In the Canadian town of Squamish, there’s a small building with a massive fan on its purple roof. The fan is rapidly pulling outside air into the facility. The air enters the outdoors again, but it’s not quite the same. About 75% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) is gone. Run by the company Carbon Engineering (CE), the building is the pilot plant for their technology that directly captures CO2 from the air. The technology just received a $68 million funding boost from three major fossil fuel companies: Occidental, Chevron, and the coal company BHP. So how does the technology work, and why is the fossil fuel industry investing in it?

The process is relatively simple considering the feat it accomplishes. The 13-foot fan pulls air through an ‘air contactor’ that contains a hydroxide-based solution (essentially water with a very high pH level). The hydroxide reacts with the CO2 gas, which then dissolves into the solution. After a bit more processing, a pure stream of CO2 gas can be pulled from the solution. The process overall is estimated to cost $94-234 per tonne of CO2.

CE can capture pure CO2 directly from the air, but what then? There are two main options. The first one involves more chemistry. By reacting the CO2 with hydrogen, CE is able to convert the gas into synthetic fuels. Their Air to Fuels technology can produce gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel. Because fuels are made of carbon that was already in the air, burning them does not contribute additional greenhouse gases that worsen climate change. And they can be immediately used in current planes, cars, and ships. Further, CE emphasizes they make all of the fuel using “clean electricity” – ensuring they stay on brand.

The second option, however, is why fossil fuel companies are recently investing in CE’s air capture technology. Companies can inject CO2 gas into the ground to coax out oil buried deep within. The injected CO2 stays underground in a basically leak-proof tomb. Intergovernmental assessments have confirmed this, projecting that only around 1% of the CO2 buried leaks out after 5000 years. Meanwhile, the extracted fuels are used per usual. If oil companies use CO2 provided by CE, they are, to an extent, trading carbon in the air for carbon in the ground. Effectively, the strategy reduces the net amount of CO2 that the extracted fuel contributes to the atmosphere, thus reduces the fuel’s impact on climate change. This approach allows fossil companies to meet stringent regulations set by California on carbon emissions from vehicles.

Option 2 has created a bit of controversy. Several environmental groups have argued the technology is merely being used to prolong the fossil fuel era. It’s worth noting, though, that the U.S. fossil fuel industry could get a much cheaper source of CO2 to extract oil from deep in the ground. California’s regulations have arguably pushed these national companies to invest in a climate solution they otherwise would not have considered.

Still, this debate may be premature. CE currently only has the one pilot plant. Whether more direct-air-capture plants will sprout up in the future is uncertain. But investment boosts certainly make it more likely, even if they are from the industry that climate activists oppose the most.

Managing Correspondent: Jordan Wilkerson

Learn more at the Carbon Engineering website:

Image Credit: Pexels

2 thoughts on “Fossil Fuel Companies Invest in Removing Carbon Dioxide Directly from Air

  1. Big joke….. this is similar to recycling plastic which ends up in the ocean or landfills.

    So…. when you burn 1 barrel of oil, you need 3 barrels of oxygen in liquid form.
    This one barrel of oil burnt produces 1.5 barrels of water, and 2.5 barrels of carbon dioxide in liquid form.
    We were burning a 100 million barrels of oil ….. a day! A few months ago.
    So you need room for 250 million barrels of carbon dioxide….. a day….. to store!
    Where….. and how?
    More marketing on bs!

  2. What “Leon” does’nt get is that all processes are lossy and if the CO2-Synthetic fuel via H2o was done i.e. process 1, the synthetic fuel industry would actually remove more carbon than the cars that use these fuels produce- since they need to keep the CO2 inputs higher than the base required to produce X amounts of fuel(entropy, inefficiency et all). This would make synthetic fuels carbon negative as opposed to the ecar industry which has to mine lithium and other rare earth from the seas and the sands, further contaminating our planet. Let Ecar tech develop by synthetic fuels(process 1, not 2 ) are a great idea and will make air travel and shipping green. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *