Direct Air Capture is cheaper than you think
The rate of technological progress makes publishing estimates tricky.
Yesterday a new study from ETH Zurich was shared widely that estimated the cost of Direct Air Capture with storage (DACCS) won’t reach 340 USD per tonne (226–835 USD confidence interval) until a 1 billion ton per year deployment level. This is a much higher cost than other estimates.
DACCS costs from some companies are already close to, or at this level. The ETH Zurich study by Sievert, Schmidt &Steffen looked at three different “DAC 1.0” methods. But we are already at DAC 3.0 to borrow Jonte Boysen & Torben Schreiter’s wording. There are over 80 different direct air capture companies using at least 10 different types of methods, able to reach much lower costs than the early iterations.
We are currently assessing proposals for prepurchases through the charitable Milkywire Climate Transformation Fund. The median price requested by 17 DAC suppliers for removed and permanently stored carbon is 530 USD. These suppliers, shortlisted for extended proposals, are all serious contenders.
Since this is all prepurchases there is some uncertainty, but suppliers are willing to sign legal agreements to deliver at these prices. They were also asked what their cost of removal was. Some claim their capture costs are significantly lower than 500 USD today (even below 200 USD) but ask for more to cover uncertainties and overhead. Others have higher costs in 2024 than the price they ask for but are so sure that costs will drop with the completion of their next facility that they can offer a lower price. It does not seem to be common to subsidize the capex and opex cost of carbon removal using other capital.
Of course, the companies have other overhead costs that are significant at an early stage, not the least R&D into improved tech, but that should not be included in cost estimates of removal. Note that some early DAC companies that ask for higher prices should not be excluded from support, the very first tonnes removed with a method are typically very costly.
Perhaps even more interesting is that these DAC companies estimated future cost is on average 137 USD/t (median 110 USD) already at a megaton (million) scale. This is at a 1000 times lower volume than the gigaton scale analyzed in the ETH Zurich study.
At CDR.fyi we saw the weighted average DACCS price go from 1261 to 715 dollar per tonne between 2022 and 2023, a 43% decrease. The dataset includes four companies—Mission Zero, Carbon Capture, Airhive, and Arbon—that have already sold DAC tonnes with storage for $320 to $580 per tonne, (all to Frontier / Stripe).
Boysen & Schreiter at Extantia also did work on modeling future costs of Direct air capture assuming learning rates looking from other technologies. Their results for DAC 1.0 is in line with the ETH Zurich study, but DAC 3.0 is in line with DAC companies own estimates (albeit a little bit slower in the model).
DAC is of course just one among many durable carbon removal methods. In our call for proposals at Milkywire, we are evaluating over 70 shortlisted CDR proposals across at least seven different pathways, most of which project future costs comparable to or lower than DAC.
If you want to support the acceleration of innovative carbon removal methods, the Milkywire Climate Transformation Fund welcomes additional donors and buyers. For more information, get in touch.
First published on Milkywire: https://www.milkywire.com/articles/direct-air-capture-is-cheaper-than-you-think
Hi Robert, Thank you for the detailed analysis of projections of the pricing and trends. You preface this by stating that DAC is cheaper than I (or we) think. I would add a few riders on how some of DAC’s precepts should demand to be examined:
• While trending in the right direction, DAC looks more expensive than it needs to be.
• It will remain that way while Rube Goldberg forms of redundant engineering and power usage are applied, adding capital cost, and wasting clean power.
o Two points clarify this view, as shown in a company’s engineering concept:
o Their artist’s depiction of their DAC facility had a long row of large wind turbines atop a range of hills, generating wind power,
o In front of this hill were large banks of fans, blowing air through box frames carrying trays of adsorbent material, using power generated up on the hill.
o Some parts of the world, where wind power also thrives, can sustain the higher availability of DAC plants among other operating advantages.
o Or does this type of plant have to be sited where the CO2 is used for Enhanced Fossil Oil Recovery instead of injection to deep-sea sites or ?
• This leads to economic considerations:
o The concept possibly doubles/triples the capital and operating costs of the facility, compared to putting the same boxes on the hill to catch the wind,
o making the intermittency of power and operating uptime more of a liability,
o adding opportunity cost and diminishing the downturn of fossil power use.
• Worst of all, the funds to build and pay for all these project excesses come out of taxpayer funds and the country’s fiscus, along with the share of “business returns” benefiting the shareholders of the DAC company. Is it not Clean Energy’s form of a Ponzi scheme?
• Will the whole train of costs and benefits ever be allowed to drop, as the theoretical graphic’s costs-per-ton drops to 10% of current levels by 2050, or is that too good a “gravy train” for big business to allow it to fade to nothing?