Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Technology

Surprise! Climeworks Unveils Newer, Faster, Cheaper Tech

Twice the carbon capture with half the energy.

A Climeworks rendering.
Heatmap Illustration/Climeworks

Direct air capture is leveling up. In a surprise move on Tuesday, Climeworks unveiled new “generation 3” technology that it said can suck up twice as much carbon from the atmosphere using half the amount of energy as its previous designs.

The Swiss carbon removal company will premiere the new design in the U.S. at its Department of Energy-funded direct air capture “hub” in Louisiana, with construction to start in 2026.

Climeworks already operates the two largest direct air capture plants in the world, both in Iceland. Its first commercial-scale plant, Orca, was designed to capture 4,000 tons of CO2 per year. Just last month, the company turned on its second plant, Mammoth, which at full capacity is supposed to capture 36,000 tons per year. Now, Climeworks’ third generation breakthrough paves the way for it to build a plant capable of capturing one million tons per year, the company said — a nearly 28x increase.

Over the past five years, while Climeworks was building Orca and Mammoth, it had also been stealthily developing the next generation tech at its labs in Zurich and Basel with a 50-person team. Like the earlier designs, the new system uses a specially engineered material called a solid sorbent that attracts carbon dioxide molecules when air passes through it. But the company has overhauled both the chemistry of the sorbent and its structure. The new design has more surface area, enabling it to grab twice as much CO2 from the air. The company also said it expects the new sorbents to last three times as long as the previous material.

In addition to a new sorbent, the gen 3 tech will also feature an updated architecture described as “sleek modular cubes” that “increase capture efficiency, reduce costs, and boost robustness.” The new cubes will make the plants more compact, taking up half the footprint of an older plant with similar capacity. Renderings feature seemingly taller, boxier facilities compared to the earlier, more horizontally-oriented design.

A rendering of Climeworks\u2019 Gen 3 plant.Courtesy of Climeworks

Climeworks has already tested a full-scale model of its new cubes and says it has “confirmed the anticipated breakthrough in efficiency and performance.” It’s hard to know what that means, since the company has never shared its previous tech’s efficiency or performance. But halving its energy use would be a big deal, as that’s one of the most expensive parts of the process. Carbon is extremely dilute in the air, and these machines consume massive amounts of electricity and heat to extract it.

The company said the breakthrough puts it on track to achieve the cost reductions it has previously promised, with a goal of removing CO2 for $400 to $600 per ton by 2030. (The price range accounts for potential variations in the cost of electricity and CO2 storage in different locations.) That’s about half the amount Climeworks charges today, but it’s still expensive. Some carbon removal companies, like Lithos Carbon, which does enhanced rock weathering, and Vaulted Deep, which buries carbon-rich waste, have already sold credits for less than $400, so Climeworks already faces steep competition to bring its costs down.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect clarification from Climeworks on its 2030 price estimate per ton of carbon.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
A destroyed house and a blueprint.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Recovering from the Los Angeles wildfires will be expensive. Really expensive. Insurance analysts and banks have already produced a wide range of estimates of both what insurance companies will pay out and overall economic loss. AccuWeatherhas put out an eye-catching preliminary figure of $52 billion to $57 billion for economic losses, with the service’s chief meteorologist saying that the fires have the potential to “become the worst wildfire in modern California history based on the number of structures burned and economic loss.” On Thursday, J.P. Morgan doubled its previous estimate for insured losses to $20 billion, with an economic loss figure of $50 billion — about the gross domestic product of the country of Jordan.

The startlingly high loss figures from a fire that has only lasted a few days and is (relatively) limited in scope show just how distinctly devastating an urban fire can be. Enormous wildfires thatcover millions of acres like the 2023 Canadian wildfires can spew ash and particulate matter all over the globe and burn for months, darkening skies and clogging airways in other countries. And smaller — and far deadlier fires — than those still do not produce the same financial roll.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Climate

Why the L.A. Fires Are Exceptionally Hard to Fight

Suburban streets, exploding pipes, and those Santa Ana winds, for starters.

Firefighters on Sunset Boulevard.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A fire needs three things to burn: heat, fuel, and oxygen. The first is important: At some point this week, for a reason we have yet to discover and may never will, a piece of flammable material in Los Angeles County got hot enough to ignite. The last is essential: The resulting fires, which have now burned nearly 29,000 acres, are fanned by exceptionally powerful and dry Santa Ana winds.

But in the critical days ahead, it is that central ingredient that will preoccupy fire managers, emergency responders, and the public, who are watching their homes — wood-framed containers full of memories, primary documents, material wealth, sentimental heirlooms — transformed into raw fuel. “Grass is one fuel model; timber is another fuel model; brushes are another — there are dozens of fuel models,” Bobbie Scopa, a veteran firefighter and author of the memoir Both Sides of the Fire Line, told me. “But when a fire goes from the wildland into the urban interface, you’re now burning houses.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Climate

What Started the Fires in Los Angeles?

Plus 3 more outstanding questions about this ongoing emergency.

Los Angeles.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

As Los Angeles continued to battle multiple big blazes ripping through some of the most beloved (and expensive) areas of the city on Thursday, a question lingered in the background: What caused the fires in the first place?

Though fires are less common in California during this time of the year, they aren’t unheard of. In early December 2017, power lines sparked the Thomas Fire near Ventura, California, which burned through to mid-January. At the time it was the largest fire in the state since at least the 1930s. Now it’s the ninth-largest. Although that fire was in a more rural area, it ignited for some of the same reasons we’re seeing fires this week.

Keep reading...Show less
Green