You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
DAC startup Holocene has a novel chemistry and backing from Breakthrough Energy and Frontier Climate.

Direct air capture companies are in a race to prove they can reduce the cost of removing carbon from the atmosphere down below $100 per ton. Now, one is closing in on the prize with a first-of-its-kind deal.
On Tuesday, Google announced it will pay the startup Holocene $10 million to remove 100,000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere, to be delivered “by the early 2030s.” The tech giant said the price point was made possible by the federal tax credit for carbon sequestration, and its own willingness to cough up the bulk of the funds upfront.
There’s no question the deal is risky on both sides. Today, most estimates place the cost of direct air capture at upwards of $600 per ton. Bringing the cost down is essential if the tech is ever going to play a meaningful role in tackling climate change. But even the companies that are farthest along, like the Swiss pioneer Climeworks, aren’t sure they will be able to offer a price of $100 per ton by 2030. Holocene has yet to build a commercial plant, so its ability to remove carbon for $100 per ton is pure projection at this point.
But for Google, the goal is more to catalyze a potentially important climate solution than to clean up its carbon footprint.
“The point of our program is to help Google reach net zero in whatever way most helps the world reach net zero,” Randy Spock, the company’s carbon credits and removals lead, told me in an email. “So this deal is an example of us identifying what the planet needs (long-term cost reduction for Direct Air Capture) and then doing what we can to help it take a step in that direction.”
Though Holocene is relatively new to the direct air capture market, it was started by veterans. Co-founders Anca Timofte and Tobias Rüesh spent roughly six years working in research and development at Climeworks back in its early days, when the company was building its first prototypes. Timofte left in 2020 to get an MBA at Stanford, and while there, came across some exciting research out of Oak Ridge National Laboratory that described a new approach to removing carbon from the ambient air — one that seemed to have distinct advantages. Seeing the potential, Timofte decided to start Holocene with Rüesh and another Stanford classmate and, in 2023, licensed the Oak Ridge technology.
“The chemistry from Oak Ridge is special,” Timofte told me. “It's different than all other chemistries, we think, in direct air capture.”
Most direct air capture systems fall into one of two categories, liquid or solid, and each approach has trade-offs. Liquid systems typically have simpler engineering and can capture CO2 continuously, but require more heat, and therefore more energy. Solid systems have lower heat requirements, but work sort of like cartridges that get “charged” with CO2 and have to be “discharged,” and therefore capture CO2 in batches rather than in perpetuity.
Timofte described Holocene’s process as the “best of both worlds.” It captures CO2 in water and operates in a continuous loop, but requires relatively low heat — between 70 to 100 degrees Celsius (158 to 212 degrees Fahrenheit) — which could potentially come from a source of waste heat like a data center. The enabling discovery was the use of two chemicals — an amino acid and a compound called guanidine — that attract CO2 and then further concentrate it within the water, making it easier and less energy-intensive to isolate so that it can be stored securely underground.
After licensing the tech, Holocene moved quickly. Within a year, the team had built a small pilot plant in Knoxville, Tennessee that’s capable of capturing about 10 tons of CO2 annually. That’s, of course, a totally insignificant amount, but it’s enough for the team to demonstrate its approach to potential funders and to keep testing variations on the basic chemistry to refine the system, Timofte told me.
Timofte said the company has made it this far with just over $6 million in grants and prizes from the Department of Energy, Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy, and Frontier Climate, a coalition of carbon removal buyers that includes Google in addition to other tech companies. The $500,000 that Holocene got from Frontier was technically a pre-purchase of 332 tons of removal, which would put the current cost per ton at roughly $1,500.
Frontier’s pre-purchases are not a precise indicator of price as they are meant to “pressure-test the viability of novel CDR solutions,” and are granted with the expectation that some ventures will fail. Still, even with a fresh influx of cash from Google and the prospect of a $180 per ton tax credit from the federal government, the company has a steep climb ahead. Timofte told me the team is beginning to fundraise to build their next project — a 2,000- to 5,000-ton per year demonstration plant. When asked about how it reached the $100 per ton deal with Google, she stressed that having a delivery date past 2030 was crucial to the deal.
The industry’s fixation on achieving $100 per ton is somewhat arbitrary. A 2019 National Academies of Sciences report found that estimates of the cost of capturing CO2 via direct air capture spanned “an order of magnitude, from $100 to $1,000” per ton. In 2021, the Biden administration’s Department of Energy set a goal to bring the cost of all kinds of carbon removal below $100 per ton, which seemed to solidify the goal across the field. In 2022, the nonprofit CarbonPlan surveyed carbon removal buyers, suppliers, and brokers, and found that $100 per ton was a common benchmark. “If cost were $100/ton, demand would be practically unlimited,” one supplier said. “Bringing down cost to $100/ton for CDR would be the sweet spot,” said a buyer. CarbonPlan pointed out, however, that the responses weren’t consistent on whether $100 per ton was the desired break-even point for carbon removal companies or the desired price for buyers.
“I think we focus too much on the cost of DAC,” Erin Burns, the executive director of the nonprofit Carbon180 told me when I asked her if $100 per ton was a meaningful goal. “Sure, DAC should and will get cheaper. But we need to also be thinking, right now, about things like renewable energy availability, infrastructure, and reducing emissions as quickly as possible.”
Finding clean sources of power for direct air capture is becoming more of an issue as companies try to scale. At the end of August, a startup called CarbonCapture Inc. announced it would try to relocate a commercial-scale project it had planned to build in Wyoming because it was struggling to procure enough clean energy to power the plant due to competition with data centers and cryptocurrency miners.
Timofte agreed that “clean electrons are hard to come by,” but added that Holocene’s potential to use waste heat might make it a little easier for the company.
“I don't want to dismiss the challenge. I think this is the challenge that everyone faces. We each have to solve it, and the solutions are going to be individual.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.