Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Path to Low-Cost Direct Air Capture

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that under-$50-per-tonne direct air capture is achievable, and that the assessed monolith-sorbent technology already matches the cheapest generic path identified by a national cost study.

desk verdict A GT advocacy paper with real experimental data but a cost model that does not support its $50/tonne claim; the central NAS mapping is the authors' own, and the paper's own text admits the integrated process is not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15369 v1 pith:KCXRD3KV submitted 2024-11-22 physics.soc-ph physics.ao-ph

Peter Eisenberger , Matthew Realff This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phphysics.ao-ph
keywords directaircapturecarbondioxideremovalsolidsorbentmonolithcontactorsteamregenerationcostlearningcurvegigatonnescalelow-temperatureheat
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Direct air capture (DAC) is often dismissed as inherently expensive because CO2 in the atmosphere is so dilute. This paper argues the opposite: after air passes through a low-pressure-drop contactor, the dominant cost is regenerating the sorbent, and that cost stays near 4 gigajoules per tonne when steam keeps co-adsorbed water from evaporating. Combining measured fan, pressure-drop, uptake, and steam-sweep data with a simplified cost model, the authors claim a mature system can capture CO2 for under $50 per tonne, with a learning-curve floor around $25 per tonne. If that claim holds, DAC would be economically viable at the million-tonne scale, well before the gigatonne scale needed for climate protection, so today's pilot costs should not be the basis for policy decisions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a parallel-channel monolith contactor (a block of narrow channels whose porous walls carry the sorbent) run in a combined temperature-vacuum-concentration swing cycle with direct steam regeneration. The geometry gives laminar flow, a surface-area-to-volume ratio of thousands of square meters per cubic meter, and a channel-center-to-wall diffusion time under one second, so most incident CO2 reaches the sorbent at high air velocity with little pressure drop. Direct steam condensation delivers heat to the walls in seconds, acts as a sweep gas to keep the CO2 partial pressure low, and is the specific device that keeps water partial pressure at or above the adsorption value, preventing co-adsorbed water from being evaporated. That water-suppression step is what holds regeneration heat near 4 gigajoules per tonne; if ten times as much water as CO2 desorbed, the heat requirement would roughly triple. The fast cycling this enables also lets one regeneration station serve roughly ten adsorption panels, which is the step that turns capital cost into a mass-manufactured-product estimate near $150 per tonne of annual capacity.

What would settle it

Run an integrated monolith contactor through repeated adsorption and steam-regeneration cycles while metering water and CO2 leaving the module; if the water-to-CO2 molar ratio in the desorbed gas approaches ten rather than near zero under the claimed 70-100 degree Celsius steam conditions, the regeneration energy triples and the under-$50-per-tonne cost path fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cheapest generic DAC configuration from a major cost study is realizable: a parallel-channel monolith contactor whose porous walls hold the sorbent, capturing more than half the incoming CO2 from air moving at 3 to 5 meters per second with a pressure drop below 200 pascals, regenerated by direct contact with low-temperature steam. The steam heats the walls by condensing, sweeps the released CO2 out of the channels, and holds the water partial pressure high enough that co-adsorbed water does not have to be evaporated. From stage-level measurements, the paper estimates annualized capital cost of about $21 per tonne and total energy cost near $50 per tonne, with steam heat below 4 gigajoules per tonne and electrical demand around 400 kilowatt-hours per tonne; cogeneration with waste heat could bring the energy component to roughly $10 per tonne. Using a standard learning-curve law, it argues that $50 per tonne is reached within six to ten doublings of capacity, at a million-tonne-per-year scale, and that the relevant climate metric is therefore the learning-curve limit rather than current cost. The paper does not claim a commercial unit exists; it claims the critical performance parameters have been demonstrated separately and that no showstoppers are known.

Load-bearing premise

The whole cost projection rests on steam holding water on the sorbent during regeneration so that co-adsorbed water does not have to be evaporated; the paper itself notes that if ten times as much water as CO2 came off, the required heat would triple.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a million-tonne-per-year scale, capture cost can reach $50 per tonne, so DAC becomes commercially viable during the scaling phase rather than only after the full gigatonne build-out.
  • A 10-gigatonne-per-year DAC industry would need about 6 percent of projected 2050 global electricity generation, making low-carbon electricity supply a necessary complement to the technology itself.
  • Policy and investment decisions should treat the learning-curve limit of a DAC route, not its current pilot cost, as the relevant metric, because R&D can shift a technology onto a lower cost curve before capacity-driven learning begins.
  • With the current $130-per-tonne tax credit for sequestered CO2, a technology with capture cost below $50 per tonne is economically attractive even while it is still scaling.
  • The same monolith hardware can capture CO2 from flue gas at even lower cost, and the combined mode can remove roughly twice the CO2 emitted by the natural gas that powers it.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The decisive unresolved test is the water balance: if integrated field operation shows a water-to-CO2 desorption ratio near ten rather than near zero, the energy cost triples and the under-$50 route fails; this should be the first measurement target for any scale-up program.
  • Because the paper prices capture only, the full cost of permanent net removal including compression, transport, and sequestration will be higher than $50 per tonne; the headline number should not be read as the total cost of net-negative removal.
  • The six performance parameters the paper names suggest a direct way to compare rival DAC approaches: measure contacting rate, kinetics, regeneration speed, regeneration energy, energy cost, and airflow resistance in a standardized test, independent of company-specific cost claims.
  • If the separately demonstrated stages can be combined in one integrated unit without performance loss, the paper's central claim would move from plausible to demonstrated; that integration is the missing experimental step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that direct air capture (DAC) can reach costs below $50 per tonne of CO2, and possibly $18–25 per tonne at the learning-curve limit, by using low-pressure-drop monolith contactors with fast kinetics, steam-based regeneration, and manufacturing analogs such as truck or diesel-engine production. The authors present a simplified cost model, experimental data on pressure drop, CO2 uptake, and plug flow for Global Thermostat's contactors, and an appendix claiming that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study independently identified GT's patented approach as the lowest-cost DAC pathway. The paper concludes that GT has demonstrated the properties of the $25 per tonne NAS approach and that scaling should begin immediately, despite admitting that the stages have not yet been integrated into a single operating unit.

Significance. If the central claim were substantiated, the result would be highly significant: DAC at the claimed cost would change the economic feasibility of gigatonne-scale carbon removal and would directly inform policy decisions. The paper has some genuine strengths: the laminar-flow pressure-drop correlation and diffusion-time arguments are textbook physics, and the reported pressure-drop and uptake data are consistent with those standard correlations. However, the central quantitative conclusion depends on a chain of unvalidated assumptions and on an interpretation of the NAS report that the report itself does not support. The authors are also candid about a major unverified premise, the water co-desorption behavior, and about the lack of an integrated demonstration. Because the load-bearing claims are not backed by integrated experimental evidence or independent cost validation, the paper's significance for the stated policy conclusion is currently limited.

major comments (5)
  1. [Conclusion and Scaling section] The central claim that 'GT has demonstrated the properties of the $25 per tonne approach identified in the NAS study' is contradicted by the paper's own admission in the Scaling section: 'The performance demonstrated for each stage of the DAC process, together with heat management, has not yet been demonstrated in a single operating unit.' The NAS cost limit is an integrated-process cost, and component-level demonstrations (pressure drop in Fig. 3, uptake in Fig. 4, plug flow in Fig. 6, temperature profiles in Fig. 7) cannot establish that the integrated process will meet that cost target.
  2. [Appendix 1] The paper quotes NAS's statement that 'disregarding the lower bound as perhaps not realistically achievable' and that the middle range of scenarios yielded capture costs of $88–228 per tonne for a generic solid sorbent DAC system, yet it adopts the $18–25 per tonne lower bound as GT's learning-curve limit. This selective reading of the NAS report does not support the claim that NAS identified GT's approach as the lowest-cost path; in fact, the report explicitly cautions against treating the lower bound as realistic.
  3. [Analysis of GT DAC Technology (capital cost derivation)] The annualized capital cost of $21 per tonne relies on the unvalidated analogy between Class 8 trucks and diesel engines on the one hand and DAC contactors on the other, giving $15 per kg of device, together with the assumption of 1 tonne CO2 captured per kg of contactor per year. The paper provides no evidence for this productivity or unit-cost figure, and the resulting $21 per tonne is load-bearing for the under-$50 per tonne conclusion. The truck-manufacturing analogy is asserted, not demonstrated.
  4. [DAC Cost Analysis, 'A significant issue is whether water co-adsorbed with CO2 must also be desorbed...'] The steam energy cost of roughly $25 per tonne depends critically on the premise that water co-adsorbed on the sorbent does not desorb during regeneration because steam maintains a water partial pressure at or above the adsorption value. The paper argues this only qualitatively and explicitly concedes that if 10x the water desorbs, the heat requirement triples to 480 kJ/mol CO2. No integrated contactor-plus-regeneration experiment is presented to verify the premise, so the energy-cost claim is not empirically supported.
  5. [Appendix 1 (NAS comparison)] The assertion that the NAS's lowest-cost scenario 'is in fact the GT process' is made by the authors who developed and patented that approach, but the NAS report describes generic low-pressure-drop solid-sorbent configurations without identifying GT. This identification is therefore circular and is not independently established. The paper's conclusion that GT is on the lowest-cost learning curve follows only from this unsupported mapping.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Capturing the CO2 in the Air] In the derivation of the diffusion timescale and the removal fraction, the text writes 'C = (S/2)^2/D' and 'η = (1 − y^{−θτ})', which appear to be typographical errors for τ_diff = (S/2)^2/D and η = 1 − e^{−θτ}.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'contractors' instead of 'contactors' and includes the ambiguous phrase 'eg (9)', which likely refers to an equation number or reference but is not clear.
  3. [Energy Use section] The text reads 'the new electrical energy required is 10^19 joules or 27,80 TWh'; 10^19 J equals approximately 2,780 TWh, so the number appears to be a typographical error.
  4. [Learning Curve Cost Reductions] In the scaling formula C_x2 = C_x1 × (T2/T1)^a, the surrounding text says 'N is less than 1, usually taken about .6 or .7', but the exponent in the equation is written as 'a'; the notation should be made consistent.
  5. [References] References 2 and 3 are duplicates of the same source, and reference 8's title ('Flawed analysis of the possibility of air capture') does not match the cited PNAS article that is presumably intended.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central claim that GT has demonstrated the $25/tCO2 NAS approach reduces to an identity assertion by the authors, partly routed through a self-citation; the cost-model inputs are assumptions, not demonstrated.

  1. self definitional [Appendix 1, 'GT Technology Comparison by the National Academy of Sciences']
    "The lowest cost process identified by the National Academy directly parallels GT’s own patented approach. In other words, without using GT’s name (or anyone’s) the National Academy of Sciences has said that the approach, technology, and process GT has developed and patented is the best possible approach based on fundamental scientific principles that were described above, to achieve the lowest possible cost for direct air capture."

    The mapping from the NAS generic $18-25/tCO2 scenario to GT is made by the same authors who hold the GT patents; no independent identifier or integrated-process measurement is used. Later in the same appendix the paper states 'the lowest cost process the National Academy defined ... is in fact the GT process,' which is an identity assertion, not a derivation. The NAS number is thereby transferred to GT by stipulation: the authors define the lowest-cost path by their own A-F criteria, assert GT satisfies them, and then treat the NAS lower bound as GT's learning-cost limit.

  2. self citation load bearing [Appendix 1, 'Comparison Analysis' (NAS quote on p. 132)]
    "For solid adsorbents, low pressure drop configurations as preferred to the “honeycomb” structure of monoliths for automobile catalytic converters and other ultra-low pressure drop configurations are preferred motifs (Realff and Eisenberger,2012)."

    The paper presents the NAS report as an independent authority ('without using GT's name...'), but the NAS passage it relies on cites the present authors' own 2012 paper for the very monolith motif used to identify GT. The external validation is therefore partly a self-citation: NAS's preference for honeycomb monoliths traces to Realff and Eisenberger, the authors of this manuscript. This is load-bearing because the Appendix's conclusion that GT is the NAS lowest-cost approach depends on that motif identification.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Simplified DAC Cost Model, list A-F]
    "will be analyzed below and shown to be the critical performance parameters defining the lowest cost path in the NAS study. GT technology will be shown to satisfy A – F and thus is on the lowest cost path of under $25 per tonne for DAC identified in the National Academy of Sciences report on DAC presented in Appendix 1."

    The 'lowest cost path' is not independently characterized; it is defined by the paper's own list A-F, and GT is then asserted to satisfy that list. The $25/tCO2 NAS result is thus attached to GT by construction: any technology meeting the authors' chosen criteria is declared to be the NAS $25 scenario. The subsequent 'prediction' that GT can reach under $50/tCO2 inherits this stipulated identity rather than following from a measured integrated cost.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial non-circular engineering content: the laminar pressure-drop correlations, the mass-transfer model, the Wright's-law algebra, and the explicit caveat about water co-desorption are not themselves circular. The paper also concedes in the scaling section that 'The performance demonstrated for each stage of the DAC process, together with heat management, has not yet been demonstrated in a single operating unit,' and it quotes NAS as saying the $18/tCO2 lower bound is 'perhaps not realistically achievable.' Those concessions limit the evidential weight of the cost claims but do not by themselves constitute circularity. The circularity sits in the central claim: the paper asserts that NAS's lowest-cost $25/tCO2 scenario is GT's patented approach, uses NAS text that itself cites the authors' prior work (Realff and Eisenberger 2012) for the monolith motif, and defines the 'lowest cost path' by criteria A-F that GT is then said to satisfy. The $25 learning limit is thereby transferred to GT by authorial identification rather than by independent measurement or external classification. Because the cost model also relies on assumed productivity and energy inputs (e.g., one tonne CO2 per kg of contactor per year, $15/kg device cost, under 4 GJ/tonne steam), the under-$50 prediction is not forced by data. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the central identity claim reduces by construction, while the surrounding engineering analysis retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's cost target is assembled from a set of favorable numerical inputs and two strategic assumptions: water does not need to be desorbed, and manufacturing costs follow a truck analogy. None of these are derived from first principles or from an integrated demonstration. The learning-curve projection adds further chosen parameters. The independent NAS report is real outside evidence, but the mapping of GT onto the NAS case is the authors' own.

free parameters (7)
  • System pressure drop = 400 Pa total (200 Pa contactor + 200 Pa routing)
    Used to compute fan work of 300 kWh/tonne at 5 m/s; not measured for a full-scale system.
  • Fan efficiency = 80%
    Assumed; modest but favorable.
  • Electricity price = $0.025/kWh
    Used to convert energy to dollars; the paper notes renewable costs could be 1-2 cents.
  • Steam heat requirement = Under 4 GJ/tonne, target 3 GJ/tonne
    Combines 2 GJ/tonne desorption heat plus sensible heat; from unpublished GT thermal-mass measurements.
  • Contactor productivity = 1 tonne CO2 per kg contactor per year
    Critical capital-cost input; no system-level demonstration.
  • Device unit cost = $15/kg, Class 8 truck analog
    Capital-cost anchor; the contactor is assumed to be 10% of device weight.
  • Learning curve parameters = C1=$200 or $400, LR=0.25
    Chosen scenarios that reach $50/tonne in 6-10 doublings; no empirical fit for GT.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Steam can maintain water partial pressure during desorption so co-adsorbed water is not desorbed
    Load-bearing for 4 GJ/tonne heat; the paper states if 10x water must be desorbed, energy triples.
  • domain assumption Laminar flow mass-transfer correlation K=0.059/S and diffusion time apply without significant concentration polarization
    Used to compute capture fraction and productivity; supported by one small-scale GT plot.
  • domain assumption Heat of desorption near 80 kJ/mol CO2 and monolith sensible heat roughly doubles the heat load
    Basis for 2-4 GJ/tonne steam estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper Class 8 truck and diesel engine cost per kilogram are valid manufacturing analogs for DAC contactors
    Capital cost anchor; not an engineering cost estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper No showstoppers exist and remaining issues can be solved by R&D while scaling
    Used to justify immediate mobilization; explicit unsupported assertion.
  • domain assumption Wright's law with a 0.25 learning rate applies to GT's modular units
    Used to project $50/tonne after 6-10 doublings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Path to Low-Cost Direct Air Capture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KCXRD3KV

@misc{pith2026241115369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Path to Low-Cost Direct Air Capture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KCXRD3KV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15369}
}
read the original abstract

It is now accepted that gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) from the atmosphere are needed to avoid the threat of catastrophic climate change. Direct Air Capture (DAC) is a promising scalable CDR with a relatively small environmental footprint. But questions about DAC cost and energy use remain that are delaying the needed DAC policy decisions to create a mobilization effort like was done in the Manhattan Project and to address the Covid crisis. Global Thermostat (GT) has publicly claimed costs of under 50 dollars per tonne for mature GT technology deployed at a climate relevant scale. Why this low DAC cost is achievable will be addressed by a simplified analysis of generic DAC costs and using that analysis combined with experimental data to evaluate GT's DAC technology. A detailed cost analysis of different approaches to DAC by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found an approach to DAC that had a learning cost limit as low as 25 dollars per tonne GT's DAC technology will be shown in Appendix 1 to have the same performance characteristics of the lowest-cost DAC identified in the NAS study. Thus, like solar costs, DAC costs can be reduced by learning by doing, but in the case of DAC, only one order of magnitude in cost reduction is needed. Therefore DAC technology can reach its low learning by doing cost limit at a scale much smaller than necessary to address climate change. From a climate perspective, current DAC embodiments costs and scale have less relevance than their learning curve cost limit. While GT's technology has demonstrated the crucial performance parameters to achieve a low-cost DAC, no inference should be drawn that other approaches cannot achieve low or lower cost, if they can demonstrate the crucial performance parameters. Continued R&D on those performance parameters is needed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15369 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Price of selected materials (US$ per kg) as a function of the decreasing concentration of the final product in the initial raw material. The red line shows where the price of DAC CO2 lies if it obeyed Sherwood (thousands of $/tonne) compared to the flue gas scrubber price. Source: Adapted from Dwyer (1984-957) CXSST (1987:22) This misunderstanding has delayed the recognition of DAC’s potential role in addressing the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GTs contractor. The walls are porous and contain the selective sorbent The basic properties of such a contactor can be specified by three geometrical parameters ● Size of the channel S opening (m) ● The thickness of the walls W (m) ● The surface area per volume 𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(/m) is 𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 4𝑆𝑆 (𝑊𝑊 + 𝑆𝑆)2 where S is 1 -2 mm and W is a small fraction of S, 𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 is thousands of square meters per cubic meter. Note it is ind… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. – The above data was taken under the conditions (𝑣𝑣= 5 m/s, L = 0.15m, 𝛥𝛥𝑃𝑃 < 150 Pa). In 15 minutes, 40L of CO2 at 400 ppm (0.04%) enters the contactor with a frontal area of 36 in2 (0.0225 m2 ). It takes less than .025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GT’s CO2 regeneration process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results for CO2 collection during GT’s steam sweep collection step. The contactor front temperature rises quickly for all velocities of steam at 40 seconds. The back temperature rises to the right as shown by the second curve of the same color. The delay in steam break…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: GT’s Batch Process moving system. There are 10 contactor panels, each moving through 9 stations in adsorption before entering the Regen collecting station While from the climate perspective, it is ideal to use renewable energy, in the lengthy transition period, natural…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The monolith panels spend 8 stations absorbing CO2 from the air, one station absorbing CO2 from flue gas, and one station collecting CO2. The insert on the lower left represents actual measurements showing a 50% increase in CO2 adsorption in the 9th station. Natural ga…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: GT’s continuous movement system - CDAC How high and wide the monolith panels should be to scale up the GT’s CDAC process and how to arrange the scaled-up system so they do not process depleted air is beyond the scope of this paper. But it is something all DAC technolo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (2019, August 29)

    Soltoff, B. (2019, August 29). Inside ExxonMobil's hookup with carbon removal venture Global Thermostat. GreenBiz. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.greenbiz.com/article/inside- exxonmobils-hookup-carbon-removal-venture-global-thermostat

    work page 2019

  2. [4]

    Considering technology characteristics to project future costs of direct air capture

    Sievert, Katrin, et al. “Considering technology characteristics to project future costs of direct air capture.” Joule, 01 March 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.02.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.joule.2024.02.005 2024

  3. [6]

    Technical Change Theory and Learning Curves: Patterns of Progress in Energy Technologies

    Jamasb, Tooraj. “Technical Change Theory and Learning Curves: Patterns of Progress in Energy Technologies.” Research Gate, April 2006, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Learning-elasticities- and-rates-for-mature-technologies_tbl1_4998971

    work page 2006

  4. [7]

    Emergency deployment of direct air capture as a response to the climate crisis

    Hanna, Ryan, et al. “Emergency deployment of direct air capture as a response to the climate crisis.” Nature Communications, 14 January 2021, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20437-0

    work page 2021

  5. [8]

    J., & Eisenberger, P

    Realff, M. J., & Eisenberger, P. (2023, June 16). Flawed analysis of the possibility of air capture. YouTube. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1203618109

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1203618109 2023

  6. [9]

    Lackner, K. S. (2013, February 1). The thermodynamics of direct air capture of carbon dioxide. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://asu.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/the- thermodynamics-of-direct-air-capture-of-carbon-dioxide

    work page 2013

  7. [10]

    Keith, D. W. (2012, September 13). An air-liquid contactor for large-scale capture of CO2 from air. PubMed. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22869804/

    work page arXiv 2012

  8. [11]

    (2021, March 25)

    DOE Announces Goal to Cut Solar Costs by More than Half by 2030. (2021, March 25). Department of Energy. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-a nnounces-goal- cut-solar-costs-more-half-2030

    work page 2021

Show all 26 references
  1. [12]

    (2018, January 19)

    Brown, T. (2018, January 19). The capital intensity of small-scale ammonia plants – Ammonia Energy Association. Ammonia Energy Association. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/the-capital-intensity-of-small-scale-ammonia-plants/

    2018

  2. [13]

    DAC Company Members Directory. (n.d.). Direct Air Capture Coalition. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://daccoalition.org/dac-company-members-directory/ 30

    2023

  3. [14]

    (2022, May 26)

    Hyatt, B. (2022, May 26). Department of Energy Announces Significant Investment in Direct Air Capture. JD Supra. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/department-of-energy-announces-3583842/

    2022

  4. [15]

    Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. (n.d.). The National Academies Press. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25259/negative-emissions-technologies-and-reliable- sequestration-a-research-agenda

    2023

  5. [17]

    Larsen, J., Herndon, W., & Grant, M. (n.d.). Capturing Leadership. Rhodium Group. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://rhg.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/Rhodium_CapturingLeadership_May2019-1.pdf

    2023

  6. [18]

    M., Cohen, R

    Eisenberger, P. M., Cohen, R. W., & Jones, C. W. (2023, June 16). Global Warming and Carbon- Negative Technology: Prospects for a Lower-Cost Route to a Lower-Risk Atmosphere. YouTube. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830509789625374?...

    2023 doi

  7. [19]

    Realff, M. (n.d.). Scaling up Direct Air Capture: Protect the Climate and Create Economic Prosperity. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f87568f1d6c5b6fd770af0b/t/5fb31d807f660d78bad6b346/1 605574022092/DAC-Climate-Mobilization-Report-20201116.pdf

    2023

  8. [20]

    Department of Energy

    U.S. Department of Energy. (2016, November 1). Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants. EIA. Retrieved December 7, 2023, from https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capcost_assumption.pdf

    2016

  9. [21]

    M., & Culham, J

    Bahrami1, M., Yovanovich2, M. M., & Culham, J. R. (n.d.). Pressure Drop of Fully-Developed, Laminar Flow in Microchannels of Arbitrary Cross-Section. Microelectronics Heat Transfer Laboratory. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from http://www.mhtlab.uwaterloo.ca/pdf_papers/mhtl05-5.pdf

    2023

  10. [22]

    Mostinsky, I. L. (n.d.). MASS TRANSFER. Thermopedia. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from http://www.thermopedia.com/content/940/

    2023

  11. [23]

    Concentration polarization. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_polarization

    2023

  12. [24]

    Langmuir adsorption model. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved December 7, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langmuir_adsorption_model 31

    2023

  13. [25]

    (2023, March 8)

    Eisenberger, P., & Mackler, S. (2023, March 8). Mobilizing for Carbon Removal. RealClearEnergy. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/03/08/mobilizing_for_carbon_removal_885901.html

    2023

  14. [26]

    S., & Azarabadi, H

    Lackner, K. S., & Azarabadi, H. (2023, June 16). Buying down the Cost of Direct Air Capture. YouTube. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c04839

    2023 doi

  15. [27]

    I-P, T. (n.d.). AIAA Journal. Wikipedia. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_Aeronautical_Sciences

    2023

  16. [28]

    Wright, T. P. (2023, June 16). Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes. YouTube. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.2514%2F8.155

    2023

  17. [29]

    T., & Lopatnikov, A

    Baumann, C. T., & Lopatnikov, A. (n.d.). Scaling Laws: Uses and Misuses in Industrial Plant and Equipment Replacement Cost Estimates. evcValuation. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://evcvaluation.com/scaling-laws-uses-and-misuses-in-industrial-plant-and-equipment- replac...

    2023

  18. [30]

    (2018, May 29)

    Jones, N. (2018, May 29). Waste Heat: Innovators Turn to an Overlooked Renewable Resource. Yale E360. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://e360.yale.edu/features/waste-h eat-innovators- turn-to-an-overlooked-renewable-resource

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.