC or L-DAC). The captured CO₂ is recovered from the reactive material by applying heat, pressure, or chemical reactions, and collected and compressed for transportation and storage. The concentrated CO₂ is then injected deep underground into geological formations, such as saline aquifers or basalt formations, where it can be permanently stored.
The technology and chemistry for the selective capture of CO₂ from air are effective, although the CO₂ capture efficiency varies with the reactive material and other factors. A variety of solid and liquid reactive materials have been developed, along with material-specific processes for recovering captured CO₂ and regenerating the sorbents. This process is very energy-intensive and, for liquid-DAC, water-intensive. To capture and recover 1 t CO₂, solid-DAC uses about 1,100 kWh, while liquid-DAC uses about 2,500 kWh and consumes as much as 7 t of water. Most of the energy for DAC (70–90%) is used to generate heat for recovery of the captured CO₂ and regeneration of the sorbent material. Liquid-DAC requires temperatures up to about 900 °C (1,652 °F), while solid-DAC requires temperatures of only about 100 °C (212 °F). Because the process is so energy intensive, DAC achieves net carbon removal – capturing and sequestering more CO₂ than it emits – only if it is powered by zero or low-carbon energy sources and/or uses waste heat. For example, recent reporting showed that the amount of CO₂ captured and stored by Climeworks, the largest commercial DAC company currently in operation, was insufficient to offset the facility’s operational GHG emissions. CO₂ captured by a DAC facility can also be used for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery or production of algae biofuels. However, life cycle analyses conducted by the National Energy Technology Laboratory show that these pathways do not result in net carbon removal due to the emissions from production and/or use of these other products. Therefore, in addition to its requirements for zero or low-carbon energy, DAC can only be an effective method for net carbon removal if the CO₂ it captures is permanently stored deep underground. With appropriate pre-injection site selection, geologic testing, and post-injection monitoring, underground storage of CO₂ is safe and effectively permanent.
Unlike some other carbon removal technologies and practices, a DAC facility has a relatively small footprint and can be located anywhere there is sufficient low-carbon energy and infrastructure and capacity to transport or store captured CO₂. In addition, the amount of CO₂ removed from the atmosphere can be directly measured by monitoring the flow and concentration of captured CO₂ at the point of storage. Compared to many other carbon removal approaches, this method provides a higher level of confidence in the amount of CO₂ being removed for investors and carbon credit purchasers. The geological sequestration of captured CO₂ has high permanence, effectively removing CO₂ from the atmosphere for thousands of years with a low risk of reversal. There are numerous research and pilot projects underway to improve CO₂ capture efficiency, reduce energy use, and reduce costs, which may improve the effectiveness and cost of this technology.
The concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is small, currently about 420 parts per million, or about 0.04%. This means that a DAC facility must process huge amounts of air – more than 1,600 t by one estimate – and consume more energy than a typical U.S. household uses in a month to capture 1 t CO₂. Scaled up to remove a globally meaningful amount of CO₂ (>0.1 Gt CO₂ /yr), DAC would consume more energy than the annual energy consumption of 10 million U.S. households. In addition, removing and storing CO₂ using DAC is very expensive, costing up to US$1,000/t CO₂ stored. This is more than twice the cost per t for all other commercially available carbon removal technologies and practices.
For these reasons, the technical and financial feasibility of scaling DAC to remove globally meaningful amounts of CO₂ from the atmosphere is low. Despite these challenges, as of September 2025, more than 30 companies have sold more than 2.4 million t of future carbon removal credits. However, less than 1,300 t CO₂ has actually been removed so far – or only 0.05% of these promised credits. To put this in perspective, despite spending billions of dollars, DAC has removed about as much CO₂ as would be saved by keeping 250-300 cars off the road for a single year.
There is also an opportunity cost for DAC. Even if a DAC facility is powered by solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear energy, that carbon-free energy could have been used to displace coal- and gas-powered electricity instead, reducing emissions by far more than a DAC facility can capture and store. Similarly, the large amounts of public and private sector funding going to DAC could be more cost-effective and carbon-effective if used for other, more effective actions to cut emissions or remove CO₂. There is also the risk that DAC will be used to delay or avoid emissions reduction actions or for greenwashing by fossil fuel companies and other emitters. Substantial amounts of the funding supporting the development of DAC are coming from fossil fuel companies, which have publicly stated that they view carbon capture as a strategy to extend society’s use of fossil fuels. Finally, unlike most other emissions reduction or carbon removal actions, DAC provides no obvious other benefits to nature or human well-being.
Alexandersson, B. O. P and Grettisson, V. (2025) Climeworks’ capture fails to cover its own emissions. Heimildin. Link to source: https://heimildin.is/grein/24581/
Bashir, A., Ali, M., Patil, S., Aljawad, M. S., Mahmoud, M., Al-Shehri, D., Hoteit, H., & Kamal, M. S. (2024). Comprehensive review of CO2 geological storage: Exploring principles, mechanisms, and prospects. Earth-Science Reviews, 249, 104672. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223003616
Bindl, M., Edwards, M. R., & Cui, R. Y. (2025). Risks of relying on uncertain carbon dioxide removal in climate policy. Nature Communications, 16(1), 5958. Link to source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61106-4
Bisotti, F., Hoff, K. A., Mathisen, A., & Hovland, J. (2023). Direct air capture (DAC) deployment: National context cannot be neglected. A case study applied to Norway. Chemical Engineering Science, 282, 119313. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009250923008692
Calma, J. (2023) To capture CO2 in the US, climate tech startups partner with oil and gas. The Verge. Link to source: https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/21/23690040/climeworks-direct-air-carbon-capture-oil-gas
CDR.fyi. (2025) Keep Calm and Remove On - CDR.fyi 2024 Year in Review Link to source: https://www.cdr.fyi/blog/2024-year-in-review
Chatterjee, S., & Huang, K. W. (2019). Unrealistic energy and materials requirement for direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 11, 3287. Link to source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17203-7
Chen, S. (2025) Energy and water use for DAC. Carbon180. Link to source: https://carbon180.org/blog/energy-and-water-use-for-dac/#:~:text=To%20estimate%20the%20amount%20of%20energy%20consumed%20by,%3D%20%28Energy%20per%20tCO2%29%20%2A%20%28Total%20DAC%20capacity%29
Eke, V., Sahu, T., Ghuman, K. K., Freire-Gormaly, M., & O'Brien, P. G. (2025). A comprehensive review of life cycle assessments of direct air capture and carbon dioxide storage. Sustainable Production and Consumption. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550925000399
Gulden, L. E., & Harvey, C. (2025). Tracing sources of funds used to lobby the US government about carbon capture, use, and storage. Environmental Science & Policy, 171, 104171. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290112500187X
Hager, B. & MIT Climate Portal Writing Team (2024) What is the risk that CO2 stored underground after carbon capture will escape again? MIT Climate Portal. Link to source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-risk-co2-stored-underground-after-carbon-capture-will-escape-again
Hiar, C. (2023) Oil companies want to remove carbon from the air — using taxpayer dollars. Climatewire, E&E News. Link to source: https://www.eenews.net/articles/oil-companies-want-to-remove-carbon-from-the-air-using-taxpayer-dollars/
International Energy Agency (no date) Direct Air Capture. Website. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture
Isometric (2025) Direct Air Capture explained: Understanding the process, benefits and cost of DAC. Link to source: https://isometric.com/writing-articles/direct-air-capture-explained
Jacobson, M. Z. (2019). The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture. Energy & Environmental Science, 12(12), 3567-3574. Link to source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/19-CCS-DAC.pdf
Jacobson, M. Z., Fu, D., Sambor, D. J., & Muhlbauer, A. (2025). Energy, health, and climate costs of carbon-capture and direct-air-capture versus 100%-wind-water-solar climate policies in 149 countries. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(6), 3034-3045. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c10686?ref=pdf
Lebling, K., Leslie-Bole, H., Byrum, Z., Wilcox, J. & Riedl, D. (2025) 6 Things to Know About Direct Air Capture. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal
Mackler, S., Fishman, X., & Broberg, D. (2021). A policy agenda for gigaton-scale carbon management. The Electricity Journal, 34(7), 106999. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619021000907
Maloney, C. B. and Khanna, R. (2022). Memorandum: Investigation of Fossil Fuel Industry Disinformation. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform. Link to source: https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/2022.09.14%20FINAL%20COR%20Supplemental%20Memo.pdf
Martin, P. (2023) Why Direct Air Capture Sucks (and not in a good way!). LinkedIn.Link to source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-direct-air-capture-sucks-good-way-paul-martin/
Milman, O. (2023) The world’s biggest carbon capture facility is being built in Texas. Will it work? The Guardian. Link to source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/12/carbon-capture-texas-worlds-biggest-will-it-work
National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, Division on Earth, Life Studies, Ocean Studies Board, Board on Chemical Sciences, ... & Reliable Sequestration. (2019). Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration: A research agenda. Link to source: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25259/chapter/7#203
OPIS and CDR.fyi. (2025) Bridging the Gap: Durable CDR Market Pricing Survey: Purchaser and Supplier Expectations in 2025 and 2030. Link to source: https://www.cdr.fyi/reports/pricing-survey-jan-2025.pdf
Ozkan, M. (2025). Atmospheric alchemy: The energy and cost dynamics of direct air carbon capture. MRS Energy & Sustainability, 12(1), 46-61. Link to source: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1557/s43581-024-00091-5.pdf
Pett-Ridge, J., Ammar, H., & Aui, A. (2023). Roads to Removal. Options for Carbon Dioxide Removal in the United States. Chapter 7. Direct Air Capture with Storage (DACS) and Renewable Energy. Link to source: https://roads2removal.org/wp-content/uploads/07_RtR_Direct-Air-Capture.pdf
Scott, M. and T. Slavin (2023) Fossil-fuel industry embrace raises alarm bells over direct air capture. Reuters. Link to source: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/fossil-fuel-industry-embrace-raises-alarm-bells-over-direct-air-capture-2023-10-10/
Skone, T. J. (2021) Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of Direct Air Capture Systems. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Link to source: https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/21DAC_Skone.pdf
Terlouw, T., Treyer, K., Bauer, C., & Mazzotti, M. (2021). Life cycle assessment of direct air carbon capture and storage with low-carbon energy sources. Environmental science & technology, 55(16), 11397-11411. Link to source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c03263
U. S. Department of Energy, Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (2024) Direct Air Capture Explained. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/Direct%20Air%20Capture%20Factsheet_August%202024.pdf
Wang, J., Li, S., Deng, S., Zeng, X., Li, K., Liu, J., ... & Lei, L. (2023). Energetic and life cycle assessment of direct air capture: a review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 36, 1-16. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352550922003384
World Resources Institute. (no date) U.S. Climate Policy Resource Center, Direct Air Capture. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/us-climate-policy-implementation/sectors/direct-air-capture
Young, J., McQueen, N., Charalambous, C., Foteinis, S., Hawrot, O., Ojeda, M., ... & Van Der Spek, M. (2023). The cost of direct air capture and storage can be reduced via strategic deployment but is unlikely to fall below stated cost targets. One Earth 6, 899–917. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223003007?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=96c1a3aebb261758
Join the 85,000+ subscribers discovering how to drive meaningful climate action around the world! Every other week, you'll get expert insights, cutting-edge research, and inspiring stories.