Capturing CO2 directly from the atmosphere is as unfeasible as a $10-per-gallon tax on gas

Jan 12, 2012 09:36 GMT  ·  By
Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro), on the north end of March Point southeast of Anacortes, Washington; experts note that capturing emissions directly from the air is insanely expensive
   Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro), on the north end of March Point southeast of Anacortes, Washington; experts note that capturing emissions directly from the air is insanely expensive

Trapping harmful pollutants directly from the atmosphere using chemicals sounds like a suitable solution to curb the appalling levels of air pollution.

However, research led by experts from Stanford and MIT clearly indicates that the plan is viable only on paper, since the prohibitive costs of this method make it unsuitable.

This theory is backed by a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, revealing that capturing emissions from local sources, like refineries, big power plants and cement factories, can draw up a much more cost-efficient path of fighting low air quality.

Experts have even managed to estimate the investments required by both methods and price differences are indeed noticeable. If the direct air capture is evaluated at $1,000 (€786), trapping CO2 from its sources through power-plant scrubbers currently implemented only needs ten times less, up to $100 (€78.6).

Even though the first strategy is largely praised by scientists and considered somehow a modern Holy Grail, the same study reveals that applying it would burn a hole in our pockets just like a $10-per-gallon tax on gasoline.

Moreover, it would require a great amount of energy and taking it from traditional sources could mean that a higher concentration of CO2 could be emitted during the process, annihilating all efforts.

At this point in time, capturing and collecting emissions from power plants seems like a feasible alternative, mostly since a team of experts has already tested a cheap polymer suitable for this job.

In order to eradicate air pollution, governments have to find new means of shifting countries away from coal-burning processes.

"The concentration of CO2 in outside air is 300 times less than in the coal-fired flue gases emitted from a power plant. The lower atmospheric concentration makes removal from air much more expensive than removing CO2 directly from the flue gases at the source," explained Jennifer Wilcox, an environmental researcher and one of the co-authors of the study.