Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Unrealistic energy and materials requirement for direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways

Matters Arising to this article was published on 03 July 2020

The Original Article was published on 22 July 2019

Arising from G. Realmonte et al. Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10842-5 (2019).

The increasing global atmospheric CO2 concentration due to heavy reliance on fossil fuels as the primary energy sources (~410 ppm in 2019)1 has made direct extraction or removal of CO2 from ambient air (direct air carbon capture (DACC)) the most logical alternative over traditional modes of carbon capture from large stationary sources because of many of the perceived advantages and compelling arguments2. With the current level of CO2 emissions (32.6 gigatons (Gt)-CO2/year2017)1, Realmonte and co-workers recently imposed the global capacity at 30 Gt-CO2/year as a case study for DACC, and concluded that “in theory DACCS can be an enabling factor for the Paris Agreement objectives” and recommended the policy makers to “support an acceleration in development and deployment of DACCS”3. While challenges of large-scale CO2 utilization and sequestration were recognized and these approaches were deemed impractical4,5, our analysis further showed that the energy and materials requirements for DACC are unrealistic even when the most promising technologies are employed. Thus, DACC is unfortunately only an energetically and financially costly distraction in effective mitigation of climate changes at a meaningful scale before we achieve the status of a significant surplus of carbon-neutral/low-carbon energy.

The urgent need for a large amount of CO2 removal by DACC has been recognized since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s assessment report in 20136. This rapidly growing field has thus attracted industrial, academic and political attention over the last decades, ultimately pushing DACC technologies from lab scale to pilot scale with multi-billion dollars of investments and research funding from the private and governmental sectors7. Realmonte et al. have investigated the roles of DACC utilizing two integrated assessment modelling (IAM) studies on DAC1 (based on aqueous hydroxide solutions of NaOH, KOH, etc.) and DAC2 (based on amine-modified solid sorbents such as monoethanolamine (MEA)) as the most promising methods (Fig. 1). Detailed techno-economic characteristics have been incorporated based on the latest available literature estimates aiming to meet the Paris Agreement objectives to keep global warming well below 2 °C (i.e. removal of 30 Gt-CO2/year). However, to fully assess the feasibilities of DACC technologies, the energy cost for manufacturing materials must be considered.

Fig. 1: Schematic representations of direct CO2 capture from air using sorbents.
figure1

The outlines of two different DACC technologies (DAC1 and DAC2) are presented with the amounts of electricity and heat energies required for the syntheses of the sorbents (NaOH and MEA) from precursors and their regenerations3. DACC direct air carbon capture, EO ethylene oxide, MEA monoethanolamine.

The total energy requirement to reach the capacity of capturing 30 Gt-CO2/yr was estimated based on the production of the needed materials as reasonably proposed by Realmonte et al. considering the make-up rates of sorbents of 0.17–0.29 t/tCO2 of NaOH in DAC18 and a similar replacement rate for MEA in DAC2. For DAC1, 5.1–8.7 Gt/yr of NaOH is required, and the production will need 2.15–3.67 TWe-yr (electrical energy for electrolysis = 13.3 GJe/tNaOH)9 (Fig. 2a, b). This will account for about 12–20% of total global energy supply (TGES; 18.55 TW-yr for 2017, but likely greater than the global electricity generation capacity of 2.92 TWe-yr)10. One also notes that the industrial electrolysis process, associated with NaOH production in DAC1, will result in the production of a huge amount of Cl2 gas (4.6–7.9 Gt), far exceeding the current utilization capacity (76.8 Mt Cl2/yr) and posing risks which are difficult to evaluate a priori. In addition to the materials production energy cost, sorbents regeneration also drag a significant amount of heat and electricity. While DAC1 employs the less “energy-intensive” NaOH, the necessity of high temperature (>800 °C) for regeneration induces a larger energy usage (6.57–9.9 GJtotal/tCO2 (1.32–1.8 GJe/tCO2 and 5.25–8.1 GJh/tCO2), 6.25–9.41 TWtotal-yr = 34–51% TGES) (Fig. 2c). In contrast, even though the milder condition for sorbent regeneration in the DAC2 technology costs ~50% of that for DAC1 (3.5–6.6 GJtotal/tCO2 (0.6–1.1 GJe/tCO2 and 2.9–5.5 GJh/tCO2), 3.3–6.3 TW-yr = 18–34% TGES)11,12, 16.3–27.8 Gt of NH3 and 3.3–5.6 Gt of ethylene oxide (EO) will be necessary to produce the required amount of MEA (i.e. 5.1–8.7 Gt), which will consume 14.5–24.7 TWh-yr (28 GJh/tNH3 if produced only from natural gas13, 78–133% TGES) or 20.7–35.3 TWe-yr (40 GJe/tNH3 if produced only by electrolysis13, 112–190% TGES) and 2.6–4.1 TWtotal-yr (25 GJtotal/tEO, 14–24% TGES)14, respectively (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Energy and materials requirement for DACC—current status and prospects.
figure2

a Estimated materials required for CO2 (30 Gt) capture in DACC and compared to their current production. Estimated energy required for b material production and c sorbent regeneration. d Current and future energy mix with concomitant CO2 emissions.

From our analyses, DAC2 is clearly an unsuitable option to capture 30 Gt-CO2/yr, most likely due to enormous amount of materials (16.3–27.8 Gt of NH3 and 3.3–5.6 Gt of EO) and energy needed (20.4–35.1 TW-yr, 110–191% TGES if NH3 production from only natural gas is being considered). DAC1 also takes at least 8.4–13.1 TW-yr (46–71% TGES), excluding the potential environmental risks and the associated energy costs required for carbon storage and utilization (CSU)4. Since the replacement of every 10% TGES under the current energy status by low-carbon sources, such as nuclear, hydro, wind and solar, can reduce ~4 Gt-CO2/yr of emission (Fig. 2d), it is not logical to allocate low-carbon energy for DACC at present without accelerating the depletion rate of limited fossil fuels.

Considering the projected global energy demand to be increased at least by 50% before 205015, it is imperative that TGES cannot only be invested to harness the CO2 issue. While DACC (and CSU) technologies are an important topic of R&D and may indeed offer some commercial opportunities with incentivized carbon prices (given the surplus electricity is available), before a significant amount of carbon-neutral and/or low-carbon energy can be deployed, any DACC activities will be a significant distraction with negligible contributions to mitigating climate changes. Concentrated efforts on the deployment of low-carbon energy generation plants across the globe together with raising public awareness to use alternative energy and on the development of technologies in enhancing the energy usage efficiency (e.g. in transportation) must be prioritized to address the pressing twin problems of climate changes and energy security.

Finally, discerning the number of related challenges in DACC and CSU4,5, it is of utmost importance to conduct not only a thorough techno-economic analysis on the future proposed processes but comprehensive assessments on the materials and energy needs at the scale of multi-Gt-CO2/yr before a realistic solution can be identified. Wide-ranging discussions/debates between experts from all sectors from all angles are urgently needed.

Data availability

All relevant data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper.

References

  1. 1.

    International Energy Agency. CO 2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2018).

  2. 2.

    Sanz-Pérez, E. S., Murdock, C. R., Didas, S. A. & Jones, C. W. Direct capture of CO2 from ambient air. Chem. Rev. 116, 11840–11876 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Realmonte, G. et al. An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 10, 3277 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mac Dowell, N., Fennell, P. S., Shah, N. & Maitland, G. C. The role of CO2 capture and utilization in mitigating climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 243 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Majumdar, A. & Deutch, J. Research opportunities for CO2 utilization and negative emissions at the gigatonne Scale. Joule 2, 805–809 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    IPCC. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. In Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, 2014).

  7. 7.

    National Academies of Sciences. Engineering and Medicine. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2018).

  8. 8.

    Baciocchi, R., Storti, G. & Mazzotti, M. Process design and energy requirements for the capture of carbon dioxide from air. Chem. Eng. Process. 45, 1047–1058 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Boulamanti, A. & Moya, J. A. Energy Efficiency and GHG Emissions: Prospective Scenarios for the Chemical and Petrochemical Industry. EUR 28471 EN, https://doi.org/10.2760/20486 (Publications Office of the European Union, 2017).

  10. 10.

    International Energy Agency. Key World Energy Statistics 2019 (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2019).

  11. 11.

    Rochelle, G. et al. Aqueous piperazine as the new standard for CO2 capture technology. Chem. Eng. J. 171, 725–733 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Luis, P. Use of monoethanolamine (MEA) for CO2 capture in a global scenario: consequences and alternatives. Desalination 380, 93–99 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Giddey, S., Badwal, S. P. S., Munnings, C. & Dolan, M. Ammonia as a renewable energy transportation media. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 5, 10231–10239 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Nimkar Samir, C. Energy analysis of nitric acid ethylene oxide ethylene glycol process and methanol reactor. Conference Proceedings (2016). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Energy-Analysis-of-Nitric-Acid-Ethylene-Oxide-and-NimkarSamir/1e9a0ab78201344fce7c75aba1038893e9a1b3da.

  15. 15.

    Lewis, N. S. & Nocera, D. G. Powering the planet: chemical challenges in solar energy utilization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 15729 (2006).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

K.-W.H. and S.C. carried out the analysis and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuo-Wei Huang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chatterjee, S., Huang, KW. Unrealistic energy and materials requirement for direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat Commun 11, 3287 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17203-7

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing