Columbia University

EAEE 6212: Carbon SequestrationTerm PaperMay 8th, 2015Ayotunde Adenaike (aea2158)Soonen Ahua (soa2117)Vaibhav Paraashar (vrp2113)Avy Smith (fas2144)Michael Ward (mjw2211)

ContentsAbstract....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................3

Carbon Capture, Transportation and Storage: Available Resources and Mechanisms.................................................4

Selection of Case Study................................................................................................................................................6

Technologies................................................................................................................................................................7

Temperature Amine Swing Sorbent.........................................................................................................................7

Humidity Swing Amine Sorbent...............................................................................................................................9

Alkaline Sorbent Scrubbing....................................................................................................................................12

Contracting stage..............................................................................................................................................13

Causticizing stage..............................................................................................................................................13

Calcination stage...............................................................................................................................................14

Cost Analysis..............................................................................................................................................................14

Pipeline Model.......................................................................................................................................................14

Technologies..........................................................................................................................................................16

Discussion..................................................................................................................................................................17

DAC Technology vs. Pipeline Network...................................................................................................................17

Recent Advancements in Direct Air Capture:.........................................................................................................18

Direct Air Capture Protocol:...................................................................................................................................20

Regulations:.......................................................................................................................................................20

Financial Incentives:..........................................................................................................................................21

Reception in Industry:.......................................................................................................................................21

Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................. 22

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................................................23

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................23

Carbon Capture, Transportation and Storage: Available Resources and Mechanisms..........................................23

Temperature Swing...............................................................................................................................................24

Humidity Swing......................................................................................................................................................25

Alkaline..................................................................................................................................................................25

Discussion (Cost Analysis)......................................................................................................................................25

Discussion (Advancements and Protocol)..............................................................................................................25

2

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to analyze the benefits of Direct Air Capture at an injection site vs.

transport of CO2 to an injection site, eliminating logistical costs and wastes due to transportation. The

comparison featured the Boardman Coal Plant’s CO2 emissions which were used as a theoretical target

value for sequestration. Three different technologies of Direct Air Capture were compared, with the

results indicating that currently transport of CO2 to an injection site with mature technology is still

economically more feasible. Similarly, with other new technologies, costs for direct air capture are

expected to decrease drastically as the technologies become more prevalent.

Introduction

The continuous increase in concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the air and all its attendant consequences

have been some of the greatest modern challenges for climate scientists, Government, and

International Agencies. It is accepted in the scientific community that climate change is happening as a

result of human activity, the next step is to figure out how to combat this trend. While it is necessary to

switch to less carbon intensive means of energy production and transportation, for various reasons this

change takes time. This promotes the necessity for carbon dioxide emission mitigation techniques that

address current emissions as well as cumulative past emissions.

One of the technologies that have come to the forefront of carbon mitigation is Carbon Capture. Carbon

Capture refers to a range of technologies that captures carbon dioxide usually from outputs of point

sources like power plants. After this carbon is captured, it must be moved and transported to where it

3

Figure 1: Map showing CO2 storage potential across the globe.

will either be used or permanently sequestered underground. This is good but however certain

challenges arise. While it is great to capture this carbon and store it or use it, the movement of carbon

dioxide over long distances using either trucks or pipelines carries significant capital cost. In addition no

current carbon mitigation technologies address cumulative emissions. Hence we see the need for Direct

Air Capture technologies that we will be discussing in this paper. Direct Air Capture eliminates the need

for extensive pipeline network and it permits reductions in concentrations faster than the natural

carbon cycle [1].

Carbon Capture, Transportation and Storage: Available Resources and Mechanisms

Theoretical estimates suggest that the earth has

the potential to store vast amounts of carbon

dioxide, almost to the tune of over 10,000

gigatons. [1] Worldwide carbon dioxide

emissions totaled 35,274,106 kilotons in 2013.

[2] It may never be possible to sequester all of

the emitted carbon dioxide every year; but to

stand a chance in the fight against climate change, much of that emission must be captured and stored;

and to exploit the vast storage capacity offered by the earth’s crust, it is essential to have a gas transport

mechanism that is robust and versatile in a way that handles inventories of carbon dioxide from a wide

variety of geographical circumstances.

4

Pipelines are an obvious option that comes to mind when we think of transporting gases over long

distances. Oil and natural gas pipelines have been extremely successful in the United States, with

installations dating back to the days of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Corporation in the nineteenth

century. [7] Today, the United States has a total oil pipeline network length of more than 190,000 miles.

[3]

In the context of transport of carbon dioxide, pipelines may be of two types: onshore and offshore.

While examples of onshore carbon dioxide pipelines are scarce, about 3,500 miles of such are in

operation today in the United States. [5] A famous example of an offshore CO2 pipeline network is the

Sleipner project by Statoil in the North Sea, where 12 million metric tons of carbon dioxide has been

transported through undersea pipelines and injected 1,000 meters into the sea bed since 1996. [1]

Another potential mode of gas transport that deserves consideration is marine transportation. Marine

transportation involves huge amount out capital investment and operations cost, and is cost effective

only for large amounts of gaseous cargo. [4] Tankers are expensive to charter, with costs running to tens

of thousands of dollars per hour. In terms of safety, data is available only for crude oil and natural gas

transport, reflecting a fair number of incidents reported every year. [4] With respect to carbon dioxide

transportation, tankers may have to be redesigned for safety as the gas exists in liquid form at much

lower temperatures than liquefied natural gas (LNG). [4] Plus, a CO2 gas leak can be catastrophic as they

tend to displace breathable oxygen in the immediate atmosphere and is difficult to detect owing to the

gas’s odorless nature, potentially causing mass asphyxiation. [4] This is not to mention that tankers

themselves are known to immensely pollute the air with the emissions from their engines. [8]

5

CCS has yet to take off on a large commercial scale to analyze a case. Even the most celebrated project

of all, the Sleipner project in the North Sea, injects carbon dioxide that is dissolved in the crude oil

drilled out by Statoil, and not CO2 produced by onshore power plants. [1] Now, it is important to develop

offshore injection sites as they may contain vast amounts of basaltic subsurface under the sea, which

provide excellent conditions to store liquid carbon dioxide for long periods of time. In the future, to

enable using conventional mechanism the transport of CO2 from onshore sites of production, such as

power plants and manufacturing units, into these onshore or offshore sites of injection, a marine

transport network or a pipeline network must be employed, warranting the need to use the expertise of

oil companies. [1]

By comparison of conventional mechanisms, the pipeline transport mechanism seems to be the better

option available for the transport of CO2 as carbon dioxide pipelines may be relatively easy to install and

cost-effective in the long run. However, pipelines in general are prone to a number of environmental

hazards over time, such as corrosion and fractures. Plus, for CO2, in the event of a site of production or a

site of injection becoming obsolete, the pipeline between them may be rendered obsolete as well. It

therefore makes sense to explore the implementation of unconventional mechanisms that offer superior

safety and, perhaps more importantly, that have absolute independence from the geographical location

of sites of production of carbon dioxide, making them more versatile and more flexible than pipelines.

Selection of Case Study

Since real word cases of carbon capture, transport and storage are nonexistent, a hypothetical case

could be considered to compare the potential costs of investing in a pipeline versus that of direct air

capture. The Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership (BSCP) operates a test injection facility near

6

Wallula, Washington in the northwest United States, where pure CO2 is injected into the ground 800

meters deep into a basaltic layer. [9] A little over 60 miles away is the Boardman Coal Plant at

Boardman, Oregon, operated by Portland General Electric. [10] The plant has in the past come under

intense scrutiny from environmental groups for its emissions. [12] It currently accounts for 65% of all

stationary sulfur dioxide emissions and 7% of all CO2 emissions in the state of Oregon [12], with carbon

emissions totaling 2,737,456 tons in 2006. [13]

Our case study involves a 62.1 mile hypothetical pipeline that exists between Boardman Coal Plant and

the BSCP site in Washington, laid alongside the roadway. It is also assumed that the injection site can

handle all of the carbon emissions from the coal plant. The carbon dioxide emitted from the coal plant is

captured and compressed into liquid state, and is then pumped via the pipeline to the injection site at

Wallula. At the injection site, the gas is injected into the basaltic layer underground to be stored for

geological time scales. The cost associated with the setting up of this infrastructure as well as the year-

on-year operations costs will be analyzed below to get a benchmark to compare. The same will be

analyzed for direct air capture as well; but first, we must understand the variety of technologies that are

under development currently.

Technologies

Temperature Amine Swing Sorbent

One of the technologies currently being explored in relation to Direct Air Capture is the Temperature

Swing Amine Sorbent Technology. Prof. Peter Eisenberger under his venture, Global Thermostat LLC and

Prof. Christopher Jones of Georgia Tech are prominent researchers for this technology.

7

This Direct Air Capture Method works using proprietary solid amine sorbents. A fan draws air over the

sorbent layers and CO2 is adsorbed. Passing steam then regenerates the sorbent layer. The combined

CO2 – steam stream is then compressed and pure CO2 can be extracted [1]. The process diagram is

shown below.

Figure 2: Process Description (Global Thermostat LLC, Solid Amine sorbent capture)

The difference marker of the Global Thermostat LLC system lies in its ability to make use of low quality

heat from energy generation or industrial processes. According to the company, the sorbent in

temperature swing adsorption process can be regenerated with steam at a temperature of as little as 85

°C [2]. Thus the system can exist in 3 embodiments [1]:

● Pure Air Embodiment: Wherein the plants capture CO2 co-located with industrial facilities (or

solar farms) to utilize their residual process heat to run the carbon capture operations.

● Carbureted Embodiment: Wherein plants co-locate with industrial facilities to utilize their

residual heat, and capture concentrated CO2 from those facilities’ smoke stacks. GT blends that

CO2 with atmospheric air, and can capture significantly more CO2 than is being emitted. By

8

capturing this additional atmospheric CO2, the system can be carbon negative. This model

produces the lowest cost CO2 per ton.

● Self-Carbureted Embodiments: they burn fuel in their own gas turbines, generating the heat

and electricity needed to capture their own emissions while also capturing CO2 from the

atmosphere, remaining carbon negative.

In our quest for off-site direct air capture and subsequent sequestration, self-carbureted embodiment

seems like a good fit.

According to Global Thermostat, their units are modular and multiple units can be combined. Each

module is estimated to capture 50000 tons of CO2 per year [3]. One module is currently undergoing

testing at the Stanford Research Institute in California. The company has not released any detailed cost

figures but estimates that the module costs between $15-$50/ton of CO2.

Humidity Swing Amine Sorbent

In 2004, Professor Klaus S. Lackner, a pioneer in the field of CO2 direct air capture, started a company

named Global Research Technologies, with the aim to mitigate climbing CO2 concentrations in the air via

direct air capture. The company’s name was changed to Kilimanjaro Energy, however its goal remained

the same. The company is one of the few carbon capture startups to raise venture capital, and is

currently developing a number of sorbent-based technologies that can capture CO2 from the air and

release it after coming into contact with H2O. A diagram of the basic process in this approach is

displayed below:

9

Figure 3: Basic Process of CO2 Capture from Air with Use of Ion Exchange Resin

Professor Lackner has proposed a prototype that would be able to capture 1 ton of CO2 per day and is

the size of a standard cargo shipping container (12m x 2.5m x 3m). The key behind the prototype lies

within the sorbent. The sorbent is made up of small resin particles embedded onto a polypropylene

sheet. The resin is amine based, purchased in chloride form, and can readily absorb CO2 from the air.

The chemical reactions that take place can be found below:

OH- + CO2 → HCO3 (Direct Bicarbonate on Resin) (1)

2OH- + CO2 → CO32- + H2O (Formation of Carbonate) (2)

CO32- + CO2 + H2O → 2HCO3

- (Bicarbonate from Carbonate) (3)

The material will continue to absorb CO2 until full saturation of the bicarbonate state. The prototype was

designed to operate at a small flow rate of 1 m/s in order to conserve as much energy as possible. The

10

prototype utilizes 60 filters made of the sorbent material. The filters take an hour to load CO2 and have

the dimensions (30-40 cm x 2.5m x 1m). 30 filters are required to capture 1 ton of CO 2 per day however

they take an equal amount of time to regenerate. The process that takes place within the prototype is

revealed below:

▪ Filter captures CO2 at the front of prototype

▪ Filter is moved onto an automated conveyor system to chambers for CO2 extraction:

➢ There are 6 extraction chambers that hold 5 filters

➢ Chambers are arranged in a circle

▪ Once a chamber is filled air is pulled out via a low grade vacuum

▪ Moisture is then injected to release CO2

▪ CO2 gas is pumped out of chamber and compressed:

➢ In order to achieve maximum CO2 levels partial pressure in chambers is increased in

stages.

➢ Water vapor comes into contact with nearly depleted filters and is pumped in a counter

flow manner.

➢ In the last chamber CO2 content will be at a maximum value when pumped water vapor

comes into contact with filters that are fully loaded.

➢ CO2 gas is pumped out of the last chamber, which contains maximum CO2 concentration.

▪ Filters are moved to a separate location to regenerate and process is repeated

The energy requirements for the prototype stem from pumps, compressors, and other mechanical

operations. At its current design the cost of the prototype is $200,000. It would cost $200 to capture a

ton of CO2.

11

Future designs of the prototype would aim to improve the chemistry of the sorbent. The emphasis will

be placed on increasing the surface area of the filters per unit of resin. The goal is to increase this

surface area by a factor of 10. This in turn would reduce the amount of resin and the extraction time of

CO2 by a factor of 10. Ultimately, the extraction chambers size would shrink drastically. 70% of the

prototype costs can be attributed to the resin and extraction chambers. If these improvements were

realized along with further reductions in energy requirements a future prototype would cost $20,000.

The cost of capturing a ton of CO2 would also drastically decrease to a reasonable $30.

Alkaline Sorbent Scrubbing

This technology makes use of a sorbent material that selectively captures CO2 from the atmosphere

using an aqueous alkaline material (e.g. NaOH) and then passes the CO2 through a series of chemical

processes till it is eventually compressed and sequestered. This technology was developed by Dr. David

Keith of Harvard University and further research is being carried out by his company, Carbon

Engineering, to develop and commercialize cost- effective, industrial-scale direct air capture (DAC)

technology using alkaline sorbent scrubbers [1].

The alkaline sorbent scrubbing method consists of three stages: the contracting stage, the causticizing

stage, and the calcination stage. The process diagram is shown below:

12

Figure 4: Process diagram of Alkaline Sorbent scrubbing method

Contracting stage

The extraction of CO2 from air with NaOH takes place in the contractor. The most efficient and common

industrial method for doing this is to drip the solution of NaOH through a tower filled with packing

material while blowing the air through the tower [2]. To achieve a capture efficiency of about 50%, the

tower needs to be about 1.5m tall. Furthermore, since CO2 is being captured at a very low flow rate, the

tower needs to be very wide at the top to be able to capture more CO2 as CO2 has a very low

concentration in the atmosphere (0.04%). The chemical equation for the contracting shown below:

CO2 (g) + 2Na+ + 2OH- → CO32- + Na+ + H2O

Causticizing stage

In this stage, two processes take place. (1) The regeneration of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) from the

Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) solution by the addition of lime (CaO). (2) The formation of calcium

carbonate (CaCO3) solution. This method known is also known as the Kraft process and is used in paper

and cement industries. The chemical equations are shown below:

CaO (s) + H2O (l) → Ca2+ + 2OH- (1)

13

CO32- + Ca2+ → CaCO3 (s) (2)

Calcination stage

In this stage, the Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) solution formed is heated to form CaO, which is then taken

back to the causticizing stage for the production of more calcium carbonates. The alkaline method

technology uses natural gas combustion, solar thermal generation, or nuclear power to generate the

energy needed to heat the calcium carbonate. In addition to this stage, the CO 2 produced from the

heating of the calcium carbonate is to be captured using oxygen blown combustion in a fluidized bed [2].

Such a system would be a hybrid of existing fluid bed calciners and oxygen-fired coal combustion with

CO2 capture. The chemical equation for the calcination stage is shown below:

CaCO3 (s) → CaO (s) + CO2 (g)

A full-scale industrial alkaline sorbent scrubbing plant would be able to capture about one million tons

CO2 and would cost $100 per ton of CO2 [3]. This gives an annual cost for capturing CO2 at $270 million.

Cost Analysis

In this cost analysis, we attempted to compare annual costs of the various technologies proposed as well

as a conventional pipeline connected between the Boardman power plant in Oregon and the injection

point. We assumed that all methods are either transporting or capturing the same amount of CO 2, which

is 2.7 million tons of CO2 as emitted

Pipeline Model

As stated earlier, we know that the Boardman power plant produces 2.7 million tons of CO 2 per year.

We also know that the Boardman plant is located approximately 62 miles away from the proposed site

14

of injection in Wallula, Washington. We used a geographically specific model from the National Energy

Technology Laboratory that estimates the cost of transporting a user-specified mass rate of CO2 by

pipeline (in our case 2.7 million metric tons of CO2 per year for 30 years a distance of 62 miles or 100

kilometers). The model estimates this cost from the perspective of the owner and operator of a pipeline

and is designed to include all relevant costs, including financing costs.

In this model, we assumed an 80% capacity factor and a construction period of 3 years for the project.

Capitalization or Equity was assumed as 50.0%. Cost of Equity (minimum internal rate of return on

equity or IRROEmin) was assumed as 12.0% with a cost of debt of 4.5% and a tax rate of 38.0%. These

were nominal values provided by the NETL based on experience in the field.

Table 1: Summary of Parameters used in Pipeline Model

15

Table 2: Summary of Parameters used in Pipeline Model (Continued)

Table 3: Summary of Costs of Pipeline Model

From our cost analysis, we obtain a total capital cost of $64,724,537 and yearly operating expenses of

$17,420,463. Using the rate of return on rated debt and equity given as 7.40%, we can obtain an annual

cost for our pipeline transport over 30 years.

AnnualCost=(Rateof Return×CapitalCost )+AnnualOperatingCost

Using the formula above we get a value of $22,210,078 per year.

16

Technologies

The companies developing the various technologies did not explicitly provide annual cost figures,

however the costs per ton of CO2 were provided. From these costs per ton, it is possible to obtain the

annual costs by simply multiplying by the annual CO2 necessary to be sequestered.

For alkaline sorbent method, we had a cost per ton of $100, for Humidity Swing sorbent we had a value

of $30/ton CO2 and for temperature swing adsorbent we have a lower value of $15/ton CO2. These yield

the following annual costs:

Table 4: Summary of Annual Costs for the Different Technologies

Technology Pipeline Temperature-Swing Humidity- Swing Alkaline Sorbent

Price ($/year) $22M $40.5M $80 M $270 M

We can therefore see that the cost of pipeline transportation is still cheap in comparison to Direct Air

Capture at site of injection.

Discussion

DAC Technology vs. Pipeline Network

From the cost analysis above, it can be seen that the pipeline is cheaper compared to the other

technologies analyzed. The cost of the pipeline is $22 million while the cheapest direct air capture

option is the temperature swing solid amine sorbent at an annual cost of $40.5 million. This may be

because the pipeline technology is a mature and more refined technology meanwhile direct air capture

(DAC) is still in its development stage. The figures given by all the companies are very speculative; as

17

none of the companies (Kilimanjaro, Carbon Engineering, and Global Thermostat LLC) have begun full-

scale commercialization of direct air capture technologies. According to an article by Professor Klaus

Lackner et al, it is expected that as the penetration of direct air capture technology increases, there

would be a decrease in cost similar to the decrease in cost that resulted from technologies such as solar

panels and mobile phones [1]. It is necessary to note that the cost of the pipeline is an estimated value

and it doesn’t take into account the cost of passing the pipelines through populated areas. The cost of

the pipeline depends on the terrain. Onshore pipeline costs may increase by 50 to 100% when the

pipeline route is congested and heavily populated. The cost of the pipeline could also increase in

mountains, nature reserve areas, rivers, and other obstacles [2].

Recent Advancements in Direct Air Capture:

As with all novel technology, there is opportunity for improvement. Research is being conducted at the

Georgia Institute of Technology by Dr. Christopher W. Jones that focuses on the enhancement of CO2

uptake through various adsorbing materials and supports. His most recent research investigates the

infusion of polyethylenimine (PEI) in the silica support of an amine-loaded polyamide-imide (PAI) hollow

fiber sorbent to enhance CO2 capture during rapid temperature swing adsorption [1]. In this research,

Jones found that the PAI/silica-PEI sorbents operate at maximum efficiency at 65°C. However, Jones

noticed that there is a tradeoff between thermodynamic and kinetic factors. Therefore, a solution is

needed to overcome the mass transfer limitations. Jones discovered that a mixture of PEI, methanol,

and glycerol significantly improves CO2 capacity at lower temperatures [1].

Jones is also researching the effects of enthalpic and entropic conditions on direct CO 2 capture using

mesoporous silica grafted amines. Jones found that adsorption depends on the partial pressure of CO 2

for different primary and secondary amines sites. In turn, the adsorption at low coverages of these sites

18

is less efficient. Researchers of direct air capture all agree that primary amines are more effective for

direct CO2 capture than secondary amines; however, Jones’ research demonstrates that this is due to

unfavorable entropic factors associated with the second alkyl chain on secondary amines during

adsorption [2].

Research into nontraditional adsorption materials and supports is fundamental to uncovering the

optimum combination for CO2 capture. Another study by Jones examined the use of guanidinylated

polyallylamine (GPAA) supported on mesoporous silica foam for CO2 capture. Jones’ research showed

that GPAA have a higher stability and regenerability than traditional PAA at temperatures above 75°C.

Therefore, GPAA is potentially beneficial during temperature swing cycles that operate at high

temperatures [3].

Jones is not the only scientist currently making advancements in direct air capture. Researchers at

Hanyang University in Korea are comparing the adsorption properties of amines and ammonia for CO2

capture post-combustion. The study found that ammonia had higher absorption capacity, higher loading

capacity, and lower energy requirements for regeneration when compared to amines. However, the

ammonia volatilizes easily, maintains a high vapor pressure and low molecular weight, and produces

thermally unstable products [4].

Klaus Lackner, former director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University,

developed a technique to directly capture CO2 from the atmosphere using artificial trees. These artificial,

plastic trees are coated in a sodium carbonate resin that combines with CO2 in the air to form sodium

bicarbonate, or baking soda. Instead of requiring expensive scrubbers to remove the sodium

bicarbonate, Lackner’s invention requires only water vapor. The “leaves” of the artificial trees are 1,000

19

times more efficient than real leaves capturing CO2 via photosynthesis. Lackner believes that his trees

can remove one ton of CO2 per day; therefore, 10 million artificial trees could remove 3.6 billion tons of

CO2 per year – 10% of global CO2 emissions [5].

These fives studies are just a few examples of the abundance of current research that is being done to

improve direct air capture. Over time, technological advancements are continually refined until the

optimal solution is discovered – and direct air capture is no exception. Eventually, the feasibility of large-

scale direct air capture will become more palpable through continued funding and research.

Direct Air Capture Protocol:

Regulations:

The establishment of regulations for new technologies is an inevitable task once prototypes are

converted to large-scale developments. Regulating the effects of direct air capture technology on the

environment and human health will fall under the existing regulations established by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). Air pollution is one concern undertaken by the EPA. The pollutants that are

emitted from the direct air capture technology (e.g., emissions from the high-energy consuming DAC

facilities) must fall below the established standards. Another concern of the EPA is water pollution. For

DAC, the effluent from the facility must also remain below EPA-established standards. The EPA will also

regulate contamination of the soil or nearby land of the DAC facility. And lastly, the EPA is responsible

for the protection of any endangered species that are negatively impacted by the establishment of the

DAC facility (e.g., choosing a building site that encompasses endangered plant communities or harming

endangered bird species in the air capturing process).

20

The employers and employees of DAC facilities will be required to follow regulations established by

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Through enforcement, assistance, and

cooperation, on-site injuries, illnesses and deaths can be kept to a minimum. OSHA keeps the workplace

safe through worksite inspections and citing companies that fail to comply. The dangers associated with

working at a DAC facility are not well known due to the novelty of the technology; however, it is OSHA’s

responsibility to support innovative methods in dealing with hazardous conditions, establish record-

keeping requirements, develop training programs, and establishing specific rights and responsibilities for

employers and employees [6].

Financial Incentives:

Direct subsidies and/or tax exemptions from the government could encourage the creation of DAC

facilities throughout the United States. As a technology that is negative emissions, DAC has the potential

to significantly alleviate or even solve the world’s global warming crisis. Therefore, the creation of such

facilities should be encouraged. A subsidy from the government would reduce the burden on companies

by the substantial capital costs and operating and maintenance costs associated with DAC. Tax

exemptions for land use or the importation of CCS-related equipment could also ease the burden [7]. It

is important to remember, however, that the cost of technologies typically decreases over time.

Moore’s Law and Wright’s Law, although specifically referencing computers, states that the cost of a

unit decreases exponentially over time and the cost of a unit decreases as a function of cumulative

production, respectively [8]. Therefore, financial incentives will likely be less imperative in the future

cost of direct air capture.

21

Reception in Industry:

A major concern regarding DAC by environmentalists is that industry and policymakers will view DAC as

a “substitute to mitigation” [9]. The fear is that industry will view DAC as a “techno-fix fantasy” and

continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels because air capture appears to be a seamless technology. In fact,

there is speculation that oil companies will be some of the biggest supporters of DAC because it draws

attentions away from one of the other major alleviations to global warming – the reduction of fossil fuel

use.

In November 2014, a bill drafted by Representatives Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian

Schatz of Hawaii proposed a carbon tax of $42/ton of CO2 emitted [10]. If the bill were signed into law,

the incentive for industries to incorporate DAC technology is would be extremely low because of the

disparity between the cost of the technology and the cost of the carbon emission tax [11]. Until the unit

cost of DAC falls below the proposed carbon tax, companies will likely choose to pay the carbon tax.

Through more research and development, it is possible that DAC will become an economically feasible

option.

Although there is a market for using captured CO2 for purposes such as boosting plant growth in

greenhouses or cultivating algae for biofuels, the likely fate for captured CO 2 is sequestration. During an

interview in the May 2015 issue of Fast Company Magazine, Klaus Lackner stated his vision of a “pay to

play” economy for captured CO2. Essentially, Lackner was describing that companies should cover the

cost of capturing the CO2 via DAC and sequestering it deep underground for every ton of carbon, either

natural gas or oil, withdrawn from the ground [12].

22

Conclusion

Since the industrial revolution, greenhouse gas emissions have sky rocketed making them one of the

biggest causes of climate change. In the mitigation of this catastrophic change, Carbon Capture and

Storage (CCS) will play a crucial role. Luckily for us, the earth has a huge potential to store CO 2 beneath

its surface. However, conventional CO2 transport mechanisms such as pipelines and marine transport

are expensive, inflexible, and environmentally wasteful themselves, ironically causing a significant dent

in the efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Therefore, it makes sense to explore direct air capture (DAC)

as it:

Removes emission from any part of the economy with equal ease or difficulty

Eliminates the need for extensive pipeline network

Permits reduction in concentrations faster than the natural carbon cycle

Is weakly coupled to existing infrastructure and Offers strong economies of scale

Is necessary to tackle cumulative emissions

Several research scientists have demonstrated technologies that capture carbon dioxide from

atmospheric air as discussed above. As with every pioneering technology, initial costs are bound to be

very high. But with wide scale adaptation of these technologies, costs will be brought down. While we

think it may take hundreds of product iterations before this technology is commercialized, it is

encouraging note that efforts are on with the approach of DAC.

23

REFERENCES

Introduction [1] Choi, Sunho, Jeffrey H. Drese, Peter M. Eisenberger, and Christopher W. Jones. "Application of

Amine-Tethered Solid Sorbents for Direct CO2 Capture from the Ambient Air." Environmental Science and Technology 45 (2011): 2420-427. Web.

Carbon Capture, Transportation and Storage: Available Resources and Mechanisms[1] Biello, David. "Can Captured Carbon Save Coal-Fired Power?" Scientific American Global RSS. Scientific America, 17 May 2009. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

[2] "CO2 Time Series 1990-2013 per Region/country." EUROPA - EDGAR Overview. European Commission Joint Research Center, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. <http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2013>.

[3] "Pipelines." Pipelines. American Petroleum Institute, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. <http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/transporting-oil-and-natural-gas/pipeline>.

[4] Holzapfel, Helmut. "Potential Forms of Regional Economic Co-operation to Reduce Goods Transport." World Transport Policy and Practice 1.2 (1995): 34-39. IPCC. IPCC, 2004. Web. 6 May 2015.

[5] "Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2 EOR)." Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute (n.d.): n. pag. American Petroleum Institute. Web. 8 May 2015. <http://www.api.org/~/media/files/ehs/climate-change/summary-carbon-dioxide-enhanced-oil-recovery-well-tech.pdf>.

[6] "PIPELINE 101." Pipeline101. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. <http://www.pipeline101.com/the-history-of-pipelines/1800>.

[7] Burton, Adrian. "Air Pollution: Ship Sulfate an Unexpected Heavyweight." Environmental Health Perspectives. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592288/>.

[8] Gislason, Sigurdur, and Eric Oelkers. "Carbon Storage in Basalt." Science Magazine. April 25, 2014. Accessed February 24, 2015. <http://www.sciencemag.org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/content/344/6182/373.full.>

[9] "Improving Air Emissions: Boardman Plant Air Emissions | PGE." Improving Air Emissions: Boardman Plant Air Emissions | PGE. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2015.

24

<https://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_environment/initiatives/boardman_plant_air_emissions.aspx>.

[10] Learn, Scott (December 9, 2010). "PGE's coal-fired Boardman plant gets approval to close in 2020, with fewer pollution controls". The Oregonian. Retrieved 11 December2010.

[11] Staff (2006-06-28)."Environmental and Health Effects Caused by PGE Boardman Pollution".Lewis & Clark Law School. Retrieved 2010-02-16.

[12] "Boardman Plant." SourceWatch. SourceWatch.org, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Boardman_Plant#Emissions_Data>.

Temperature Swing [1] "What We Do." Global Thermostat. Global Thermostat LLC, n.d. Web. 06 May 2015.

[2] Kintisch, Eli. "Can Sucking CO2 Out of the Atmosphere Really Work?" MIT Technology Review. MIT Technology Review, 07 Oct. 2014. Web. 06 May 2015.

[3] "Who We Are." Global Thermostat. Global Thermostat LLC, n.d. Web. 06 May 2015.

Humidity Swing [1] "Kilimanjaro Energy: Towering Ambitions." Marc Gunther. February 27, 2011. Accessed May 6, 2015.

http://www.marcgunther.com/kilimanjaro-energy-towering-ambitions/.

[2] Lackner, K.S. "Capture of Carbon Dioxide from Ambient Air." The European Physical Journal Special Topics. 2009. Accessed May 6, 2015. http://downloadv2.springer.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/static/pdf/427/art%3A10.1140%2Fepjst%2Fe2009011503.pdf?token2=exp=1430929725~acl=/static/pdf/427/art%253A10.1140%252Fepjst%252Fe2009-01150-3.pdf*~hmac=9279299aec990be89a588c4c9.

Alkaline [1] Holmes, Geoffrey et al. "Download PDFs." Outdoor Prototype Results for Direct Atmospheric Capture

of Carbon Dioxide. Science Direct, 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 06 May 2015.

[2] Keith, David et al. "Climate Strategy with Co2 Capture from the Air." - Springer. HAL, 01 Jan. 2006. Web. 06 May 2015.

[3] www.carbonengineering.com, and Info@carbonengineering.com. Air Capture – Frequently Asked Questions (n.d.): n. pag. Carbon Engineering. Carbon Engineering, 2011. Web. 6 May 2015.

25

Discussion (Cost Analysis) [1] Lackner, K. S., S. Brennan, J. M. Matter, A.- H. A. Park, A. Wright, and B. Van Der Zwaan. "The Urgency of the Development of CO2 Capture from Ambient Air." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.33 (2012): 13156-3162. Columbia.edu. Columbia, 28 June 2012. Web. 6 May 2015.

[2] Holzapfel, Helmut. "Potential Forms of Regional Economic Co-operation to Reduce Goods Transport." World Transport Policy and Practice 1.2 (1995): 34-39. IPCC. IPCC, 2004. Web. 6 May 2015.

Discussion (Advancements and Protocol) [1] Jones, Christopher, et al. "Poly(amide-imide)/silica Supported PEI Hollow Fiber Sorbents for

Postcombustion CO(2) Capture by RTSA." ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 6.21 (2014): 19336-9346. Web. 4 May 2015.

[2] Alkhabbaz, MA, P. Bollini, GS Foo, C. Sievers, and CW Jones. "Important Roles of Enthalpic and Entropic Contributions to CO2 Capture from Simulated Flue Gas and Ambient Air Using Mesoporous Silica Grafted Amines." Journal of the American Chemical Society 136.38 (2014): 13170-3173. Web. 4 May 2015.

[3] Alkhabbaz, Mustafa, Rataykorn Khunsupat, and Christopher Jones. "Guanidinylated Poly(allylamine) Supported on Mesoporous Silica for CO2capture from Flue Gas." Fuel 121 (2014): 79-85. Web. 4 May 2015.

[4] Shakerian, Farid, Ki-Hyun Kim, Jan E. Szulejko, and Jae-Woo Park. "A Comparative Review between Amines and Ammonia as Sorptive Media for Post-combustion CO2 Capture." Applied Energy (2015): 10-22. Web.

[5] Williams, Matthew. "Combatting Climate Change With Artificial Trees."Combatting Climate Change With Artificial Trees. Hero-X, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

[6] "What Is OSHA?" All About OSHA. Web. 6 May 2015. <http://www.allaboutosha.com/what-is-osha>.

[7] Trinh Hoang Anh, Nguyen, and Ha-Duong Minh. "Perspective of CO2 Capture & Storage (CCS) Development in Vietnam: Results from Expert Interviews." Centre International De Recherche Sur L'environnement Et Le Développement. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.

[8] McCormick, Douglas. "Wright's Law Edges Out Moore's Law in Predicting Technology Development." IEEE Spectrum. 25 July 2012. Web. 5 May 2015.

[9] Isaacson, Betsy. "Direct Air Capture Makes Pollution a Cash Cow."Newsweek 25 Aug. 2014. Web.

[10] Spross, Jeff. "A New Carbon Tax Bill In The Senate Comes With Both Promise And Problems." Think Progress. 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 4 May 2015.

[11] "Scrubbing the Skies." Economist 5 Mar. 2009. Web.

26

[12] Jon, Gertner. "Klaus Lackner Is Pulling CO2 Out of Thin Air." Fast Company Magazine. 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

27