Carbon Capture And Removal

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley , have developed a material named COF-999, a fluffy yellow powder capable of capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere with remarkable efficiency. Just under half a pound (approximately 200 grams) of COF-999 can absorb about 44 pounds (20 kilograms) of CO₂ annually, matching the carbon sequestration capacity of a mature tree over the same period. COF-999 is a covalent organic framework (COF) characterized by its porous structure, which provides a large surface area for gas adsorption. The internal surfaces of this material are lined with amines—compounds that effectively bind to CO₂ molecules. When air passes through COF-999, the amines capture CO₂, and the gas can later be released by heating the material to about 140°F (60°C), allowing for repeated use. Notably, COF-999 has demonstrated stability over at least 100 adsorption-desorption cycles without degradation. This innovation holds significant promise for direct air capture (DAC) technologies, which aim to reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels to mitigate climate change. The efficiency and durability of COF-999 could enhance the viability of DAC systems, potentially accelerating efforts to lower greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Source: https://lnkd.in/dgwRRzhe

This week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) launched a major report on #CCUS policies and business models. It's the most comprehensive piece I've seen so far, and I'm glad to have contributed as one of the reviewers. The report provides a detailed overview of what exists in the policy landscape and what is missing. I warmly recommend to have a look. Some general messages: • CCUS is expected to contribute 8% of emission reductions by 2050 + #carbonremoval from the application of CCUS technologies • More than 400 projects have been announced across the value chain over the last three years, but the deployment has remained relatively flat. The long lead times (median around six years) must be urgently reduced. • The current project pipeline would only deliver a third of what's needed globally by 2030. The policymakers need to create the conditions for the industry to make the projects happen. • New part-chain business models are emerging where separate entities specialise in different parts of the CCUS value chain. • The oil and gas sector continues to play a role, and new specialised players are entering the market. These are chemical and engineering companies providing CO2 capture solutions and infrastructure, shipping companies expanding their portfolio, and new companies focusing exclusively on CCUS. • As a result, old and new players are now establishing joint ventures in a CCUS hub configuration. • New business models also create new project complexities. There is a greater need for coordination across the value chain, mitigation of counter-party risks, allocation of long-term liability, and management of shared, cross-border CO2 transport and storage infrastructure. • Governments can support the deployment of these new models and step in where challenges remain. This, of course, requires the governments to understand better the way the CCUS project development landscape is progressing. Last but not least, a visual that compares the CCS cost and the EU carbon price. There's that evergreen question of what the carbon price should be to incentivise CCS. The right answer is that a strong carbon price is only one of many elements needed. And it's barely touching the CCS applications from diluted CO2 streams today, as seen below. Link to the report in the comments.

Let's agree on something - direct air capture is still a controversial technology, but it's role in transition to net zero is often misunderstood. Although it enables direct removal of CO2 from the atmosphere at scale, its costs and energy requirements are still prohibitive. Most DAC technologies face challenges in scaling up and commercialisation. Academics know it. Consultants know it. Industry knows it. With DAC forecasted to account only for less than 3% of our future emission mitigation activity (~1 GtCO2), why do we see so many start-up and academic activities in this space? As someone involved in DAC research, I'm curious to understand how we can apply chemical engineering and business modelling principles to build a viable use case. Even though the numbers don't stack up yet, there is still much to be explored and understood about DAC - as evident from the attached review paper by Wang et al. It provides a comprehensive overview of the current DAC startup landscape, ecosystem partners, opportunities and challenges in scaling up and commercialising different DAC technologies. Their review discusses over 50 DAC startups and their underlying technologies like solid sorbents, amine sorbents, physisorbents, ion exchange resins, and electrochemical approaches. It discusses challenges related to energy requirements, sorbent stability, and the need for partnerships with clean energy, CO2 utilisation/storage companies based on the specific DAC technology. What is critical, their work highlights the importance of DAC startups building partnerships and a business ecosystem involving investors, government, academia, co-producers (e.g. sorbent manufacturers, clean energy providers, CO2 utilisation/storage), and customers. What is your view on DAC? #carboncapture #climatechange #decarbonization #sustainability #business

I am now in my 10th year working to scale carbon removal, and the math isn't adding up: We need BILLIONS of tonnes removed annually, but our industry is built to produce only thousands. We're optimizing for the wrong priorities, and it's preventing us from achieving the scale we need. Our carbon removal system has evolved to prioritize: • Corporate accounting precision over atmospheric impact • 1000+ year permanence over immediate large-scale action • Perfect MRV over pragmatic scaling solutions This isn't about casting blame – we built this system together with good intentions. But there's a fundamental misalignment between our atmospheric needs and what we're delivering. Scaling to gigatonne levels requires a fundamental reset. We need to separate emissions reduction from historical carbon removal and design systems specifically for scale. When facing climate tipping points, I'd prioritize removing 100 million tonnes for 10 years over 10 million tonnes for 100 years – but our current market isn't built that way. I've co-authored a piece with Nick van Osdol in Keep Cool exploring how we might reset our approach. If you work in carbon removal, climate policy, or corporate sustainability, I'd value your perspective on better aligning our market structures with atmospheric needs. Read the full analysis: https://lnkd.in/gkheCq5t

🌊 Exploring Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) in Climate Mitigation 🌊 As we confront the escalating climate crisis, innovative solutions like Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) are gaining attention. OAE involves increasing the ocean’s alkalinity to enhance its natural capacity to absorb and store atmospheric CO₂, thereby mitigating climate change and countering ocean acidification. 🟢Pros of OAE: • Enhanced Carbon Sequestration: By boosting the ocean’s ability to absorb CO₂, OAE could play a significant role in reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. • Mitigation of Ocean Acidification: Increasing alkalinity can help neutralize ocean acidity, benefiting marine ecosystems and organisms sensitive to pH changes. 🔴Cons of OAE: • Environmental Uncertainties: The long-term ecological impacts of altering ocean chemistry are not fully understood, raising concerns about potential unintended consequences. • Technical and Economic Challenges: Implementing OAE at scale requires substantial investment and technological development, with current costs estimated between $100 to $150 per ton of CO₂ removed. 💡My view: I believe that while OAE and similar carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies offer promising avenues for addressing climate change, they should complement—not replace—urgent efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Prioritizing emission reductions remains essential, with CDR methods serving as supplementary strategies to achieve net-zero targets. A balanced approach that combines immediate emission cuts with the exploration of innovative solutions like OAE will be crucial in our fight against climate change. It’s imperative to invest in research to fully understand the implications of OAE and develop clear regulatory frameworks to ensure its safe and effective deployment. What do you think? For a great overview of this emerging technology, check out this piece in The Washington Post: https://lnkd.in/e_G6jTr6 #climate #co2 #emissions #cdr #climatetech #geoengingeering #oceans #climatescience

🤔 Why are Japanese companies considering developing their own carbon removal projects? 🇯🇵 Japanese shipping giant Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. (MOL) and The Kansai Electric Power co., inc. (KEPCO / 関電) recently signed an MOU to explore carbon removal credit projects. What You Need to Know: 🚢 MOL & ⚡KEPCO will research the feasibility and economics of carbon removal projects in Africa, Southeast Asia, and beyond. 🔍 Scope of the MOU: 📌 Develop carbon removal credit projects 📌 Assess feasibility & economic viability 📌 Evaluate project developers & operators 📌 Participate in project development 📌 Consider off-take agreements for credits CDR methods under consideration: 🌱 Afforestation & reforestation 🌊 Blue carbon 🌾 Soil carbon projects 🪵 Biochar 🎛️ CCS-based removals Why This Matters While KEPCO is relatively new to carbon removal, MOL has been actively engaged in CDR for years. ✅ MOL was the first Japanese company to join the First Movers Coalition (CDR sector)—a global initiative launched by the World Economic Forum. ✅ MOL is a founding buyer of The NextGen CDR facility, committing to purchase at least 50,000 tonnes of verified CDR by 2030. ✅ In its “MOL Group Environmental Vision 2.2” report, the company set an interim milestone of removing 2.2 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2030. 😲 What’s most interesting? MOL frames its carbon removal engagement plans as “beyond value chain mitigation” (BVCM) rather than neutralizing its own emissions. In other words, MOL sees its current CDR investments as a contribution to broader climate action, not as offsets. ❓ Now, why are Japanese companies looking at credit generation as part of their business? 👀 A key insight from the GX-League's carbon credit working group report which highlights a knowledge gap between credit sellers and buyers and suggests: 💡To mitigate risk, Japanese companies may shift into project development—either through long-term off-take agreements or direct project investments—to gain better control over credit integrity, pricing, and long-term supply. 💡Another key factor lies in the GX-League’s GX-ETS framework for overseas carbon credit use, making passive credit purchasing less viable and incentivizes companies to take an active role in project development. ⭐ If KEPCO & MOL join forces, they could play a critical role in scaling CDR. 🚢 MOL brings CDR purchasing experience, ⚡ KEPCO brings utility-scale project development expertise, among many things! They could bridge the gap between financing, development, and implementation of building high-integrity, scalable CDR projects.  🚀 I know this is an MOU, but I certainly am looking forward to seeing how this partnership unfolds, and hopefully actual projects being stood up. 🙂 What do you think? Will more companies follow this model? What impact will this have on the global CDR market? 👇 As always, see relevant links in the comment below. #CarbonRemoval #カーボンクレジット #炭素除去 #碳移除

There’s a difference between having offtake interest and having real demand. Many carbon removal projects present the same story: Offtake signed → revenue secured → project de-risked. My experience shows that the signature means very little without understanding who stands behind it. In today’s market, there are two very different capital logics at play and confusing them is dangerous. Here’s the distinction: 1️⃣ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭 Speculators look for optionality. They want early access to volume, exposure to future price appreciation, and the flexibility to step away if conditions shift. They often sign non-binding LOIs or conditional offtakes linked to their own future fundraising. On paper, this looks like demand. But there is no capital allocated behind the signature. If the market softens, compliance rules change, or credit prices move, they can walk away with limited consequences. Building industrial capacity on that type of offtake is fragile. 2️⃣ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭 Infrastructure capital behaves very differently. It looks for long-term contracted cash flows backed by counterparties with balance sheet strength. Capital is allocated before public announcements. Due diligence happens before signatures. Risk is priced and structured. This capital is designed to stay through cycles, not to chase momentum. When infrastructure investors see an offtake, they immediately ask: Is this funded? Is the counterparty creditworthy? Is the obligation enforceable? Without those elements, the document has limited value. 3️⃣ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐲 𝐳𝐨𝐧𝐞 The most fragile space in carbon removal today is not speculation itself. It is the grey zone where offtakes are signed, press releases are issued, but no money is actually committed. Developers interpret this as validation and banks interpret it as conditional. That mismatch is where financing gaps appear. An unfunded offtake is not revenue security. It is exposure disguised as certainty. 4️⃣ 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 Carbon removal is increasingly positioned as infrastructure. Infrastructure requires predictable cash flows, creditworthy counterparties, and long-term alignment between supply and demand. If your demand base is speculative, your financing structure will also become speculative. And speculative financing does not build resilient industrial assets. 5️⃣ 𝐌𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 I see more and more projects celebrating offtake announcements that are not backed by committed capital. That is a structural risk. Interest is not funding. A signature is not a balance sheet. If the buyer cannot demonstrate capital behind the contract, the project is not de-risked it is exposed. Carbon removal wants to be infrastructure, but infrastructure requires infrastructure capital. That distinction matters more than ever.

You think Silicon Valley is the future of climate tech? You couldn’t be more wrong... The most meaningful progress is happening far from the venture bubble, in small labs, research stations, and community workshops where the focus is on solving practical problems rather than chasing scale. 2025 has been a record year for climate tech investment. But the real story isn’t how much money is being raised. It’s what that money is building. The direction of innovation is shifting toward systems that are modular, verifiable, and built for real-world conditions. These technologies can be deployed quickly, maintained locally, and adapted to places that can’t wait for large infrastructure to arrive. 🌱 Releaf Earth (YC 2025) converts food waste into biochar that restores soil, locks carbon, and produces renewable power for local microgrids. Their portable reactors make it possible for small communities to build their own carbon markets. Biochar now accounts for more than 90 percent of all durable carbon removals delivered globally, showing how central this technology has become to practical decarbonization. 🌱 Modular Green Hydrogen startups in programs such as RMI’s accelerator are proving that hydrogen production doesn’t have to rely on billion-dollar plants. Their systems use renewables and recycled water to power rural transport and small industries, aligning closely with the U.S. 45Q incentive for low-carbon hydrogen. 🌱 Recyclable wind turbines built from bio-resins and nanocellulose are beginning to close the loop on renewable energy. They address a long-standing issue in the sector, how to manage the waste created when turbine blades reach the end of their life. 🌱 Bamboo-based cooling panels, now emerging from university and startup labs, use natural condensation to lower indoor temperatures without electricity. Early trials in Asia and Africa suggest they could offer low-cost cooling in regions already struggling with extreme heat and limited access to power. 🌱 AI and satellite mapping tools from companies such as Astraea are providing live, high-resolution data on climate risks. What used to take months of modeling can now be updated continuously, helping governments, insurers, and local planners make faster, better decisions. These examples point to a wider shift. Climate technology is no longer defined by size or spectacle. It is defined by systems that are reliable, measurable, and designed for real contexts. Policies like the European Union’s Carbon Removal Certification Framework are reinforcing this trend, directing investment toward solutions that can demonstrate genuine and lasting impact. The next phase of climate innovation will not be driven by how much it raises or how fast it scales. It will be judged by how well it works, consistently, locally, and over time.

There has (understandably) been a lot of conversation over the last few days about Microsoft’s carbon removal program. I think it’s important to contextualize this in the overall trajectory of the carbon removal field. There are two important things that haven’t changed: 1. The end game for CDR is policy-driven demand (i.e. governments buying directly or otherwise mandating other emitters to buy). The world is going to need gigatons of CDR, which is $X00B’s of annual spend. The voluntary carbon market won’t (and was never going to) scale to the size of this problem.  2. The role of corporate buyers is to get promising technologies proven at scale, so that governments can confidently spend taxpayer money when it’s time to ‘pass the baton’. We’re seeing remarkable progress on both fronts. Demand-driven policy is starting to take shape in Sweden, Denmark, UK, Germany, Japan, the EU, etc. And there has been significant technology development – there have been verified deliveries across nearly all major pathways and over 1M tons of new capacity broke ground last year. Even with this progress, the baton pass is some way off. Policy-driven demand will take time (likely years) to become a meaningful source of revenue for companies. Additionally, some of the most promising carbon removal technologies still need more time to develop before they’re policy-ready. Put another way, the news this week magnified a gap that already existed: more voluntary buyers were (and still are) needed to ensure this market keeps developing at pace. Microsoft has done a heroic job enabling great technologies to start scaling. New voluntary buyers are now needed more than ever to ensure the best technologies keep building until policy-driven demand becomes operational at scale.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐂𝐒 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐂𝐔 One of the most valuable lessons from my time in Japan was understanding how #finance and #market design make #carbon #capture and #utilisation (#CCS/#CCU) projects commercially viable. At the Global CCS Institute and in discussions with Japanese industry leaders, I saw how clear #policy signals and shared risk models attract private capital. #Japan’s approach combines government #subsidies, long-term #liability frameworks and predictable #regulations, creating the confidence needed for large-scale #investment. Typical full-chain CCS projects, covering capture, transport and storage, operate at an estimated cost of USD 50–120 per tonne of CO₂ captured, with pipeline transport and storage adding roughly USD 10–20 per tonne. Japan reduces that burden by blending public funding with private investment, allowing early projects to move forward while costs continue to fall. Beyond storage, the business model of carbon utilisation stood out. Companies such as Sumitomo Osaka Cement are transforming captured CO₂ into mineralised limestone products, turning a greenhouse gas into a source of revenue. This shift from liability to asset demonstrates how carbon management can create economic value while meeting climate targets. The key insight for me: finance and #technology must advance together. Technology proves that capture and utilisation work; finance and policy make them investable. Seeing this alignment in practice reinforced how critical market design is to turning ambitious climate goals into operating projects.