Oxford Institute for Energy Studies’ Post

A recent Oxford Institute for Energy Studies paper looks at the requirements for Scaling Direct Air Capture (DAC) 👉 Link to OIES paper: https://lnkd.in/eKDHqrZg Some key points: 🔹 Table below summarises the key requirements to deliver 1Mtpa of capture capacity 🔹 Requirements include a geographic location which has access to net-zero power and carbon storage is important 🔹 Both Liquid Direct Air Capture and Solid Direct Air Capture technologies have Mtpa equivalent footprints of hundreds of acres and require of the order of 2TWh per year of power (with a range around that central point estimate) 🔹 Most of the power required is for the heat cycle to release CO2 and regenerate the chemical reactants used for the capture process 🔹 Standard atmospheric pressures are preferred by both processes so high altitude locations are less likely to work well 🔹 Construction time for 1Mtpa scale plants is estimated at 2 years; this excludes front-end engineering design (FEED) which can take 12-24 months to complete 🔹 The 2-year construction time estimate also excludes permitting which depends on local and national regulation and policy as well as levels of public acceptance or resistance 🔹 Permitting might be quicker with government and public support, and government machinery that works effectively but complex projects and permitting regimes may take years, up to an upper limit of 5-7 years #directaircapture #carbonstorage #carbonmanagement #carbonremovals #decarbonization

  • No alternative text description for this image
Giulio Santori

Reader and Royal Academy of Engineering Industrial Fellow in Data Centre Cooling at The University of Edinburgh

9mo

In DAC, land depends on the energy source (renewable) way more than on the surface occupied by the DAC device. The renewable energy input (ultimately the land) is correlated with the technology efficiency, which in turns depends on the purity of the co2 produced. Any analysis decoupling these three factors (energy-dependent surface, efficiency, co2 purity) leaves the analysis ambiguous. The analysis mixes up heat and electrical energy, incorrectly. Heat should be converted in primary energy for a fair comparison.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics