November 9, 2023

A First-Ever Commercial Plant Extracting Carbon from Air

Heirloom Carbon Technologies has opened the first commercial carbon capture plant in the U.S.  This key moment presages the start of what is widely expected to be an important new industry whose entire purpose is preventing the carbon emissions released by burning fossil fuels from destroying life on our planet.

Brad Plumer, writing in the New York Times, provides the details of this very small demonstration plant built in Tracy, California. It's an open air structure, with 40-foot racks holding hundreds of trays, each sprinkled with calcium oxide powder that turns into limestone when it binds with airborne carbon dioxide. This is a natural process that Heirloom is working to speed up.

Once the carbon dioxide is "captured" through the creation of the limestone, the company expects to heat up the limestone in a kiln at 1,650 degrees Fahrenheit, which then releases the carbon dioxide, where it  then gets pumpted in a storage tank, leaving the calcium oxide to be returned and reused on another set of trays. 

The carbon dioxide (called CO2) is expected to be transferred again to be permanently stored. For now, Heirloom is looking at the large concrete marketplace and working with CarbonCure, a company that was launched to mix CO2 into concrete to make concrete stronger by having it turn into limestone again where it will be permanently stored and reduce the carbon footprint of concrete (which ordinarily releases a lot of carbon emissions through its normal creation and use throughout the building industry).

Providing CO2 to CarbonCure has a value for sure but for now, that value is far below the costs of capturing the carbon.  Let's look at what these economics are now.  The Tracy facility will be able to absorb 1,000 tons of CO2 per year. At the estimated $50/tonne "social cost" of carbon, the Heirloom facility would earn $50,000 per year. Although Heirloom hasn't released info on its specific costs, those funding breakthrough carbon capture activity, such as Frontier (which includes Stripe, Alphabet, Shopify, Meta and McKinsey Sustainability), are typically paying between $500 and $2,500 per ton to accelerate innovation and market development. These high prices are intended to generate sufficient revenue for these early-stage ventures to actually cover their costs.  At $1000/ton, Heirloom could earn $1,000,000 per year.  However, Plumer estimates that Heirloom's actually costs may be in the range of $600 per ton or higher. 

Fortunately for Heirloom and other ventures working in this space, there are a lot of large corporations willing to spend millions to pay for "carbon removal credits" in what has been a voluntary carbon market to effectively be able to claim that they are reducing their carbon footprints. These corporations see reputational benefits from those outlays, even if they do not result in even meaningful actual carbon reductions at this stage. The Biden Administration is also getting into the act and awarded $1.2 billion to help Heirloom


The Heirloom carbon capture plant in Tracy, California

Many people still don't know much about carbon capture and storage, or what has been called "Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration" (CCUS).  There are a multitude of approaches being taken to capture carbon and, as a result, a plethora of acronyms have emerged. The approach used by Heirloom is now called Direct Air Capture (DAC) and specifically involve capturing CO2 out of the air but other approaches are simply called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and utilize a range of methods to bind that CO2 in a semi-permanent or permanent way, such as through marine-based CDR or natural processes such increasing the CO2 content in soils or accelerating the use of CO2 by plants, such as by growing crops or trees with the intention of having them capture the CO2.

Utilization of CO2 involves finding valuable ways to use that CO2 or just the carbon (C) from captured CO2. Ventures working on the utilization part of this process pose the prospects of having profitable business models. Nucleation Capital, as a climate-focused venture fund, recognizes that CCUS is a growth industry that is anticipated to become a large consumer of energy. We are following the activity in this nascent space and we are investing in some of the most promising approaches, especially where that approach has strong profit and growth prospects or where it intersects with the need for abundant clean energy.  While knowing all the acronyms isn't critical, there are a few key things to know about CCUS in general.

Key Facts to Know about CO2 and Carbon Capture, Utilization & Sequestration
  1. While CO2 itself is natural and not toxic (except in high doses), the enormous amount that we have polluted our atmosphere with by burning fossil fuels for energy is causing our climate to warm up at a very fast rate. We need CCUS in order to lessen and possibly reverse the rate of warming, so we can restore a healthy climate.
  2. All technological approaches to capturing carbon back out of the air or water are expensive and early stage. So are the approaches to carbon utilization and sequestration (i.e. methods to utilize and/or store the carbon so it doesn't get released back into the atmosphere).
  3. To stop making our climate crisis worse, we have to stop burning fossil fuels, as our highest priority mitigation effort. While some might think that capturing the carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels right at the point source may warrant continuing to burn fossil fuels, that will not enable us to use carbon capture to restore the damage already done, which is the primary rationale for CCUS.
  4. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, the amount of damage the long-lived CO2 pollution is causing the world will continue to heat the planet for decades or centuries. The only way to prevent that is by removing this excess CO2 pollution.
  5. Today, there are only a handful of dedicated carbon capture plants in existence globally but, to prevent serious damage to earth ecosystems, we will need to scale up these plants in record time to be able to reverse most of the emissions produced by the fossil fuel industry in its entire history. We will also need to scale utilization and sequestration capabilities.
  6. The cost of cleaning up all of the emissions caused by our past use of fossil fuels will be enormous and we haven't come to any agreement as to who bears that burden. Some of that cost can be mitigated with valuable commercial utilization technologies.
  7. Powering CCUS plants will require massive amounts of low-carbon clean energy because it makes no sense to emit carbon in the process of capturing carbon. The best and least-cost approach will likely involve using the coming generation of small modular reactors to generate 24x7 power in remote areas.
  8. The cost of clean energy used to capture and sequester carbon will be a significant factor in the total cost of that activity but powering CCUS can help SMRs scale up, which will help reduce the manufacturing costs.
  9. There is no scenario in which the cost of burning fossil fuels and capturing all the CO2 from that activity and permanently storing it will cost less than replacing the fossil fuels with renewables or nuclear and avoiding the release of new emissions in the first place.
  10. Fossil fuel companies are already lobbying to earn carbon credits by pairing carbon capture with the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. This is why some environmentalists, like Al Gore, oppose providing funding for CCUS to oil and gas companies, even though the most cost-effective CO2 capture is done at or close to the fossil fuel smokestack source point.

Read more in the New York Times, "In a U.S. First, a Commercial Plant Starts Pulling Carbon From the Air," by Brad Plumer, November 9, 2023.

Learn more about Frontier a consortium that is providing advance market commitments (AMC) that aim to accelerate the development of carbon removal technologies, without picking winning technologies at the start of the innovation cycle. The goal is to send a strong demand signal to researchers, entrepreneurs, and investors that there is a growing market for these technologies.

The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $3.5 billion to fund the construction of four commercial-scale direct air capture plants. In August, the Biden Adminstration announced $1.2 billion in awards for the first two, one to be built by Battelle in Louisiana and the other to be built by Occidental Petroleum, in Texas, through a 50-50 cost share.

November 4, 2021

Nuclear—Best Climate Solution by Far


Opinion authors Andrew Fillat and Henry Miller are highly critical of how politicians have handled addressing climate change. Whether it is a lack of critical thinking among politician or whether it is a highly calculated view of the lack of critical thinking among their environmental supporters is not entirely clear but "wishful thinking and flawed assumptions" do clear abound within the spheres setting policy in places like California, New York and elsewhere.

Key among the authors' multitude of complaints, what they call the single greatest sin is the "demonization of nuclear power, including the shutdown of existing nuclear plants that remain serviceable." We could not agree more. So, while this opinion piece levies some harsh judgements for politicians and climate activists, these pronouncements are paired with some really important metrics that more people should be aware of.

The authors seem to have culled their collection of numbers from Jacopo Buongiorno of MIT, a renowned nuclear engineering professor and author of many important research papers about nuclear energy—unfortunately without linking to their sources.  Professor Buongiorno has studied the life-cycle of power plants of all kinds, from mining and construction to decommissioning and disposal of waste and ultimately buildings. We have seen many of his reports and are delighted to find these numbers pulled out for easy reference.

According to the authors, Buongiorno has found that:

    • the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for nuclear are 1/700th those of coal
      1/400th of gas, and one-fourth of solar
    • Nuclear requires 1/2,000th as much land as wind and around 1/400th as much as solar
    • For any given power output, the amount of raw material used to build a nuclear plant is a small fraction of an equivalent solar or wind farm.
    • Although nuclear waste is obviously more difficult to dispose of, its volume is 1/10,000th that of solar and 1/500th of wind (this includes abandoned infrastructure and all the toxic substances that end up in landfills.)
    • One person’s lifetime use of nuclear power would produce about a half-ounce of waste.
    • Even including the Chernobyl disaster, human mortality from coal is 2,000 to 3,000 times that of nuclear, while oil claims 400 times as many lives.

Read this opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal's Nuclear Power Is the Best Climate-Change Solution by Far, by Andrew I. Fillat and Henry I. Miller, published November 4, 2021.

July 15, 2021

China launches national carbon market


According to Bloomberg Green, China's national carbon market opened with a "flurry of trades that sent prices surging." This is exceptionally exciting news, yet Bloomberg's annonymous report went on to enumerate many reasons why this is a less than stellar achievement, claiming that "it’ll be years before the system helps the top polluting nation curb its emissions."

We say "bull pucky" to that.  China pulls way ahead of the U.S. with this launch, which requires even state-owned oil giants such as China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., known as Sinopec, and China Energy Investment Corp., one of the world’s largest coal producers, to participate in trading carbon allowances. The frenzy produced a rise of 10%—deemed the daily limit—within about 10 minutes of the launch.

While there are always issues to be worked out whenever a new market is launched, as far it goes, China Carbon market's first day was a huge success.  Carbon allowances opened at 48 yuan ($7.42) a metric ton and traded as high as 52.80 yuan, limited by the defined max.

China's carbon prices may be starting low but it won't take long for them to exceed those of California's Cap & Trade system, where the price of carbon started at $12 in November 2014 and which grew a total of 40% over the subsequent five years. It then languished at around $17 from 2019 until May of this year, when it suddenly began to climb.  This performance is an embarrassment and shows the power of the fossil fuel lobby in California throughout the last decade, since the price of buying CO2 hovers at around $150 on the commondity market.  China's carbon market could theoretically exceed the price of carbon in California within a matter of weeks, even with a 10% daily cap.

We are encouraged by China's achievement and believe that they are moving along with an important tool to place the appropriate market signals on carbon emissions.  It is not clear why Bloomberg feels the need to dis their efforts and diminish the importance of this launch but we believe this will light a fire under the U.S. to take more action, which may explain why the price of California's permits started showing some upward movement in price during the May auction.

Read Bloomberg Green's unsigned report, Top Carbon Market Launch Won't Help China Tame Emissions Yet," posted July 15, 2021.

February 8, 2021

Bill Gates’ Green Premium


Bill Gates discusses what he calls the Green Premium, which is the extra costs that it takes for us to transition all the way to clean energy, from dirty energy that doesn't pay for the pollution that it causes. The concept is important because while there are cheap types of clean energy, such as solar and wind, they don't get us all the way, since they are intermittent. The Green Premium speaks to the types of investments that we have to make to develop the technologies that can address not just converting our grid but also industry, transportation, agriculture, buildings and everything, everywhere. The "last mile" is the hardest and most expensive parts of the project.

Looking at the costs of the Green Premium for addressing all facets of the transition to clean energy, points to where we need to innovate and invest in better options for reducing the total Green Premium. That is what advanced nuclear ventures are doing: they are competing with that Green Premium as it exists for decarbonizing more broadly across all aspects of our economy and enabling us to transition at a much lower average cost.

Read more at "A Green Premium: Where we should spend money on climate innovation," an article printed in Time Magazine, which is an essay adapted from Bill Gates' book "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster."

February 15, 2010

Bill Gates’ Innovating to Zero TED Talk


Bill Gates' TED talk in 2010 provided a huge amount of inspiration to us, when we first began this journey exploring the potential of investing in Advanced Nuclear.  In this video of his presentation, Gates unveiled his vision for the future of energy, describing why he is funding development of a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor in pursuit of the "miracle," that we are in desperate need of: zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.  You can click the video below to watch the the talk "Innovating to Zero!" or click the link to watch one of the versions that has been translated into 38 languages.

© 2025 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies

Nucleation-Logo