Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Understanding environmental trade-offs and resource demand of direct air capture technologies through comparative life-cycle assessment

An Addendum to this article was published on 03 July 2023


Direct air capture (DAC) technologies remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from ambient air through chemical sorbents. Their scale-up is a backstop in many climate policy scenarios, but their environmental implications are debated. Here we present a comparative life-cycle assessment of two main DAC technologies coupled with carbon storage: temperature swing adsorption (TSA) and high-temperature aqueous solution (HT-Aq) DAC. Our results show that TSA DAC outperforms HT-Aq DAC by a factor of 1.3–10 in all environmental impact categories studied. With a low-carbon energy supply, HT-Aq and TSA DAC have a net carbon removal of up to 73% and 86% per ton of CO2 captured and stored. For the same climate change mitigation effect, TSA DAC needs about as much renewable energy and land occupation as a switch from gasoline to electric vehicles, but with approximately five times higher material consumption. Input requirements for chemical absorbents do not limit DAC scale-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Comparative environmental analysis of the reference case (current technology) for HT-Aq and TSA DAC technologies, respectively.
Fig. 2: Sensitivity analysis of main environmental pressure indicators as a consequence of plausible changes in crucial process parameters.
Fig. 3: Scale-up scenario for 1 Mt CO2 captured per year for the two DAC technologies.
Fig. 4: Technology scale-up comparison.

Data availability

The complete process inventories for the two DAC technologies studied are available and documented in Supplementary Data 1 and 2. The data and assumptions behind the 1 Gt scale-up analysis are documented in Supplementary Data 3, as well as all numerical values plotted in the figures.

Code availability

The OpenLCA process models for different cases of HT-Aq DAC and TSA DAC are provided on Zenodo at To rerun the LCA calculations, OpenLCA (freeware) and the Ecoinvent 3.5 database (license required) need to be installed on a standard desktop computer or laptop with at least 8 GB RAM.


  1. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).

  2. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  3. Socolow, R. et al. Direct Air Capture of CO2 With Chemicals: A Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs (American Physical Society, 2011).

  4. Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions—Part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 63001 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanna, R., Abdulla, A., Xu, Y. & Victor, D. G. Emergency deployment of direct air capture as a response to the climate crisis. Nat. Commun. 12, 368 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (eds Metz, B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

  7. Wang, T., Lackner, K. S. & Wright, A. Moisture swing sorbent for carbon dioxide capture from ambient air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 6670–6675 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Marcucci, A., Kypreos, S. & Panos, E. The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: energy transition and the role of direct air capture. Climatic Change 144, 181–193 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Viebahn, P., Scholz, A. & Zelt, O. The potential role of direct air capture in the German energy research program—results of a multi-dimensional analysis. Energies 12, 3443 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fasihi, M., Efimova, O. & Breyer, C. Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants. J. Clean. Prod. 224, 957–980 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Salmón, I., Cambier, N. & Luis, P. CO2 capture by alkaline solution for carbonate production: a comparison between a packed column and a membrane contactor. Appl. Sci. 8, 996 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. House, K. Z. et al. Economic and energetic analysis of capturing CO2 from ambient air. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20428–20433 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fuhrman, J. et al. Food-energy-water implications of negative emissions technologies in a + 1.5 °C future. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 920–927 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Keith, D. W., Holmes, G., St. Angelo, D. & Heidel, K. A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Joule 2, 1573–1594 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Realmonte, G. et al. Reply to ‘High energy and materials requirement for direct air capture calls for further analysis and R&D’. Nat. Commun. 11, 3286 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chatterjee, S. & Huang, K.-W. Unrealistic energy and materials requirement for direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 11, 3287 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. de Jonge, M. M., Daemen, J., Loriaux, J. M., Steinmann, Z. J. & Huijbregts, M. A. Life cycle carbon efficiency of direct air capture systems with strong hydroxide sorbents. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 80, 25–31 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu, C. M., Sandhu, N. K., McCoy, S. T. & Bergerson, J. A. A life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from direct air capture and Fischer–Tropsch fuel production. Sustain. Energy Fuels 4, 3129–3142 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Deutz, S. & Bardow, A. Life-cycle assessment of an industrial direct air capture process based on temperature-vacuum swing adsorption. Nat. Energy 6, 203–213 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Budinis, S. Direct Air Capture (International Energy Agency, 2020).

  22. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: a Research Agenda (National Academies Press, 2019);

  23. Hertwich, E. G. et al. Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6277–6282 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McQueen, N. et al. Cost analysis of direct air capture and sequestration coupled to low-carbon thermal energy in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 7542–7551 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bahar, H. & Bojek, P. Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) (International Energy Agency, 2020).

  26. Sandalow, D., Friedmann, J., McCormick, C. & McCoy, S. Direct Air Capture of Carbon Dioxide (Innovation for Cool Earth Forum, 2018).

  27. 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 

  28. Singh, B., Strømman, A. H. & Hertwich, E. G. Comparative impact assessment of CCS portfolio: life cycle perspective. Energy Procedia 4, 2486–2493 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hanssen, S. V. et al. The climate change mitigation potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1023–1029 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Querini, F., Dagostino, S., Morel, S. & Rousseaux, P. Greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles associated with wind and photovoltaic electricity. Energy Procedia 20, 391–401 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kätelhön, A., Meys, R., Deutz, S., Suh, S. & Bardow, A. Climate change mitigation potential of carbon capture and utilization in the chemical industry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11187–11194 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gibon, T., Arvesen, A. & Hertwich, E. G. Life cycle assessment demonstrates environmental co-benefits and trade-offs of low-carbon electricity supply options. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 76, 1283–1290 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Non-exhaust Particulate Emissions from Road Transport: An Ignored Environmental Policy Challenge (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2020).

  34. Heck, V., Gerten, D., Lucht, W. & Popp, A. Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 151–155 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Creutzig, F. et al. Considering sustainability thresholds for BECCS in IPCC and biodiversity assessments. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 13, 510–515 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gabrielli, P., Gazzani, M. & Mazzotti, M. The role of carbon capture and utilization, carbon capture and storage, and biomass to enable a Net-Zero-CO2 emissions chemical industry. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59, 7033–7045 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Davis, S. J. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science (2018).

  38. Carton, W., Lund, J. F. & Dooley, K. Undoing equivalence: rethinking carbon accounting for just carbon removal. Front. Clim. (2021).

  39. Kearns, J. et al. Developing a consistent database for regional geologic CO2 storage capacity worldwide. Energy Procedia 114, 4697–4709 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Arvidsson, R. et al. Environmental assessment of emerging technologies: recommendations for prospective LCA. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 1286–1294 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. ISO 14044:2006 Umweltmanagement—Ökobilanz—Anforderungen und Anleitungen (International Organization for Standards, 2006).

  42. ISO 14040:2006 Umweltmanagement—Ökobilanz—Grundsätze und Rahmenbedingungen (International Organization for Standards, 2006).

  43. Direct air capture to help reverse climate change. Climeworks (2020).

  44. von der Assen, N., Voll, P., Peters, M. & Bardow, A. Life cycle assessment of CO2 capture and utilization: a tutorial review. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 7982–7994 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hauschild, M. Z. et al. Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 683–697 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Holmes, G. et al. Outdoor prototype results for direct atmospheric capture of carbon dioxide. Energy Procedia 37, 6079–6095 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pehnt, M. & Henkel, J. Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage from lignite power plants. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 3, 49–66 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Steubing, B., Wernet, G., Reinhard, J., Bauer, C. & Moreno-Ruiz, E. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part II): analyzing LCA results and comparison to version 2. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1269–1281 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


K.M. was supported by a grant from the Eva Mayr-Stihl Foundation under the PROSET project. We thank G. Realmonte for providing additional references for DAC material consumption.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



K.M., S.P. and F.C. co-designed the research and jointly wrote the paper. S.D. compiled the process inventories for the TSA DAC plant and conducted the LCA for this technology. K.M. compiled the process inventories for the HT-Aq DAC, conducted the comparative LCA, prepared the figures and compiled the supplementary material. S.P. developed the 1 Gt scale-up comparison with other technology pathways.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kavya Madhu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Derrick Carlson and the other, 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.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1–5, Figs. 1–11, Discussion and Tables 1–7.

Supplementary Data 1

Ancillary calculations and numerical values for HT-Aq DAC.

Supplementary Data 2

Ancillary calculations and numerical values for TSA DAC.

Supplementary Data 3

Ancillary calculations and numerical values shown in plots and Table 3.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Madhu, K., Pauliuk, S., Dhathri, S. et al. Understanding environmental trade-offs and resource demand of direct air capture technologies through comparative life-cycle assessment. Nat Energy 6, 1035–1044 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


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