Microsoft Backs Direct Air Capture Player Climeworks (axios.com) 17
Microsoft this morning disclosed investments in more climate-related companies as part of efforts to make good on its year-old pledge to become "carbon negative" by 2030. From a report: One company the tech behemoth is staking is Climeworks, a firm looking to scale up deployment of direct air capture technology that removes CO2 already in the atmosphere. The size of the investment was not disclosed. Microsoft also revealed that it's a customer of the Swiss firm. "Through Microsoft's purchase of negative emissions from Climeworks, we will permanently remove 1,400 metric tons of carbon," Lucas Joppa, Microsoft's top environmental official, said in a blog post. It's part of a growing move by deep-pocketed companies and investors to back the fledgling direct air capture sector -- and pay them for carbon removal. The volumes currently being removed are a tiny drop in the bucket, but DAC could be among the technologies that eventually join the list of meaningful tools against warming. Another firm, Carbon Engineering, counts backers including Bill Gates, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum.
Climeworks' other investors and customers include e-commerce heavyweight Shopify.
I see a future (Score:2)
Where Wall-E is alone in a world with millions of machines pressing CO2 from the air into little black coal pellets and throw them on giant heaps of coal.
Re: (Score:2)
machines pressing CO2 from the air into little black coal pellets
Limestone, not coal. Some CO2 capturing schemes propose to pump the CO2 into layers of basalt where it reacts to form magnesium and calcium carbonate, which is limestone.
But that is not what Climeworks does. Climeworks sells the CO2 to greenhouse operators, who use it to boost plant growth.
Re: (Score:3)
Would it not be cheaper for the greenhouse operators just to burn some coal/wood/scrap themselves just to obtain some COS themselves? This does not appear to be a good business plan.
Re: (Score:1)
So their biggest competitors are coal plants who can just capture the CO2 right out of their exhaust pipes?
The coal plants are not co-located with the greenhouses. So capturing and sequestering the CO2 is a dead-loss unless they have a way to move it to where the demand is.
Climeworks co-locates their DAC modules right next to the greenhouses, so there is no pipe infrastructure or pumping needed.
Would it not be cheaper for the greenhouse operators just to burn some coal/wood/scrap themselves
Many greenhouses burn methane or propane to generate CO2. That is a net addition to the atmosphere which they avoid with Climeworks. Extracted CO2 is cheaper than methane, especially in Europe.
This does not appear to be a good business plan.
They also sell virtue-cre
Re: (Score:2)
But is it cheaper than wood (or coal) and how are those DAC modules powered in the first place?
None of that is covered by this link to axios.
Re: (Score:2)
But is it cheaper than wood (or coal)
Yes. Methane is cheaper than coal or wood. That is why methane is replacing coal for power, and wood is only used where it is heavily subsidized, such as in the UK. And CO2 is cheaper than methane. So CO2 is cheaper than coal and much cheaper than wood.
how are those DAC modules powered in the first place?
The CO2 is extracted from the air by a solution of NaOH (lye) to form Na2CO3. This is then reacted with Ca(OH)2 (lime) to form CaCO3. The CaCO3 is then tossed in a kiln and heated to separate it into CO2 and Ca(OH)2. The CO2 is then sold while the lime
1400T, eh? (Score:2)
Out of 9.7+ Gigatons per year....
Somehow, I can't be all that impressed with Microsoft's new, "cleaner than thou" image...
1400 tonnes = 2 seconds of coal burning (Score:4, Insightful)
The world's coal-fired power plants produce 1400 tonnes of CO2 every 2 seconds.
There are more than a dozen new coal power plants currently under construction. They will emit billions of tonnes of CO2 for a century.
Perhaps we should look for ways to stop that construction, rather than mitigating an inconsequential fraction of their emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
At first ... (Score:2)
Microsoft Backs Direct Air Capture Player Climeworks
At first I thought this was some sort of (probably soon to be failed) media thing, like a new Zune, called Climeworks. Don't know if the rest of TFS made me happy or sad it wasn't ...
In related news, I have several large direct air capture devices in my yard. Some are evergreen and some are deciduous.
Step 2: carbon tax (Score:2)
Funding direct air capture is really easy, all we have to do is tax carbon and mandate that all the money go into removing carbon. Since the very inception of pollution, companies have been free pollute without paying a dime and the outcome of this was predictable as it's the largest case of a tragedy of the commons.
Obviously, a carbon tax should be ramped up (to avoid collapsing markets) but it's absolutely vital as the coal, oil and gas corporations have proven that corporations will not change course of
Re: (Score:2)
Funding direct air capture is really easy, all we have to do is tax carbon
CO2 emissions are declining in America and Europe.
All new growth in emissions is happening in the developing world.
Good luck implementing your carbon tax in Indonesia and Nigeria.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck implementing your carbon tax in Indonesia and Nigeria.
Oh look, another fool who doesn't know about the power of import/export laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, another fool who doesn't know about the power of import/export laws.
How much do we import from Indonesia and Nigeria?
In both cases, their biggest export is oil, which is a fungible global commodity.
America has little influence on the energy policies of other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
America has little influence on the energy policies of other countries.
This is why we have thing like NATO. Apes together strong.