top of page
Natalie Dias

Carbon Capture: Future or Facade?



It’s not a new statement that carbon dioxide levels are rising. At this point, people love to treat it like another recurrence in the daily paper, another combination of letters to make us fear the future. Perhaps you have wondered why humans, who have the brilliance to both develop the iPhone 16 and figure out how to destroy a country, haven’t been able to solve our massive carbon problem. Even if we stopped producing carbon today, over 900 gigatons of carbon would be left in the atmosphere for centuries, devastating the environment. But along with the crazy innovations our world currently has, it turns out we’ve been doing this for decades.


This solution is carbon capture, the process of moving carbon from the sky to the ground. Currently, it can only work with carbon straight from one source—flue gas. This toxic mixture of CO2, nitrogen, and water is the thick smoke billowing from the top of factory stacks or car exhaust—pollution at its finest. This CO2 is then filtered and transported in pipes to wells or naturally occurring rock spaces deep underground for storage, which would ideally be able to store the carbon safely for hundreds of years to come.


Despite being available since the 70s, it has only come to light recently due to a policy push. The idea has become popular due to the Paris Agreement, signed on April 22—Earth Day—in 2016. Since our world temperature is predicted to increase by three degrees Celsius or more, this policy aims to keep levels beneath two degrees. It also highlights the need to remove 10-20 gigatons of carbon per year. This proves difficult for large polluters but creates room for a solution, and an industry.


“Everyone who is burning gas or oil at this point would have to pay [companies] to capture their carbon,” says Miguel Appleman, a San Mateo High School AP Environmental Science teacher. However, he does not see it as a viable solution to the climate crisis. “It’s an energy-intensive process and often that energy comes from putting more carbon in the atmosphere. It’s too costly.” Unfortunately, many carbon capture companies burn fossil fuels to power their plants, perpetuating the pollution. He adds: “It is of necessity a subject that we have to research and figure out because we have not controlled our carbon emissions.”


In fact, research has led to completely new innovations in the field. One company has successfully established itself as a major player in the field in just four years. Heirloom Carbon, located in Tracy, California, has not only revolutionized the industry market but has pioneered an alternative to carbon capture’s limitations. Instead of using the location-based process to sequester carbon, the company dared to dream bigger, emphasizing direct air capture instead. The process is just as it sounds—instead of being captured at its source, the carbon can be captured from virtually anywhere.


Christian Theuer knows this better than anyone. As a representative of Heirloom and an avid believer in the possibilities of direct air capture, he understands the process to a tee. “Direct air capture is…decoupled from any polluting industry,” he describes. Heirloom’s air capture uses limestone, naturally composed of carbon dioxide, to pull the CO2 from the atmosphere.


One of the Earth’s most abundant rocks, limestone is composed of calcium oxide (CaO) and CO2. Heirloom places plates of carbon dioxide outside to absorb CO2 and form limestone, heats it to remove the CO2 and repeats the process. “The limestone never leaves Heirloom’s facilities - we use it as a sponge,” Theuer assures. And energy concerns aren’t a problem for the company. It’s all “powered by 100% wind and solar.”

Safety may be a problem for carbon capture, but direct air capture is ready to be used everywhere. “Chalk, to concrete, to toothpaste [has limestone],” Christian remarks. “It’s very well understood, and very safe.” Heirloom has also proven that direct air capture has enormous potential. While their one California facility “captures up to 1000 tons of carbon dioxide per year,” two are being built “in Louisiana that will remove 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.”


But what truly makes Heirloom unique is its speed and repurposing of carbon. “In nature, that [limestone] binding process can take years,” states Theuer. “Heirloom speeds that process up just to happen in 3 days.” The durability of limestone also makes the process entirely self-contained in the facility. Of course, this excludes the export of carbon. But instead of pumping it straight into the ground, which raises space concerns, Heirloom takes a strategic approach. By partnering with the concrete company CarbonCure, they embed the CO2 in concrete, which “goes into infrastructure…in the Bay Area.” The carbon and cement industry is one of the world’s biggest polluters, and solutions like this are helping mitigate emissions. Outside of Heirloom, carbon is also being incorporated in products such as fiber, plastics, and even sporting goods.


The media and researchers alike have raised concerns about the process of removing carbon as a whole. For one, carbon and direct capture do nothing to reduce the amount of carbon being produced. To many, the process seems to be another way of oil companies to shield themselves from the scrutiny of the public by claiming they are ‘carbon neutral,’ when in reality they continue to contribute massive amounts to the atmosphere. While these companies affirm they use these processes efficiently, often the specifics behind their methods are not detailed, making one wonder if they are even capturing the carbon sustainably. 


Fossil-fuel-perpetuated ideas are also scattered amidst the vague promises of carbon removal. Even Heirloom’s website states that “carbon removals are a powerful tool for addressing your carbon footprint,” a term that redirects blame on the individual and not the larger companies responsible for the rising temperatures in the first place.

Additionally, carbon capture only targets carbon, but other toxic gases such as methane are changing our atmosphere as well. In fact, annual methane emissions are currently around 348 million megatons, an amount that requires 696,000 trees to offset. 

The system of carbon credits–widely used by Heirloom and others—also falls under questioning. The idea is meant to remove emissions from companies who purchase carbon removal services—$1 for 1 kg. This system can be taken in both a positive and negative light, because while it creates an economy, it profits off something that encourages companies to keep polluting and move away from finding sustainable solutions themselves.


Whether or not it benefits the environment, it is impossible to argue the industry isn’t growing. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics demonstrates that green energy careers are growing at twice the rate of others, and carbon and direct air capture is making a name for itself. Heirloom in particular has big plans for the future. “This is going to be a really large industry over the next 10, 20 years, as more buyers purchase carbon dioxide to meet their own climate goals,” Theuer asserts. “Heirloom is going to scale from where we are today to removing billions of tons of carbon dioxide. And we're going to do it all around the world. By 2050 we’re going to be one of the solutions that limit global temperature rise.”


Appleman also notes the growth of other energy fields. “I believe wind power is the most economical way of generating electricity that we have,” and “solar is increasingly efficient and cost-effective,” he claims. “I don’t think that there is a miracle…methodology  out there for generating electricity.”  Even Theuer agrees there is no one-size-fits-all  solution, emphasizing an “all of the above approach.”


As the energy industry grows, carbon and direct air capture have made their way to the top of an extended discussion on the future of renewables. Our drive for cleaner solutions and the truth is visible in the turbines and solar-powered homes of modern society. But overall, it is important to remember that there will never be a perfect solution, and worse comes to worse, we will end up with a few Cybertrucks too many on the open road.


10 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page