Environment

US pours $3.5 billion into direct air capture hubs for carbon removal

US pours $3.5 billion into direct air capture hubs for carbon removal
The US is investing further in the technology needed to remove carbon dioxide from the air
The US is investing further in the technology needed to remove carbon dioxide from the air
View 1 Image
The US is investing further in the technology needed to remove carbon dioxide from the air
1/1
The US is investing further in the technology needed to remove carbon dioxide from the air

As part of its ambitions to move to a net-zero economy by 2050, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has been ramping up its plans to facilitate removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and drive down the cost of the technology required to do so. These efforts are set to receive a massive cash injection, with the Biden administration announcing US$3.5 billion in funding for a set of regional direct air capture hubs.

The announcement follows a string of far smaller investments that began with $22 million in 2020 and a further $24 million last year, designed to accelerate research into carbon capture technology. As part of the the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) signed by President Biden in November last year, the the DOE also announced its Carbon Negative Shot initiative. This is centered on deploying carbon capture technologies on a gigaton scale by 2050, by driving down the cost of carbon capture and storage to $100 per ton.

A gigaton is equivalent to one billion metric tons, and to put things into perspective, the world's largest direct air capture plant currently collects around 4,000 tons of CO2 each year. Humans pump out around 30 billion tons each year, while a single gigaton is about the amount generated annually by the US's entire light-duty vehicle fleet.

The DOE has today released a Notice of Intent, which acts as a kind of high-level draft ahead of an official funding opportunity announcement later in the year. The $3.5 billion in funding will go towards hubs that will act as regional centers for direct air capture projects, with applicants needing to demonstrate an ability to capture carbon from the atmosphere and store it. The DOE expects each of these hubs to permanently sequester a million metric tons of CO2 each year.

“The UN's latest climate report made clear that removing legacy carbon pollution from the air through direct air capture and safely storing it is an essential weapon in our fight against the climate crisis,” said US Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is funding new technologies that will not only make our carbon-free future a reality but will help position the US as a net-zero leader while creating good-paying jobs for a transitioning clean energy workforce.”

Source: US Department of Energy

4 comments
4 comments
spright
One volcano can totally ruin all these efforts. But go ahead, then send the CO2 to greenhouses, plants love CO2.
Tho instead of CO2, maybe bump up efficiency of motors, like with H2O vapor, or heck, use that water car Meyers invented.
Robert Kowalski
Carbon capture was around for decades, and all projects failed. Either haven't happened at all or stored tiny percentage of what was planned. At this point carbon capture project seem to be fig leaf of oil industry to pretend they are doing "something" to fight problem they caused, while really just buying time to take some more profit before disappearing in the fog with taxpayer holding the bag
ljaques
Yet they allow thousands of forest fires to go unchecked through the years, releasing all sorts of carcinogenic and toxic vapors, smoke, and CO2.
Why don't they spend that money on forest thinning and maintenance? It would additionally stop the beetles from eating all the dead trees from poor care.
Eddy
What a waste of taxpayer's money that will not even reduce the world temp a fraction of a degree. The population increase and so demand will stop any benefit.
We need a serious attempt to reduce the human presence to reduce it and maintain our standard of living but try selling that as a politician.