Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Launch HN: Noya (YC W21) – Direct air capture of CO2 using cooling towers
401 points by jsantos511 on Feb 15, 2021 | hide | past | favorite | 157 comments
Hello HN!

I'm Josh, one of the co-founders of Noya (https://noyalabs.com). Noya is designing a cheaper process to capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere. We do this by retrofitting industrial cooling towers owned and operated by other companies to perform carbon capture. We then sell the captured CO2 to companies that need it, and pay a piece of the proceeds to the companies that own the cooling towers.

As the wildfires in California became worse and worse, my co-founder (and roommate at the time) Daniel and I became increasingly concerned that we weren't doing enough to be a part of the solution. The more that climate catastrophes became the norm, the more we became obsessed with one seemingly-simple question:

If climate change is caused by having too much CO2 in the sky... can't we just reverse it by yanking CO2 out of the sky?

Humans have known how to scrub CO2 out of gas mixtures for almost a century [1]; but, we haven't been able to widely apply this type of tech to scrubbing CO2 from the air because of its high cost. For example, one popular direct air capture project is estimated to capture 1M tons of CO2/year [2], but has an estimated equipment cost of $700M and all-in costs of ~$1.1B [3]. The single largest component of this cost is in the piece of equipment called the air contactor — the big wall of fans you see in the image linked above — which clocks in at $212M by itself. Yet fundamentally, all that air contactors do is put air into contact with something that captures CO2, whether it's an aqueous capture solution or some sort of solid sorbent.

These costs felt astronomical to Daniel and I, so we set out with the singular focus to reduce the costs of carbon capture by reducing the costs of the air contactor. But no matter how we thought about it, we couldn’t get around the fact that to capture meaningful amounts of CO2, you need to move massive amounts of air since CO2 is very dilute in the atmosphere (0.04% by volume). Looking at the existing solutions, we began to understand why it makes sense to build something equally massive: so you can go after economies of scale.

As Daniel and I were feeling stuck late one night, he got a call from his dad. They started talking about the refrigeration facility Daniel’s dad runs in Venezuela (where Daniel's from), and they started talking about the cooling towers at the facility. Cooling towers move air and water into contact with each other to provide cooling to industrial processes (descriptive video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXaK8_F8dn0). As Daniel listened to his dad, Daniel realized that if we could just add the blend of CO2-absorbing chemicals we had been developing into the water his dad’s cooling tower used, we could use it as an air contactor and achieve CO2 capture at the same time the cooling tower was cooling its processes. This eliminates the need to build millions of dollars worth of dedicated equipment to pluck CO2 from the sky.

Our cooling-tower-based carbon capture process works as follows: we add our chemical carbon capture blend into a cooling tower's water, we connect the tower to some pieces of downstream processing equipment to regenerate the captured CO2, and then we pressurize the CO2 into cylinders for sale as "reclaimed CO2" to companies that need it. All of this is installed onto a cooling tower that another company already owns and operates. In exchange for letting us install this process on their towers, we will cover the cost of installation, and the companies will get a piece of the revenue generated through the sale of their CO2.

We’re well on our way towards making this process a reality. We’ve partnered with a local farm to install our process in their cooling towers, and we've just produced CO2 using our industrial-scale prototype.

We're excited for the opportunity to reverse climate change and ensure we have a future on this planet that is good. Please let us know what questions, concerns, or feedback you have about what we're building - I’ll be here all day!

[1]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5948/1652

[2]: https://blogs-images.forbes.com/jamesconca/files/2019/10/1-a...

[3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...




I love this. I started laughing when I read the description. I laughed because a Harvard physicist (funded by people like Bill Gates) had the same idea to use cooling towers for their DAC project in Carbon Engineering (linked in your post). But as you say, it is still expensive. They are bragging that their design took hundred of man years!

And then you two guys come in with the idea that in hindsight seems completely obvious, use all the cooling towers already out there! The most start up thing ever.

I used to be an engineer at an ammonia plant. Many of them already capture and sell CO2 from their process. So they have the infrastructure to compress and sell CO2 already on site. The plant I worked at was in Augusta, GA. Might be worth checking out ammonia plants as a growth market.


Thanks for the tip on ammonia plants! Ammonia is one of the top sources of CO2 sold commercially, second to ethanol plants.

I have nothing but respect for what Carbon Engineering has done. In many ways, they opened people's eyes to what's possible when it comes to direct air carbon capture. The more people doing carbon capture, the better - we have 1T tons of CO2 to capture, and we need as many shots on goal as possible to get there!


I think most process engineers at an ammonia plant would be interested to hear about it because it is an elegant solution. I'd focus any pitch on working with them to make sure your process will not interfere with their process. The people that run these plants are highly incentivized based on run time and they run them at 99.9% type uptimes. They'll think its cool and good for PR as long it they feel like there is no chance to have their plant disrupted or equipment damaged by more corrosive CW.


Makes sense - thanks for the recommendation!


If it's the startup I'm thinking of, they've done most of their work on the downstream process of converting CO2 to useful things, rather than focusing on capture. The energy used in capture of CO2 is only a fraction of the cost of changing CO2 into a sequesterable form or fuel form.

That said, this is a really great idea, as heat pumps will be increasingly used for all sorts of temperature management. Cutting 10% off of costs by using somebody else's fans could be great, as long as hauling the CO2 filters off and replacing them is cheap.


I'm no engineer; that said, I think you're being slightly unfair to the Carbon Engineering folks, as paper [3] that OP linked states that CE's design reflects "reflects roughly 100 person-years of development." That doesn't strike me as outrageous in this context (30 people working for ~40 months?), although I'll grant I don't have a ton of perspective on industrial process development.

That said, OP's idea does have merit. avernon, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment downthread regarding the main concern being avoiding disruption to existing plant processes where this kind of tech might be installed - I would be worried specifically about how radically raising the pH of cooling process water would affect mineral deposition, for example, but then that in turn would surely depend on how a given plant had set up its cooling system to begin with.

Nevertheless, it seems very likely that this idea could in itself knock about $4/t off of the cost of CO2 relative to the CE estimate ($212M saved for their air contactor design amortized over 30Mt of CO2 captured during a CE plant lifetime) which in the best case is around 5% of the cost of the CO2 capture.


Since you are piggybacking on their system, you'd save on peripheral equipment costs and operating costs, too. The subsystems surrounding these cooling water systems are immense. They need river/lake access for water, giant pumps to feed the makeup water into the system, giant fans running all the time, and even larger pumps to circulate the cooling water after. There is a lot of nickel and dime complexity/cost in things like water purification. I'd be shocked if it only knocked 5% of the cost off.

Plus many facilities have surplus low pressure steam you could use to regenerate your fluid.


Huh, smart idea to piggyback off existing infrastructure. Have you contacted Stripe Climate? They are directing money from stripe businesses to fund carbon removal, and they just put out a call for new companies to contact them.

Believe I saw it within past 7-10 days on Patrick Collison’s twitter. Here’s the link. Has details and an application: https://mobile.twitter.com/orbuch/status/1359926307149148162

Btw for anyone with a business using stripe: stripe climate is now open for anyone worldwide. I set it up to contribute 1% of my revenues. And it should be deductible as a marketing expense: Stripe let’s you out it on your checkout, invoice and receipt. The founder of Nomadlist found it increased his conversions. Haven’t tested it personally but plausibly it’s actually profit generating.

Probably the most impactful climate decision you can make with your business, takes 30 seconds to set up, and may boost your revenue.

https://stripe.com/climate


I love the work that Stripe is doing with Stripe Climate. We have been in touch with them about their new applications. Regardless of how our application ends up, I am so excited for more businesses working on carbon removal to have the chance to get funding for the work they're doing. The world needs more shots on goal!


If you're not injecting the CO2 underground in a stable form, how does this reverse climate change? It sounds like it's simply a cheaper option in some circumstances for sourcing CO2 from the air (compared to traditional solutions by Airgas). Not to take away from your efforts! I think this is a fine improvement to CO2 process needs if you can replace more expensive air extraction techniques, but it doesn't contribute to improving climate change without sequestering the harvested atmospheric CO2.


Great observation - somewhere between most-to-all of the CO2 that goes into beer, food production, etc ends up back in the atmosphere. Our initial model is the first key step towards the additional solutions we're designing to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

The use of CO2 that is sourced from the atmosphere is better from an environmental perspective than the use of CO2 sourced from offshoots of an ethanol plant. In the current supply chain, each ton of CO2 that goes into a product results in a new ton being introduced into the atmosphere + any emissions required to purify and move that ton from the point of production to the point of consumption.

With CO2 produced from the atmosphere, no new tons are introduced to the atmosphere in the production of that same product, and the energy (aka emissions) required to capture that ton from the atmosphere are low since the cooling tower is already operating, so we don't need to use additional energy to perform the capture.

Direct CO2 sales is a much faster way to start having an environmental impact via direct air capture than doing combined capture + sequestration. Most new carbon sequestration projects take years to permit and construct, and this path allows us to perfect the technology of capturing carbon from the sky while working on these sequestration projects in parallel.

We also intend to convert CO2 into other useful products down the line that result in more permanent sequestration - we have some team members with expertise in green chemistry and electrochemical CO2 reduction, and we're already starting to think about how to achieve these things at scale.


Yeah it would seem that if someone buys a ton of CO2 from you, then that’s just one more ton some ethanol production facility vents into the air instead of capturing and selling right? Are you saying that your method of producing a ton of CO2 uses less energy than theirs?


In the short-term, it seems very likely that if ethanol plants do not sell that ton of CO2, it will end up back in the atmosphere. In the long-run, we have the opportunity to clean those emissions up with either new technologies that can produce ethanol without huge emissions (of which many people are working on) and/or regulations requiring carbon capture at ethanol plants.

But, we have to break the reliance on that method of production for the CO2 industry to help push all of that along. If companies are still getting their CO2 as a waste product, it may make regulation or incentives for new tech harder in the future. Just like EV's are getting power from the grid which is, in some places, still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, switching to EV's is breaking the need for fossil fuels in the transportation itself. We need to do the same for the CO2 industry.


Yeah I mean, clearly removing CO2 from the environment (provided were not burning fossil fuels to do it) can’t be bad. For now it seems like you’re just shuffling the source of the problem, but i I see what you mean about ethanol sans-CO2. Is that a realistic thing in the near term?

If CO2 is all just a byproduct (I.e. nobody is producing it just to sell it) then it would seem that whatever source of it consumes the least energy from fossil fuels is the best from an environmental standpoint right?

So I guess my question is how does your solution stack up to current recapture in that regard?


Ethanol sans-CO2 is definitely realistic, but the timing is what's up in the air (no pun intended). There are a few different teams that have developed materials that enable ethanol production from CO2 (!!!) and are starting to scale [1, 2 as examples].

We're still working on finalizing our comparisons of our process to current CO2 production processes. From what I can tell currently, our process requires significantly less capex (<$1M) than installing CO2 production facilities onto an ethanol plant (>$100M quoted from a friend at a big gas supplier). Energy is a hard thing to compare apples-to-apples without accounting for all pieces of equipment in each process, but it does less moving parts than many ethanol plants require for CO2.

We are superior when it comes to transportation, however. Since cooling towers are scattered all throughout the country and even in urban areas, we can capture and distribute CO2 within the same city, cutting down transportation distances and associated CO2 emissions.

EDIT: just realized I forgot to include my sources!

[1]: https://scitechdaily.com/breakthrough-electrocatalyst-turns-...

[2]: https://www.energy.gov/articles/scientists-accidentally-turn...


Awesome. Good answers. Thanks and good luck!


> The use of CO2 that is sourced from the atmosphere is better from an environmental perspective than the use of CO2 sourced from offshoots of an ethanol plant.

I thought that most ethanol is made from fermentation of corn, sugar, or whatever, and the carbon in that process came from the atmosphere originally. So, environmentally whether you make CO2 as a byproduct of ethanol production from CO2-absorbing crops or you extract CO2 straight from the air, it seems essentially the same because in both cases the carbon came from the atmosphere originally. What am I missing?


Great question - the carbon cycle definitely needs to be thought about in this scenario.

The missing link here is in total embodied emissions that go into production of corn. There's data available to help piece together a comparison [1, 2], and I'd love to work through this and get back to you with what I find. At a high-level, CO2 production from corn isn't net-neutral because the production of a corn, and then ethanol from that corn, is a fairly carbon-intensive process in terms of the energy it requires. Our process doesn't require most of the transportation corn does, and since the cooling tower is already operating, we don't have to incur any additional costs to capture the CO2. Our main costs are in the energy required for regeneration, and depending on the facility we're at, we may even get that for free in the form of waste heat/steam.

If you want to send me an email at josh [at] noyalabs.com, we can talk more about this there!

[1]: https://www.attisbiofuels.com/by-products/carbon-dioxide

[2]: https://watermark.silverchair.com/55-7-593.pdf?token=AQECAHi...


I’d argue another consideration is the land occupied by the corn - it’s the real constrained resource, not the corn growing on it, and were the demand for corn displaced by something else (like direct air co2 capture) then that same land could sequester carbon far more effectively with e.g. trees.


Amazing point. We need more trees, and we have a lot of corn, so if we needed less corns, we could have more trees! Love it.

It'll also be interesting to balance the use of that land for trees vs. solar/wind as well. We'll need to put a lot of land to use to generate electricity, and some of corn's space might be occupied by that instead.


Yeah, that's a good point. Ethanol from corn in particular doesn't have a great reputation.


Feels to me like the intention of selling the gas is to offset operational costs until a carbon market for sequestering it underground becomes available?


Yes, and it also gives us the chance to develop sequestration pathways in parallel to fine-tuning the technology. And, if companies can use cleaner sources of CO2 than ethanol offshoots, that would be a net good for the planet as well.


The more economic CO2 capture techniques I've heard of that actually do result in sequestrable product rely on having high concentrations of the stuff, much much higher than is available in the atmosphere. Having a method to concentrate CO2 could be a great initial step in being able to do more with it.


Absolutely right. Many carbon capture systems that are installed on top of smokestacks have much higher concentrations of CO2 than the air does (~300x higher concentrations in smokestacks). Henry's Law states that as partial pressure of a gas goes up, its solubility in a given liquid also goes up [1]. So, if you have a smokestack with a higher concentration of CO2 available than what you can get in air, it's going to be easier to capture the same amount of CO2 bc more CO2 will want to dissolve in the liquid that it's dissolving in.

There are some cool ways that people are working on to concentrate CO2 using membranes, metal organic frameworks, and other things - we'd love to someday incorporate something like this at the front end of our process!


Every new technology or company needs that first customer, first revenue stream, to get off the ground. Selling CO2 to beverage companies is the DAC "MVP". Sequestration is an independent problem that can be coupled to DAC later down the road when both are ramped.


This is a great way to put it - this is our MVP, or our "Tesla Roadster", and it will be used to get us to a more permanent, scalable process for carbon removal.


What is required is for a third party -- government or quasi-governmental agency -- to create a market by offering to purchase CO2 and sequester it. This would incentivize conversion of cooling towers. The offered price need not be as high as present users of CO2 pay, but merely high enough to prospectively amortize capture equipment over a reasonable time.


There are some companies that are paying people to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but yes, we absolutely need more of them.

Stripe has become a huge leader in the space with Stripe Climate: https://stripe.com/climate

Microsoft is investing $1B into their Climate Innovation Fund to help them remove all of their historic carbon emissions by 2050: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b...

Shopify is contributing $5M annually to remove CO2 from the air: https://www.shopify.com/about/environment/sustainability-fun...

And there are many other examples of big corporations stepping up to undo some of the damage done to the planet.

In the public sector, the state of CA operates the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which has creating a marketplace for carbon credits (hovering at ~$200/ton now): https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/credit/lrtweeklycreditrepo...

But yes, more is beneficial and will be helpful. We need as many shots on goal as possible!


Right now jet fuel comes from the ground, so we are actively adding to the atmospheric stock. This gives a way to leave that carbon stored and use what’s in the atmosphere instead.

And if they can extract it economically, governments or private actors can pay them to sequester some of the carbon instead.


One day we may be producing jet fuel! For now, the same exact logic applies to CO2 production: every new ton consumed = a new ton in the sky. If businesses use reclaimed CO2 to run their process, no new tons end up in the sky due to their operations since it started in the sky in the first place.


I'm confused how this project related to jet fuel or displaces the production of oil products in general.


Oh sorry I read things too quickly. There had been a lot of discussions of what to do with things that still require co2 and can’t easily be electrified, jet fuel being the typical case. “Suck it from the sky and use that” has been one common proposal for how to handle those carbon holdouts.

So my brain immediately leapt to that when drafting the comment. But as the OP says same logic applies to any carbon use. If you can use co2 from the sky you don’t need to take it out of sequestration in the ground.


CO2 in its native form is not extracted from the ground. It is almost always produced industrially as a byproduct of another industrial process, like alcohol fermentation or cement manufacture. The point other people are making is that these processes will continue because the main product is also valuable. Until this company gets sequestration working (which they claim to be working on), then this venture on its own won’t have much impact on CO2 emissions.


I was about to post the same question. I wonder how Airgas gets their CO2.


Most commercial CO2 that is used in the market today is actually produced as a by-product of ethanol production: https://www.attisbiofuels.com/by-products/carbon-dioxide


Interesting, thanks!


I assume the cheapest way is to burn methane...


Quick math:

Density of air at sea level: 1225 g/m^3

C02: 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) corresponds to 0.0582% by weight.

Ergo, 1m^3 of air has 0.713 g of C02 in it.

Ergo pulling 1 metric ton (10^6 grams) of C02 per day requires processing AT LEAST : 10^6/ .713 = 1.4m m^3 of air per day or 16 m^3 of air per second!

(That would assume 100% capture)

I was skeptical that 1 cooling tower generates this much flow, but the example in [1] suggests 17*10^6 ft^3/minute, or roughly 8000 m^3/sec.

Thus, as long as your capture chemical has 2% efficiency, it seems reasonable.

[1] https://www.power-eng.com/emissions/cooling-tower-heat-trans...

[EDITED after I detected an error in my math]

The amazing observation for me is that evaporative cooling towers process A LOT OF AIR per second.


> Ergo pulling 1 metric ton (10^6 grams) of C02 per day

The CO2 footprint per capita in the United States is 15 metric tons [1], so at 300M population, that's 4.5e9 metric tons of CO2 per year.

At 1 metric ton CO2 removed per day per tower, we would need 4.5e9/365 = 12.3M such cooling towers. Even if the efficiency increased 2 orders of magnitude it is still not enough, and I doubt there is a need for even 123,000 cooling towers.

None of this is to say that it shouldn't be pursued as a business opportunity to sell CO2 to commercial customers.

But realistically, given the scale of the CO2 problem, we still need to dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 we are emitting per capita as a primary measure, with any carbon capture as secondary.

1. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...


Couldn't agree with you more - the less we emit, the less critical the need for carbon removal technologies becomes.

We have two levers for reversing climate change: the first is reducing emissions, and the second is remove carbon from the atmosphere. Most of the pathways in the most recent UN climate report incorporate some amount of carbon removal to maintain global temperature rise below 1.5°C [1].

Humans have been hard at work for a while on our first lever, and we need many shots on goal with the second lever to give ourselves a chance at success.

[1]: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/


> Humans have been hard at work for a while on our first lever, and we need many shots on goal with the second lever to give ourselves a chance at success.

Agreed, and best of luck with your efforts!


Most of your yearly 15 tons is emitted via specific exhaust pipes, where capture part is quite easy problem, even without these cooling towers. The big problem is what to do with all of it: there is no commercial use/market, especially if you want that to be climate friendly, ie not dumped to atmosphere quite soon anyway. We'd need to think of it as toxic waste, similar to nuclear one, to be stored forever underground, but can we (as civilization) afford it?


> The big problem is what to do with all of it

Which is why the primary way to deal with the CO2 problem isn't capture, but by reducing the amount emitted in the first place, via renewables + storage, more and better mass transit, EVs replacing ICEVs, heat pumps replacing furnaces, etc.

Compared to the CO2 reduction potential o


for every 'can we afford it?' question you can also ask 'can we afford not to do it?' and in this case the answer is at the very least not simply 'no.'


We had a similar observation and related feelings — cooling towers move, quite literally, tons of air every day.

One suggestion I'd make to the math above: the concentration of CO2 in the air is a bit higher, at 415ppm per Scripps UCSD: https://www.co2.earth/


Yeah, I was going to say, it hasn't been 385 since about 2008.


What about the energy balance? If your capture is exothermic you will warm up the cooling water and your client will not have enough cooling for their process. When you regenerate, do you need to add energy? How much CO2 is generated by the energy you need?. If you have to add heat to regenerate, how do you now cool the water back down to the temperature required by your client? Most industrial cooling systems use carbon steel pipes, shells and tubesand, although many heat exchangers will be stainless steel especially if they are plate type. Chemicals are added to prevent scale and to inhibit corrosion. You CO2 capture chemical needs to be comparable.


The energy balance is going to be critical, I agree!

We are still working on finalizing all the inputs for this process, including regeneration amounts, amount of heat added, etc. Based on our early modeling, it seems the amount of heat generated from the capture will be negligible since the amount of CO2 moving through our system is much smaller than the amount of water available to provide cooling.

Our chemicals have anti-scaling properties, and we're working to understand corrosion across many different material types to ensure we don't cause more problems than we're solving.


Are you using sodium hydroxide for scrubbing, along with calcium (hydr)oxide for regenerating?

If so, remember you could branch out to indoor air scrubbing, as higher NaOH concentrations can balance the "humidifier" effect.


How do you prevent scale build up, corrosion, etc from the chemicals that you're introducing into the water? For the most part, these towers probably aren't designed to deal with sustained high concentrations of some of these chemicals. If you can solve that problem, then I think you'll make it. If you can't then this will be DOA if you have to replace a lot of the hardware every X years.


De-risking all of these questions is currently one of our top priorities. We have an understanding of a handful of materials that are compatible with our system right now, and we are working to expand that list - and, just as valuably, remove items from that list.

Our chemist is leading these efforts, and she's got a ton of experience from getting her PhD/postdoc work at Yale's Center for Green Chemistry that is helping us properly vet these items out.


Interesting stuff. Curious to see what kind of solvents you're looking at, and whether you will need to think about mitigating aerosol or nitramine emissions.


How does this compare to the most ancient carbon capture tech: Trees ?

I know this sounds boring, but a single $M would allow to plant as much trees and they will capture carbon from the atmosphere, without any maintenance, for decades.


To put it plainly: we need more trees.

However, trees cannot get us all the way there. Trees are great for drawing down atmospheric carbon emissions in the short-term, but when trees decompose, they just release that carbon back into the atmosphere. Additionally, the landmass and water needed to sustain all these trees will require another solution to get all of the way to where we need to be with carbon removal.


> when trees decompose, they just release that carbon back into the atmosphere

This is false and extremely deceptive. When trees die they don't just release all the CO2 they collected back into the atmosphere over the course of their lifetime. How much CO2 and pollution will your towers produce during its production, while it is being run (it must use some sort of electricity) and when it is eventually dismantled? I assume you, it will be a lot more pollution than anything that a tree would create.

Trees are the answer to CO2 capture. Period. End of sentence. It's cheaper and far more effective to plant trees and pay to stop deforestation than these ludicrous plans to supposedly capture CO2 from the atmosphere.


Agree this is mostly false, and likely not deceptive but fast/sloppy writing. For example, depending on the landscape and forest ecosystem composition, a wildfire could result in the ecosystem becoming a net carbon source. Examples include Ponderosa, Jeffery, and Lodgepole Pine and Douglas fir landscapes in California and Arizona. In a high intensity burn fire where the stand is replaced, it is possible to degrade the soil and emitted soil Carbon through both burning of soil organic matter and subsequent erosion[1][2]. With degraded soil and increasing temperatures the conditions won't be available for Ponderosa, Jeffery, and Lodgepole Pine and Douglas fir to regenerate and the species that succeed them likely don't have the same carbon sequestering potential. This phenomena can be extremely site specific in which former south facing pine stands might not regenerate pine and instead regenerate as chaparral and manzanita (for example, west side Sierra 5000-7000 feet above sea level).

Dying trees and wildfire is especially problematic in Boreal forests in Alaska and Canada[3]. Managing Boreal forests as a carbon sinks is going to be difficult with climate change. In Canada million acre fires are normal as the species composition is susceptible to stand clearing fires and fire intensity can be high resulting in the ecosystem being an atmospheric carbon producing source. Conversely, Redwood forests even at maturity increase their capacity as carbon sinks and are highly resistant to catastrophic fire.[4] So, species composition, soil, and fire influence on whether or not decomposing trees are a carbon sink or source.

Building on the model presented earlier:

CarbonCaptureRateToStopGlobalWarming = growTreesPlantsAndBuryDeadOnes(...params) + newTech(...params)

Replace growTreesPlantsAndBuryDeadOnes with growing fire resistant species that sequester carbon in the soil/biomass at high rates. For example, Redwoods in coastal CA and Oregon.

[1] https://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/03-1-1-06_fsbrie... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167... [3] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-3638-5_... [4] https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26107


Since its towers we're talking about, what about an ivy/clonal plant?

And can't you just bury the dead trees?

I also don't understand what the equation is. Is it something like this:

    CarbonCaptureRateToStopGlobalWarming = growTreesPlantsAndBuryDeadOnes(...params) + newTech(...params)
If so, what is the order of term 1 and the order of term 2? It seems to me that at the end of the day only 1 of these terms will matter (or maybe it's a hybrid?)


Nobody has figured out a roadmap to get to done using only term 1. But we know it will help, and make other things better in the meantime, so it's always worth doing. Meanwhile, term 2 is unsolved but probably the only way to get back to 350ppm.


Trees capture co2 into the biosphere, and when they do so it is temporary (~100 years by the time they've decomposed and released it back in to the atmosphere). Still, planting trees helps hold more co2 from the atmosphere and needs to be part of the solution. Especially if we can re-green areas that are currently barren, like deserts.

Proper sequestering, which I agree doesn't really exist yet, is to capture co2 back into the geosphere.


Building and sustaining a forest on the other hand does bind carbon, because there are always new trees to take up the carbon from the dead ones.

It just takes land.


While this does not answer your question, which I find interesting, it seems pretty sensible that you'd want to explore this option even if you are planting lots of trees. Doubly so if it's viable as a business venture, since that's a strong signal that it's cost effective.

As jsantos511 said many times, we need more shots on goal!


We see a lot of companies "planting trees " or "offsetting their carbon footprint" in their marketing material. However, they're not -actually- doing anything. They're just giving money to someone else that will "plant trees".

If I want to go ahead, and plant trees, there's no way for me, as an individual, to claim a bit of that money.

I think that's an issue.


I don't know about trees but bamboo sounds like a good candidate.


How much CO2 are you actually pulling out of the air? I've read a bit about other carbon capture companies and Carbon Eng. is claiming 1M tons/year with the new facility they're building.


The US is home to over 2M cooling towers: https://www.nsf.org/news/road-map-improve-response-legionnai...

Using the numbers we've calculated with our first partner plant, we're expecting to be able to capture 0.5-1 ton/day with their 25 ton cooling tower. This is a very small tower - for perspective, UCSF operates a 5,400 ton cooling tower to operate their small electricity co-generation plant, and cooling towers at larger power plants can be even bigger than that.

Let's assume though that all 2M cooling towers in the US are the same size as our small 25 ton cooling tower. This equates to an opportunity to capture 730M tons of CO2 / year using really tiny versions of existing US infrastructure.


That's great. The market for C02 is already there and cooling towers exist everywhere. I have a gut feeling this could be licensed to the large players for their new builds, even if the co2 is just used onsite.


What percent of current US CO2 production is 730M tons?


US CO2 consumption is ~64M tons / year, so 730M tons >> current US production. Next step for managing CO2 production is geologic sequestration to ensure we have something to do with all the CO2 we capture!


64M tons was their answer in another comment.


~5 billion metric tons is what we emit.


Using existing cooling towers to capture atmospheric CO2 seems like a much better idea than using energy to otherwise pump tonnes of air through a process. However, I can't help wonder whether it is better than capturing the exhaust emissions (primarily CO2 and H20) directly from the exhaust gasses, before they are released to the atmosphere.


There are two equally-needed levers we have to reverse climate change: the first is reducing current emissions, and the second is removing carbon from the atmosphere.

Removing emissions from smokestacks is critical to ensuring we can stop dumping waste into the sky, but we are at the point now where we need scalable, low-cost processes to pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

So, we need to definitely do what you're suggesting and capture all emissions from as many smokestacks as possible until we've fully transitioned to a clean grid. And, we also need to begin pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.


Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm still not convinced that pulling atmospheric carbon out of the air makes sense until practically all smokestack emissions are captured at source. Something like putting the heating on while all the windows are open.

I wish you guys luck though, hopefully you can carve out a niche market which will mean carbon capture technologies are ready when the time comes.


I hear you and agree - reducing emissions is a very important thing to do, followed immediately by stopping all unnecessary power wasting (like with the windows + heating problem).

In the UN's most recent climate report [1], most of the pathways that are shown to avoid a 1.5°C global temperature rise involve both emissions reduction and carbon removal. Since the current technology portfolio is not anywhere near where it needs to be for any of their suggested pathways, we need new solutions (not just Noya's!) to be developed and scaled to give ourselves a shot of removing the amount of carbon required.

[1]: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/


DAC will be needed for the foreseeable future because there are some applications still where hydrocarbons are just unbeatable. In particular, large-scale marine and air transportation are just not feasible yet with anything other than some kind of hydrocarbon based fuel. That might not be the case forever, but it is for now. Eventually the goal will be to use DAC to synthesize hydrocarbon based fuels, thereby making them completely carbon neutral.


Cooling tower "drift" is an air emissions PM2.5 permit matter in California. What is drift / carryover of the unsaturated and saturated material? Typically it happens associated with entrained water droplets; that's why e.g. salt water can't be used (among other reasons). More to the point, what fraction of the total capture energy are you eliminating? If you're changing evaporative efficiency in a forced-draft tower, you're incurring additional fan power or worse, increased fuel use in the process for which cooling is taking place. How do those balance against the fan power of a separate capture unit? But maybe the biggest matter: in other capture technologies, the heat of dissociation/regeneration and the compressor power to deliver to sequestration are very large. What change to the total energy budget are you proposing? When you're at scale, what fraction of total capture needed could be delivered this way?

Does putting CO2 in a bottle keep any CO2 out of the air for as long as a month? Removal times of hundreds of years are required for the capture process to contribute to climate.


I'm confused, isn't the price of co2 very low? I would guess the oil and gas industry have a lot of co2 to spare.

Have you tested this process and mixture?


Great question - the oil and gas industry is definitely responsible for a huge chunk of CO2 emissions, but they are not the ones that produce CO2 used commercially. Most CO2 that is used at breweries, restaurants, etc comes from ethanol plants: https://www.attisbiofuels.com/by-products/carbon-dioxide

From conversations we've had with CO2 buyers, the price for CO2 ranges from between $150-5,000 / ton depending on things like how much is being bought, length of time committed in a contract, etc.

We have tested this mixture out with the industrial prototype in our office, yes! We've shown our cooling tower is able to capture CO2 from the air, and we are able to regenerate and pressurize that CO2 into cylinders.


Cant edit. Also, would it be effective to build new cooling towers? Our doors it work only where there's a source of co2?


Building new cooling towers would drive our costs up as we would have to pay for the capex of the towers in addition to the rest of the process. For now, we are trying to keep everything as low-cost as possible.

Cooling towers typically run outside since they sometimes have water evaporating out the top of them, but even if cooling towers were inside, this would still be a great solution. CO2 concentrations indoors are sometimes even higher than the ones outdoors, which may allow for even higher carbon capture amounts than outdoor systems would.


Might be a dumb question, but: how can this be possibly cheaper than planting trees?


The short answer is that we absolutely need more trees than we currently have, but trees alone won't be able to get us there.

Trees are great at capturing CO2 from the sky, but they suffer from an impermanence issue. Trees capture CO2 for the duration of their lifespan, but when they die, they decompose and release that captured CO2 back into the atmosphere. They also require dedicated use of large swaths of land to get to significant capture amounts.

More info can be found at section 3.2 of this report: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f


I don't think this is the complete picture. In an intact old forest, a lot of bio-matter doesn't decompose in time, but rather gets buried in the anaerobic zone. In a healthy forest the first few centimeter soil are so biologically active just about 30cm down there is very little oxygen left to house much life. That's also why murder victims don't decompose very fast, when the murderer buried them deep in forest soil.

Granted this still depends on the forest's life, but it is beyond an individual tree's lifecycle.


I think it's pretty easy to see, though, that restoring the world's forests to their condition circa 1700 will not get us to 1700 CO2 levels, as we have added some 1.5T tons of fossil carbon to the mix since then.


And a few billion humans, the cause of this mess. It brings me peace to know the world will be fine without us.


Even better, faster and more efficient than planting trees is increasing organic content of the soil. The soil has higher agricultural quality, can hold much more water and the capture is long-term, as long as the soil quality is kept. And you do not need new acreage, you imrove existing. The problem is: you have to stop using fungicides and herbicides and better pesticides too. At the state of the current ag, this can be done for many many yeas.


Planting trees is great but long-term it won't be enough, just based on land area available. We need to scale up other ways to sequester carbon too.


Keep in mind that planting trees != planting trees. It's much more important to let natural vegetation grow on land than to plant random trees. For that, the most important thing we need to do is to reclaim land. Currently, 45% of land is used for livestock agriculture. You see what I'm getting at :-)


This is exactly my question as well. There's no way it's cheaper than planting trees and is probably orders of magnitude less efficient. And the plants itself must be producing an enormous amount of waste of pollution itself.


> There's no way it's cheaper than planting trees and is probably orders of magnitude less efficient.

Do your cost and efficiency calculation include the opportunity cost of letting land sit "idle"?


I would guess because you can actually make money with this capture technique and reduce emissions - planting a tree for the sake of reducing emissions is nice but it doesn’t make money and therefor isn’t a market based solution


Have you heard about George Church's idea?

He says it's possible to modify the dna of cyanobacteria so that they become immune to their natural predator: the cyanophage.

Apparently cyanobacteria consume an incredible amount of CO2 every year, but then right away release it again after the cyanophage kills them.

Seems like a potentially workable idea, but I have not heard him give the details anywhere.

He is at MIT & so are some of you guys... go talk with him! Maybe it could be used inside your towers as a way to more efficiently capture the co2?

Thanks for doing what you all are doing btw. We desperately need a solution.


Cyanobacteria cultivation is an old idea[1] and is limited by more than just phage. I did the math on carbon removal in a controlled environment somewhere like Nevada, and it could contribute to climate solutions. If Church is suggesting we release GMO cyanobacteria into the ocean, that is a whole separate category of idea, somewhere between Guam's Brown Tree Snakes and Ice Nine. If it succeeds, we will introduce a new kind of ocean trash - an organism with no predators. But phage is likely just mutate anyway. IDK how close you've been to Church or his orbit, but most of his ideas are mostly clickbait.

In the case this one isn't, the release of genetic modifications into the wild will be a debt our children have to pay, the way we are paying for our ancestors use of CO2.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2018.0000...


Sorry for the big delay in getting back to you!

I'll look more into this - this isn't a solution I'm familiar with. Thanks for sharing, and thanks for your kind words and dedication to solving this problem.


His idea seems like a rough sketch. I don't know how deep he has thought about it. But he mentioned it in at least a few talks.

Would be awesome if you all just looked him up & went to talk with him.

He represents the "what bio can do" part of the equation. And bio does quite a lot already.


What do you anticipate will happen if we make cyanobacteria "immune to their natural predator", leading to their unchecked proliferation...?


Hilarious that nobody upvoted my post. I've been looking into the CO2 problem for more than 10 years & this seems like one of the most promising ideas... because it sounds possible to pull off.

Yes, I have the same question for Dr. Church. How does he plan to control their population? Maybe something like this:

https://news.mit.edu/2015/kill-switches-shut-down-engineered...


YSK those 'kill switches' just have to be abandoned by their host to stop working. They create a huge evolutionary pressure for this.


Are there examples of this happening?


Something else will eat them. Even a human could.

Doesn't matter what eats them, after digestion, the CO2 is back in the atmosphere.

If you actually want to do this, you can't just leave them in the wild, you have to breed them in massive quantity and bury them. Same as growing a tree and burying it.


George Church figured they'd just collect and then sink. not much life down there and once it is deep enough, it might be deep enough to perma-sequester.


How do you plan on dealing with CO2 after the CO2 market is saturated? There's gotta be more CO2 that's capturable than people use for industrial processes and soda.


You're absolutely right - there is much more CO2 in the sky than what the global CO2 markets can absorb. For scale: the US CO2 market consumes ~64M tons per year of CO2 [1]. We need to be capturing at least 1B tons per year of CO2 to get to net-neutral [2].

Carbon capture for resale is only our first step — our "Tesla Roadster" if you will. It's the thing that gets us the capital to build the harder stuff. On a 10-year scale, our roadmap looks like this:

1. Capture CO2 for re-sale 2. Sequester CO2 using geologic storage and other techniques such as mineralization 3. Utilize CO2 via conversion to other useful products

Each step gets progressively harder, but has a progressively higher impact on reducing emissions than the one before. When we do our jobs well, we will have saturated the CO2 market with reclaimed CO2, developed multiple sequestration pathways and projects, and developed clean conversion pathways for CO2 utilization.

[1]: https://www.iea.org/reports/putting-co2-to-use [2]: https://cdrprimer.org/read/chapter-1#sec-1-4


So, this link gives CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans in 2019 as weighing as 43.1 * 10^12 metric tonnes - 43.1 billion tons [1].

Now, the third of you links, describing your plant, talks about capturing one metric tone of CO2 per years. If you could scale this plant up to 1000 times in the capturing ability, you would then need one million of these plants scatter across the globe to capture a billion metric tonnes (about 2% of human emissions say).

I'm doubtful the commercial demand for CO2 would pay or that governments would be willing to pay for this (not to mention the need for energy).

Which is to say you seem describe atom sized drop in an ocean-sized bucket. Is any reason to think this could meaningfully "reverse climate change"?

[1] https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/glo...


Amazingly well thought out analysis - thank you. Completely agree that we will need a lot of shots on goal and many operations pulling carbon out of the air to deal with the size of this problem.

Our first commercial plant is estimated to capture ~1 ton CO2 / day, and that is with a very small tower. If all 2M towers in the US were the same size as our smallest one, we could capture 730M tons of CO2 / year, but we know that is a conservative assumption because many cooling towers are larger than the one we're starting with.

For example, one of the larger plants we've talked to runs a cooling tower that can capture ~44,000 tons of CO2 / year. This plant is a small power generation plant attached to a university, but let's assume it represents the cooling towers of all power plants.

There are 23,000 power plants in the US. Assuming they all have a cooling tower capable of capturing 44,000 tons of CO2 / year and all the rest of the cooling towers in the US are of the small size I mentioned above, our annual capture amount grows to:

[23,000 power plant towers * 44,000 tons/tower] + [1.9 other towers * 365 tons/tower] = 1.7B tons of CO2 captured / year with cooling towers.

Our estimate will get closer to the truth as we continue to understand the range of cooling tower sizes available on the market.

It's worth saying: for humans to meaningfully reverse climate change, we need many groups of people taking many shots on goal for us to be successful. I believe Noya has a critical technology that will play an important role in solving this problem, and I'm excited to be joined by many other amazing founders with fantastic technologies in this adventure.


So if I understand this correctly you are adding this tech to existing cooling towers?

I don't see this answered on the page, but: what cooling towers do you have in mind? I don't have any statistics at hand, but my guess would be most cooling towers are coal power plants and other fossil fuel infrastructure. This seems problematic as you're creating an incentive to keep fossil fuel infrastructure.

Also industrial heat and heat in general is in itself something that needs to be decarbonized and one of the best options here is to re-use "waste heat". So ideally even if you have non-fossil processes with cooling towers you'll likely want to change that.

(Also from what I'm aware of carbon capture itself is something that needs a lot of heat and existing projects tend to want to use waste heat.)


Ideally they'd go on low carbon cooling towers e.g. from nuclear plants.


What are the environmental effects of the chemical mix? How do you reclaim the chemicals from the cooling water?


Unlike many traditional carbon capture chemicals, the one we are using are both non-volatile and stable when they come into contact with air and heat. This means that our chemicals will not float out of the top of a cooling tower with evaporating water and will instead stay in the water.

After carbon capture happens in the cooling tower, we run the stream through a regeneration process to release the captured CO2 and to regenerate the starting carbon capture blend. The water is sent back through the tower, and round and round it goes.


Hmm good so far. Presumably there will be at least some losses, since the system is open to the atmosphere. So you'll need good evidence for how safe the chemicals are. (I appreciate you may not want to tell us what they are yet)


Yep - there will definitely be a few losses, specifically in cooling tower drift (water droplets blowing out the top) and blowdown (water being expelled from tower to improve water purity). Luckily, our chemicals are all found in every day uses and not shown to have adverse environmental impacts. We definitely need to do more testing on this front to continue to build up our datasets, but our specific chemicals were selected to enable safe and widespread usage in cooling towers around the world.


>regeneration process

Is there an energy input here?


There must be. Thermodynamics tells us that cyclic processes don’t happen without energy input. Beyond that, gathering and compressing the CO2 will require energy.

The hope would be that you could build enough renewable energy capacity to power this process.


There is an energy input here. The temperatures required to regenerate the CO2 from our captured solution are low enough to be produced using renewables, and this is what we're planning on doing.


We definitely need more innovation like this. Pressurized CO2 canisters may not be the most efficient (from a density standpoint) way to capture carbon, since you are capturing oxygen too and it's being stored as a gas, but hey, it's a start. We can iterate from there.


It's a multi-step process. Collect CO2. Convert it to something else. Store it.

This startup is currently focused on improving the first step. You have to collect the CO2 before you can do something with it.


Thank you for working for our climate -- best of luck!

It seems you're after a more efficient method of collecting CO2, not a long-term storage method for CO2. I think the messaging may get muddled, people may believe you're attempting to lower atmospheric CO2, not just save some energy in CO2 production. To that end, how much CO2 would you actually be "preventing" from this action, and how does it compare to the top-ranked solutions needed on drawdown.org? When it comes to climate, I want the MOST EFFECTIVE solutions, and I don't know if this is low-hanging fruit relative to refrigeration management, diet, transportation, installing renewables, etc.


Hey Josh,

I'm a photographer working on a story about American innovation. I just shot you an email through the Noya website.

Hope to be in touch. Best Marco


Emailed received! Will respond soon. Thanks!


Without asking you to reveal too much about your literal "secret sauce", do you already have an estimate for the price per liter of your "chemical carbon capture blend" ? Are we talking liters / tons to operate for a standard year ? Do you have specific IP / RD needed for the production ?

Good luck anyway !


How do cooling towers compare with clean rooms and datacenters, which both have huge ventilation mechanisms?

I guess it probably makes sense to focus on cooling towers first, as there are more of these ? That said, I think some datacenter providers (scaleway?) strive to reach carbon-neutrality.


There was (is?) Prometheus, YC W19 start-up with similar mission. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240


You may want to talk to the Infinite Cooling team out of MIT too. They do water reclamation on top of cooling towers to reduce water usage. Could be a nice channel partnership between you all! Happy to make the connect.


Thanks for bringing up the idea! We've been in contact with Maher and Karim already. Love what they're working on.


Just a very noob question here. When carbon is released into the atmosphere where and how does it disperse? Can we expect it to gradually concentrate in lower elevations or in certain geographical traps?


Carbon is dispersed from the atmosphere wherever it's created. This could be the smokestack of a power plant, a tailpipe of a car, or any other source of emissions. That CO2 floats up into the air and mingles with all the other gases in the atmosphere. Areas that are more highly concentrated with CO2 than others will "push" their CO2 into lesser-concentrated areas, driving up the concentration everywhere over a long-enough period of time.

Drawdown works in the opposite way. By reducing the concentration in a single area, the global concentration would work to equilibrate, so more CO2 would "fill the void", and if more drawdown keeps happening, than more CO2 will keep equilibrating and filling voids, and more capture will happen.


Have you thought about applying for the $100M XPRIZE? https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk


Oh yes - definitely on our radar!


Have you considered raising funds for these projects on a platform like RaiseGreen? I know plenty of people who would love to invest, myself included, but can’t afford the investment alone.


Thanks for the willingness to support! We have not looked into this yet, but we definitely will.


How do you deal with the liability of potential damage to the cooling tower that you do not own (or damage to the down-stream processes that rely on the cooling if it were to fail)?


Avoiding the second part of your question is where a huge chunk of our efforts are going right now.

Re: liability, we accept responsibility for any damages made to the tower itself. If we break it, we buy it.

Re: downtime avoidance, we are doing our own internal testing to understand what types of materials (if any) are the riskiest with our process. Then, for any materials we may have found on a partner's cooling tower, we will replace them at the same time we install the process with a material that is going to be safer with our process while still meeting the original requirements that part may have had.

We've been in contact with a leading cooling tower manufacturer to explore potential partnerships, and we understand from them that the big risks we have to worry about do not happen overnight - we will be able to see them coming, and we can react accordingly.


This sounds like a relatively neat idea to capture CO2 for resale, but I can't see this will have any meaningful impact on the global levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Totally agree - in the short-term, it's highly likely that emissions will continue as they have.

In the medium- to long-term, we're aiming to develop geologic sequestration pathways that will begin to draw-down atmospheric CO2 levels. This version of our process is like our "Tesla Roadster" - the product that is meant to fund the future development of harder, but more impactful, products. In our case, CO2 re-sale will fund the development of permanent sequestration pathways, and it will actually enable us to get to a point where we are able to scale projects that are permanently removing carbon from the atmosphere.


serendipity is awesome, and imagine a conversation with dad triggering it! Double awesome!!


How large is the CO2 market relative to the amount of CO2 currently injected into the atmosphere?


The US currently consumes ~64M tons of CO2 / year: https://www.iea.org/reports/putting-co2-to-use

We need to remove somewhere between 100B-1T tons of CO2 from the air to get back to safe, non-planet-warming levels: https://nanransohoff.com/A-mental-model-for-combating-climat...


I wonder what it would take to reduce the captured CO2 to elemental carbon.


Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosch_reaction ? I am also interested in knowing more, I know that Sabatier reaction is planned to be used in SpaceX Starship project..


Great story! All the best!


Thanks for your support!


Surely if you aren't sequestering the CO2 somewhere, but instead releasing back again later, you are having a net negative effect, as your equipment has running costs (paid for with fossil fuels).


I love this. Good work, keep it up!


thanks for the kind words!


That's a wonderfull idea !


Thanks for your feedback and support!


Great idea but I feel the key to making it a viable endeavour would be a Carbon tax that makes it worthwhile


Carbon taxes will absolutely help in solving this problem, and we hope regulation gets enacted to help incentivize people to think and act differently when it comes to their carbon emissions.


Good luck with your venture. You may also partner with Tesla

https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk


Thanks for sharing - this is definitely on our radar!


Can I invest??


Not actively raising now, but would love to chat! josh [at] noyalabs.com


Congrats to the team! See you over at AirMiners :) http://airminers.org


Hey Tito! Thanks for the support - great seeing you here!


I want to warn readers, and people not aware of high school physics.

Capturing CO2 is one thing, but doing anything with it later completely different.

Just capturing CO2 does not involve returning the energy debt of carbon-oxygen bond, but doing anything with it later does, and usually many times the electric energy gained from combustion.

In other words, making anything useful out of it will require you to expend many, many times more hydrocarbon energy than if you didn't, or just synthesized directly.

Anybody claiming the opposite have either never finished a high school, or is an utter fraud, and, unfortunately,the number of such has been skyrocketing recently, pampered by windfall of environmental grants, and investments signed off by equally ignorant, or corrupt people.


Yes, but presumably the buyers know what they can do with the CO2. I do think that knowing what happens next is important if you're interested in reducing atmospheric CO2.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: