Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

The impact of climate on solvent-based direct air capture systems

Keju An a, Azharuddin Farooqui b, Sean T. McCoy b, *
a
Buildings and Transportation Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA
b
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, AB T2N IN4, Canada

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• The CO2 capture rate of liquid-solvent

DAC is strongly influenced by air tem­
perature and relative humidity.
• Varying CO2 capture rates have a strong
impact on overall energy demand of
DAC and levelized cost of CO2 removal.
• Levelized cost of capture can vary by a
factor of nearly two between cold, dry
conditions and warm, humid conditions.
• GHG intensity of energy supply is,
however, more influential than climate
conditions in determining efficiency of
removal.
• Estimates of DAC potential should
consider specific climate conditions
rather than relying on generic perfor­
mance figures.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Direct air capture (DAC) is increasingly seen as a critical technology to reach mid-century net-zero targets and
Direct Air Capture (DAC) limit climate change to well below 2 ◦ C. While the commercialization of DAC technologies is being pursued by
Climate impact numerous companies, there remains remarkably little information on their performance under “real-world”
CO2 capture efficiency
conditions. In this paper, for the first time, we investigate the influence of temperature and relative humidity of
Levelized cost for CO2 capture
air on the CO2 capture rate at the air contactor, overall energy requirement, CO2 capture efficiency, and levelized
cost of liquid-solvent based DAC systems. We observe that the overall energy demand decreases from 11.1 to 8.3
GJ/tCO2 as the CO2 capture rate increases from 40 to 85 % and that high capture rates can only be achieved in
hot and humid climate conditions. We observe that a CO2 capture rate of 75 % is only possible above 17 ◦ C and
90 % relative humidity, and this drops dramatically at lower temperatures. It is also observed that water
evaporation in the air contactor is highest at dry and low relative humidity, as expected. The sensitivity analysis
showed that CO2 capture efficiency is relatively insensitive to climate conditions for the liquid-solvent based DAC
plant. Lastly, the levelized cost of natural gas standalone scenario varies from $240/tCO2 to $409/tCO2, and this
is more sensitive to temperature than relative humidity. The levelized cost of the natural gas stand-alone case is
between 7 % and 10 % lower than that of an electric grid-connected case across all climate conditions.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sean.mccoy@ucalgary.ca (S.T. McCoy).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119895
Received 1 April 2022; Received in revised form 16 August 2022; Accepted 24 August 2022
Available online 6 September 2022
0306-2619/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. An et al.
1. Introduction
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities are driving
unprecedented change in the climate system that is manifesting itself in
rapid, widespread warming [1] and extreme events like wildfires, heat
waves, heavy rain, and droughts [2]. While many greenhouse gases,
such as methane and nitrous oxide, contribute to radiative forcing,
carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main contributor. Most climate stabilization
scenarios that limit global warming to well below 2 ◦ C include negative
emission technologies (NETs), which remove and isolate CO2 from the
atmosphere [3]. An analysis of scenarios developed using integrated
assessment models (IAMs) suggests that a more stringent 1.5 ◦ C warming
limit is unlikely to be feasible without the large-scale deployment of
NETs and, while some scenarios limit warming to 2.0 ◦ C without NETs,
these require immediate and strong emissions reductions [3–5]. Evi­
dence also suggests a portfolio of NETs may be preferable, in particular,
to manage the risks that come with large-scale deployment [3,6,7].
Direct air capture (DAC) is an engineered system that captures car­
bon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and could play a prominent
role in the NET portfolio [6]. DAC has been increasingly discussed as a
climate change mitigation option because of its relatively low land-use
intensity and the flexibility in siting DAC. Because the CO2 concentra­
tion in the atmosphere (about 415 ppm in 2021) is more or less the same
in any location around the planet, DAC could be located close to geologic
CO2 storage options and energy sources [6,8]. However, estimates of
current (and future) DAC system energy demand, capital andoperation
cost, and water consumption vary widely [9–11]. There are a few
companies (e.g., Climeworks, Carbon Engineering, Global Thermostat)
commercially developing different DAC technologies. Solid sorbents
with low-temperature regeneration (~120 ◦ C) [8,11–17] and liquid
solvents with high-temperature regeneration (~900 ◦ C) [18–21] are
furthest in development and provide a scalable opportunity to evaluate
DAC technology. Adsorption-based systems can employ a wide range of
sorbents that are tailored to the application and, because of the low-
temperature heat requirement, can use a wide range of energy sour­
ces—including waste heat, geothermal energy, and renewable elec­
tricity [9,19,22]. A challenge for solid sorbent systems is to build a very
large surface area structure with low-pressure drop at a low cost that can
also be efficiently heated and sealed (to allow for temperature-vacuum
swing regeneration). Additionally, there are trade-offs in sorbent
design between scalability, cost, and lifetime over numerous adsorp­
tion–desorption cycles. In contrast, liquid solvent DAC allows for
continuous operation and uses relatively conventional cooling-tower
systems for air contacting. The bottleneck of liquid solvent DAC is the
high energy demand for the calcining process used in solvent regener­
ation, the relative complexity of the system, and relatively large water
consumption in dry climates [10]. To apply the DAC system at large
commercial scales, low-cost and efficient systems are essential.
Multiple papers published in recent years present the results of
modeling and demonstrations of liquid-based DAC systems. Holmes
et al. [18] presented the results of a novel air contactor utilizing a
crossflow configuration and high-performance packing material. This
prototype air contactor significantly reduced the fan power required to
push ambient air through the air contactor as well as lower the pressure
drop, which is closely related to the operational cost. Keith et al. [10]
reported the energy and material balance of a commercial scale (1 Mt/
year) liquid-based DAC system based on process simulation and pilot
plant results, including all of the major components (air contacting,
solvent regeneration, and CO2 compression). In addition, they estimated
energy demand (5.53 GJ/tCO2 to 8.81 GJ/tCO2) and levelized capture
cost ($94/tCO2 to $232/tCO2) for different energy supply options and
economic parameters. The experimental and pilot plant results pub­
lished by Holmes et al. [18] and Keith et al. [10] form the basis for much
of the analysis of liquid-solvent DAC systems. Their results show that the
estimated energy demand is relatively high but that sensible costs might
be achievable with further technology development. These findings are
2
Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895
echoed by Sabatino et al. [23], who used process modeling to analyze
solid-sorbent and liquid-sorbent DAC. They found that despite the
higher exergy demand and productivity for solid sorbents, both have the
potential to achieve costs below $200/tCO2. In addition to the above
works, the economics of DAC and policy levers necessary to drive
deployment and drive cost reductions through “learning-by-doing” are
being increasingly investigated [7,24–28].
Most of the studies summarized above investigated DAC under
relatively moderate climate conditions (e.g., 15–27 ◦ C and 69 % relative
humidity [10,17,29]) or provide no specific climate information about
absorption/adsorption processes [9,30,31]. Climate conditions are one
of the key variables for a DAC system since, unlike with other forms of
CO2 capture, the CO2 source is the atmosphere that, globally, presents a
wide range of temperature and humidity. Previous studies of absorption
kinetics in the CO2 contactor [23,32,33] showed a strong temperature
dependence. The large volume of air that is contacting the solvent in the
air contactor will cause the solvent to rapidly equilibrate with the air
temperature. Parameters such as wind speed, precipitation, and altitude
will also play a role in determining the performance of DAC, but tem­
perature and relative humidity (RH) should have a significant effect on
kinetics in the air contactor, which has a strong influence on the carbon
capture rates and overall energy demand on the process. None of the
peer-reviewed studies published to date explicitly address the impact of
air temperature and relative humidity (RH) on the system performance
of DAC. By examining the performance of DAC under various climate
conditions, spatially resolved estimates of CO2 capture rates, CO2 cap­
ture efficiencies, and cost could be developed that could influence the
deployment of liquid-solvent based DAC systems—and, possibly, shift
the preference between different types of DAC systems.
Liquid DAC systems require both high-temperature heat and elec­
tricity, with heat accounting for over 80 % of the energy demand. In
systems described in the literature, electrical demand has been met
through co-generation (e.g., using a natural gas combined cycle unit) or
import of electricity from the grid, and the thermal demand met largely
by oxyfuel combustion of natural gas. McQueen et al. [19] and Liu et al.
[31] investigated the influence of providing heat using electricity
generated by a range of different technologies, (e.g., geothermal, solar,
wind, nuclear) to reduce the overall life cycle GHG emissions for fixed
temperature and relative humidity conditions. However, these studies
do not identify whether the life cycle GHG emissions and levelized cost
of liquid DAC systems are more sensitive to the fuel (including fugitive
emissions) or the climate conditions (i.e., temperature and relative
humidity).
There have also been several recent life cycle assessment (LCA)
studies to quantify the environmental performance of DAC. Deutz et al.
[17] showed the current DAC plants in Hellisheidi (Iceland), and Hinwii
(Switzerland), operated by Climeworks (based on solid sorbents) can
already deliver negative emissions with a carbon capture efficiency of
85.4% and 93.1%, respectively. In addition, they show that a low-GHG
intensity energy source and high efficiency are essential for lowering the
life cycle carbon footprint of the solid sorbent-based DAC system. Ter­
louw et al. [30] presented a comprehensive LCA of different solid-
sorbent DAC systems with low-carbon electricity and heat sources.
The sensitivity analysis reveals the importance of selecting appropriate
regions because of the carbon intensity of grid electricity that can lead to
a net positive emission system today. Madhu et al. [29] presented a
comparative life cycle assessment of both DAC technologies coupled
with carbon storage: liquid-solvent and solid sorbent systems. Their
results suggest that solid-sorbent DAC outperforms liquid-solvent DAC
by a factor of 1.3–10 in all environmental impact scenarios for the 1Mt-
CO2/year scale. However, for the liquid-solvent DAC, Madhu et al. [29]
use a capture rate, of 42% across from ambient air which is a far lower
capture rate than in Keith et al. [10] across all cases, which is sub-
optimal based on Holmes’s work [18,20] (suggesting 75 %). In addi­
tion, Madhu et al. [29] do not capture CO2 emissions associated with the
energy used in calcination, which implies a different process than
K. An et al.
previously proposed for liquid-solvent DAC systems. Liu et al. [31]
conducted an LCA of the greenhouse gas emissions of a liquid-solvent
DAC system paired with Fischer–Tropsch synthesis (FTS) to produce
transportation fuel. This work was the first LCA study of a DAC-to-fuel
process and the system emits 0.51 gCO2e per gCO2 captured from the
air but this result is extremely sensitive to upstream electricity emis­
sions. Previous LCA studies have shown the strong influence of energy
source and capture efficiency on the net of lifecycle emissions associated
with DAC systems. The growing literature on overall LCA on DAC system
either talk about the alternative energy source for supporting the energy
demand to reduce the GHG emissions or levelized the cost of CO2 cap­
ture without considering the influence of varying temperatures and
relative humidity.
The present study addresses this gap and investigates (1) the
response of CO2 capture rates in a solvent-based DAC system to a range
of temperature and humidity conditions and the associated change in
the levelized cost of CO2 capture, energy demand, and net CO2 capture
rates and (2) the impact of meeting electrical demand from the grid
rather than a standalone natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) unit. To
achieve these objectives, we model a solvent-based DAC system­
—including the air contactor, regeneration system, and CO2 compres­
sion, validated against Carbon Engineering data [10]—and use this
model to develop mass and energy balances across a range of air tem­
perature and relative humidity to estimate the CO2 capture efficiency.
Since the net CO2 capture from the atmosphere (across the life cycle) is
of critical importance for DAC, we include the influence of natural gas
upstream fugitive emissions in our estimates. In the grid-connected case,
we remove the NGCC unit and use imported grid electricity to meet all
electrical energy demand from the system as shown in Fig. 1. These
results will contribute to the understanding of DAC under different
climate conditions and the necessary conditions for DAC to deliver the
intended climate benefit to operate as net negative carbon capture
technology.
2. Materials and methods
The process simulation of the liquid solvent DAC system includes the
air contacting unit, regeneration, and calcium cycles to capture CO2
from ambient air in a continuous mode and is based on the Carbon
Fig. 1. Commercial-scale, 1 MtCO2/year, DAC plant configuration [10] illustrated as a block flow diagram showing the option of electricity supply by the NGCC unit
(inside the dashed box) or grid electricity.
3
Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895
Engineering process [10]. The mass and energy balances at different CO2
capture rates and the thermodynamic transformations of the operating
streams were obtained using the commercial process simulator Aspen
Plus V11. The assumptions considered for each stream and component
and the process parameters adopted to derive reasonable results are
provided in the following sections. Fig. 1 shows the process flow dia­
gram of the DAC plant with an electrical support option of an NGCC unit
or grid electricity.
2.1. Thermodynamic model and chemical reactions
The thermodynamic parameters and properties of the chemicals
were estimated with the ENRTL-RK package for the liquid phase and RK-
SOAVE and Henry’s Law for the gas phase [34–36]. The unsymmetrical
electrolyte NRTL property method (ENRTL-RK) is utilized for the binary
interaction parameters, electrolyte pair parameters, and equilibrium
constant for the precipitation reaction estimated from experimental data
[37]. For the two-phase blocks, the mass transfer was modelled with a
two-film rate-based approach neglecting the mixing by convection [21].
This thermodynamic approach estimates the excess Gibbs free energy
and the activity coefficient of an electrolyte system, considering the
strong non-ideal behaviour of ionic mixtures. The excess of Gibbs energy
can be defined instead as a difference between the Gibbs free energy of
electrolyte systems and the Gibbs energy of an ideal solution with the
same condition of temperature, pressure, and concentration [38].
Chemical reactions in each component involve not only equilibrium
reactions but also the salt formation and dissociation reactions as shown
in Table 1. The series of reactions have been generated by the Aspen Plus
with the procedure of electrolyte wizard that all the chemical substances
present in the DAC system including the ionic components and its re­
actions with coefficients to calculate equilibrium constants.
2.2. Process layout
The DAC process was modelled in two separate loops: first, CO2
capture and regeneration cycle using an aqueous solution and, second, a
calcium loop drives the removal of carbonate ion. The liquid solvent-
based DAC plant captures roughly 1 Mt of CO2 in a year from the at­
mosphere and delivers dry CO2 at 15 MPa after four stages of
K. An et al. Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895

Table 1 Table 2
Chemical reactions in the DAC system. Operating parameters and specifications for rated-based air-contactor simula­
Reaction Type Reaction Type
tion [10,23].
Operating Condition of rate based Air-contactor
(1)H2 O + Equilibrium (5)K2 CO3 ↔ CO2−
3 + 2K
+ Salt
HCO−3 ↔ CO2−
3 +
Precipitation Air flow rate [tonne/h] 150.6
H 3 O+ Lean solvent flow rate [tonne/h] 19.08
(2)CaOH+ ↔ Ca2+ + Equilibrium (6)CaCO3 ↔ CO2−
3 +
Salt KOH concentration in the lean solvent [mol/Liter] 1.1
OH− Ca2+ Precipitation K2CO3 concentration in the lean solvent [mol/Liter] 0.45
(3)2H2 O + Equilibrium (7)KOH ↔ OH− + K+ Dissociation Packing Diameter [m] 5.64
CO2 ↔ HCO−3 + Packing Depth [m] 1.28
H 3 O+ Packing Type Sulzer 250Y
(4)2H2 O ↔ OH− + Equilibrium (8)Ca(OH)2 ↔ CaOH+ + Dissociation Number of blocks 6
H 3 O+ OH− Reaction condition factor 0.9
Film discretization points 5
Interfacial area factor 1.2
Liquid film discretization points 5
compression. The air contactor design is based on the commercially
CO2 Capture Rate [%] 76.9
available crossflow cooling tower and this design choice is critical for
cost-effective DAC on a commercial scale [10]. The air-contactor leads
ambient air in contact with the liquid solution and captures CO2 from solvent are designed based on a scaling factor with the lean solvent
the air. As the liquid solvent flows down the packing column, it coats the molarity of 1.1 mol/L, KOH, and 0.45 mol/L, K2CO3. The modeled
material with a thin film (~50 µm) that allows for the mass transfer of performance of CO2 capture in the air contactor was found to be 76.9%
CO2 from the gas to the liquid phase. It follows that the degree of CO2 compared to 75% from Keith et al. [10] for the same conditions (i.e., a
separation from the gas mixture increases with the larger packing vol­ 2.5% difference). We then simulate performance of theair contactor
ume [21] After the CO2 is captured in a dedicated air contactor unit, under a wide range of temperature and humidity climate conditions
where it is absorbed in an aqueous solution of KOH in the form of K2CO3, could affect CO2 capture rates notably, based on the previous works of
a rich solvent. The K2CO3 solution is regenerated by forming a calcium absorption kinetics [32]. The detailed methodology of the model vali­
carbonate (CaCO3) which is then fed to an oxygen-fired calciner dation of the air contactor and the chemical reactions are listed in the
(~900 ◦ C) and decomposed to CaO and CO2. Carbon dioxide captured supplementary file (Section 1 and Table S2).
from both the atmosphere and from fuel oxidization exits the calciner.
2.2.2. DAC system model
2.2.1. Air contactor model The commercial-scale DAC plant (1 MtCO2/year) was modeled in
In the air contactor, ambient air passes over a solvent containing a Aspen Plus to assess the response of energy demand and CO2 capture
hydroxide ion that reacts with the CO2, forming a carbonate compound. efficiency at different CO2 capture rates from the air contactor. Our DAC
The absorption mechanism of CO2 in alkaline solutions is well known model is representative of a commerical configuration [10], but required
and takes place in three main steps, shown by Equations (1)–(3) [32,39] some modifications based on mass, energy, and charge balance to reduce
and other equations that may occur in air contactor are listed in the the model complexity. The main unit components and their operating
supplementary file. conditions are listed in Table 3. For the DAC model, we represent the air-
contactor as a mixer that conceptually reacts the lean solvent with CO2
CO2 + OH − ↔ HCO−3 (1)
in the air to acheive a CO2 capture rate from 40% to 85%. The pellet
reactor was simulated by a crystallizer reactor to remove the carbonate
HCO−3 + OH − ↔ CO2−3 + H2 O (2)

2H2 O ↔ H3 O+ + OH − (3)
Table 3
In this manner, CO2 is captured in the air contactor unit where it is Unit Components and Operating Conditions.
absorbed in an aqueous solution of KOH in the form of K2CO3. During Air Contactor Calciner
the CO2 absorption process, the rate of the reaction between carbon
Block Option Contactor RStoic
dioxide and hydroxide ion increase exponentially as reaction tempera­ Property Method ENRTL-RK PENG-ROB
ture increases at a different level of molar concentrations [21,33]. In the Operating 21 ◦ C 900 ◦ C
air contactor, the ultimate purpose is to maximize the coverage of the Temperature
liquid solvent over the packing column to increase the interfacial contact Operating Pressure 1 bar 1 bar
Reactions (Main reactions) CH4 + O2 → CO2 +
area for optimal gas–liquid reaction. Maximizing the percentage of the
2H2O
wetted packing will provide higher opportunities for CO2 to cross the CO2 + OH– → HCO–3 CaCO3 → CaO + CO2
gas–liquid film interface at which CO2 transfers from the gas to the HCO–3 + OH– → CO–3 + H2O 2C2H6 + 7O2 → 4CO2
liquid phase. In addition, the reaction temperature also affects Henry’s + 6H2O
2H2O → H3O+ + OH– C3H8 + 5O2 → 3CO2 +
constant [40] and diffusion coefficient [41] significantly which are
4H2O
major variables of the mass transfer coefficient formula [20]. In this (see supplementary file for detailed
work, the air contactor has been designed and simulated using Aspen reaction list)
software to validate the CO2 capture rate, 75%, of the Carbon Engi­ Additional Note – Conversion ratio: 98 %
neering system [10] following the approach presented by Sabatino et al. CaCO3
Pellet Reactor Steam Slaker
[23]. The CO2 capture rate can be calculated based on the CO2 mass flow
Block Option Crystallizer RStoic
rate difference between upstream and downstream of air contactor, Property Method ENRTL-RK PENG-ROB
CO2 capture rate = (m ˙
CO2_in− ṁCO2_out )/ṁCO2_in , where mCO2_in is the Operating 21 ◦ C 300 ◦ C
Temperature
mass flowrate of CO2 at the air inlet from the air contactor and mCO2_out
Operating Pressure 1 bar 1 bar
is the outlet mass flowrate of CO2. For example, the CO2 capture rate is Reactions Salt precipitation reaction: Ca+ + CaO + H2O → CaOH2
75% when the upstream CO2 mass flowrate is 400 t/hr and 100 t/hr for CO2–-
3 → CaCO3
the downstream. The specifications of the contactor model are shown in Additional Note – CaO conversion ratio:
85 %
Table 2. In the air-contactor simulation, the flowrate of air and lean

4
K. An et al.
ion, CO2–3 , formed in the air contactor. The precipitation of calcium
carbonate pellets is adapted considering the conversion of the fed Ca
(OH)2 of roughly 90 %. In the real plant, this solution is recovered from
the pellet reactor in a closed loop. To reduce complexity and avoid any
convergence problems, the streams containing the solution have been
modelled with an open loop that leads to ease in managing the design
specifications of this section. The calcium carbonate pellets are washed,
dried, pre-heated, and calcined at 900 ◦ C with a CaCO3 to CaO con­
version ratio of 98 %. The energy demand of the calcining process is
calculated from the natural gas feed using oxygen as the oxidizing agent
required to reach the adiabatic condition with the target conversion
ratio. We use a representative natural gas composition rather than pure
methane for feeding the calciner and the power island. From the calciner
outlet, the concentrated stream of CO2 is washed in a water knockout
and then compressed to 151 bar using multistage compressors.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Variation in CO2 capture rate at different climate conditions
In this section, the results of the rate-based air contactor from the
Aspen simulation provide the various CO2 capture rates under different
climate conditions. We simulate the performance of the air-contactor
system using rate-based simulation between under 0 to 40 ℃ tempera­
ture and 10% to 90% relative humidity climate conditions. The tem­
perature range, 0 to 40 ℃, is determined by the temperature range of
published OH– and CO2 kinetic data [32]. Fig. 2 shows the results of the
CO2 capture rate in the air contactor under different climate conditions.
Keith et al. reported a capture rate of 75% for the Carbon Engineering
system at 21 ◦ C at 69% RH [10] however, across the modeled conditions,
we find that CO2 capture rates could be expected to vary between 52%
and 90%. The CO2 capture rate is more sensitive to temperature rather
than the relative humidity of air conditions due to the well known
exponential relationship between temperature and chemical reaction
rates [32]. Two factors define the effect of temperature and RH. Firstly,
for any given temperature, the water content in the air and the solvent
leaving the contactor will approach equilibrium, which is defined by the
humidity ratio (the ability of air to absorb moisture at a certain tem­
perature) and, RH. This will typically (but nor always) result in evapo­
ration of water from the solvent. Secondly, the reaction between
incoming air and KOH produces water (see Equation (2)) as a by-
product. Figure S2 (a and b) shows that with an increase of tempera­
ture for a specific relative humidity (for example 90%), the humidity
ratio is higher, and the amount of moisture required to reach saturation
Fig. 2. CO2 capture rate at different relative humidity and a temperature range
from the Air-Contactor unit of the liquid solvent-based DAC system. (Grey-
colored area represents unreachable air conditions).
5
Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895
also increases. For example, air at RH of 90% at 10 ◦ C the air can take an
additional 0.78 gmoisture/kgair before it is saturated (humidity ratio: 7.66
gmoisture/kgair) whereas at 20 ◦ C, the same capacity increases by 1.33
gmoisture/kgair to reach saturation state (humidity ratio: 14.75 gmoisture/
kgair). For 30 ◦ C, the same capacity of air at RH at 90% RH increases by
2.84 gmoisture/kgair (from 24.47 gmoisture/kgair to 27.31 gmoisture/kgair) for
saturation. Figure S2 (b) gives the additional water that air can absorb
from KOH solvent given the opportunity and, at lower RH and higher
temperature, it is highest and falls as the RH increases. This leads to
decrease in water concentration in solvent and thereby increasing KOH
molarity and hence the higher CO2 capture rates. If the reaction rates of
KOH with CO2 are only dependent on KOH molarity, then CO2 capture
rates (t/h or %) should follow the same trends as that of the evapora­
tion/additional moisture carrying capacity of air (Figure S2 (b)) but the
reaction kinetics are more strongly influenced by temperature, meaning
that at a higher temperature the CO2 capture rates would be higher even
at higher RH which is reflected from Fig. 2. The water present in solvent
at higher RH and higher temperature leads to water dissociation to form
carbonate and bicarbonate as per Equation (3). Therefore, with lesser
evaporation at higher RH and temperature the concentration of water
increases and will dissociate to form more OH– that eventually increases
the molarity and thereby increases the CO2 capture rates.
The practical impact of the temperature is that, ceteris paribus, a
DAC plant in cooler and dryer climate conditions would capture less
CO2. For example, the average annual temperature was approximately
4 ◦ C at 63% RH in Calgary, Canada from March 2020 to March 2021.
Thus, the air contactor of a DAC system in Calgary would—over the
course of a year (and under current climate conditions)—remove around
58% of the CO2 in the air moving through the contactor. Thus, a nominal
1 MtCO2/y solvent-based DAC plant would remove approximately 0.77
MtCO2/y. It is not obvious that this could be countered through design
measures, such as solvent heating, given the enormous volume of cold
air moving through the contactor. In addition to the impact of colder
average temperatures, daily temperature extremes can also be highly
variable. For example, in Calgary, Canada, these range from well below
–32 ◦ C to over 25 ◦ C with relative humidity (RH) from 25% to 94%. The
liquid solvent should remain in a liquid phase down to zero Celsius
(when the mass fraction of KOH is about 1% [10]), which suggests the
air contactors could operate below 0 ◦ C with a higher mass fraction of
KOH [42]. Since the kinetic data is only available down to 0 ◦ C, the
model is unable to predict performance below 0 ◦ C, but we expect the
capture rate would quickly fall below 50%.
3.2. Mass balance and energy demand
The DAC plant discharges approximately one percent of the circu­
lating calcium each cycle as waste in the form of CaCO3. This discharge
flow performs as a purge that controls the buildup of unnecessary ele­
ments that are possibly introduced to the calcium cycle by various routes
[10]. The overall mass flow for each major component is shared in
Table 4. The sources of carbon dioxide in the DAC system are the
ambient air and oxyfuel combustion from calcining process supported
by the natural gas and oxygen from the air separation unit. The natural
gas flow rate to calciner increases as the CO2 capture rate increases to
maintain the adiabatic condition. After the four-stage compression, the
final outflow CO2 rates vary from 104.8 to 189.9 tonne/hr at 40% and
85% CO2 capture rates. The sharp increment of CaCO3 from the pellet
reactor is mainly due to additional incoming Ca2+ ions from the steam
slaker considered by the salt precipitation process of CaCO3 that is
calculated based on the charge balance of OH– and CO2– 3 in the pellet
reactor at different CO2 capture rates.
The energy balances of electric and thermal power consumed at
different CO2 capture rates in the DAC system are provided in Table 5.
The compressors are the most electricity-intensive component, ac­
counting for more than 70 % of the total power demand regardless of the
CO2 capture rate. The compressors in the DAC plant are utilized for the
K. An et al. Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895

Table 4
Mass balance of major units of DAC at different, climate-dependent CO2 capture rates (Stream numbers are shown in Fig. 1.).
Mass flow rate [tonne/hr] CO2 Capture Rate

50 % 55 % 60 % 65 % 70 % 75 % 80 % 85 %

Air Contactor
1. CO2 inlet 93.2 101.3 109.4 117.5 125.6 133.1 141.8 149.9
2. KOH solvent inlet 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
3. K2CO3 solvent outlet 35,093 35,101 35,109 35,117 35,125 35,133 35,141 35,149
Pellet Reactor
4. K2CO3 solvent inlet 35,093 35,101 35,109 35,117 35,125 35,133 35,141 35,149
5. Ca(OH)2 solvent inlet 710 722 735 748 760 773 786 798
6. CaCO3 makeup 2.5 2.7 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
7. CaCO3 seed inlet 4.5 4.9 5.3 5.6 6 6.3 6.7 7
8. CaCO3 disposal 2.5 2.7 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
9. CaCO3 outlet 229.4 246.9 264.4 281.8 299.9 316.7 334.2 351.7
KOH solvent inlet 354,000 354,000 354,000 354,000 354,000 354,000 354,000 354,000
KOH solvent outlet 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000
Calciner
10. CaCO3 inlet 229.4 246.9 264.4 281.8 299.9 316.7 334.2 351.7
11. O2 inlet 41.7 44.4 48.3 51.5 54.3 57.4 60.6 64.2
12. Natural Gas inlet 9.15 9.75 10.6 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.3 14.1
13. CaCO3 seed outlet 4.5 4.9 5.3 5.6 6.0 6.3 6.7 7.0
14. CaO outlet 125.9 135.6 145.2 154.7 164.3 173.9 183.5 193.1
15. CO2 outlet 123.7 132.9 142.7 152.1 161.3 170.6 180.1 189.9
Steam Slaker
16. CaO inlet 125.9 135.6 145.2 154.7 164.3 173.8 183.5 193.1
17. Steam, H2O inlet 54.1 54.1 54.1 54.1 54.1 54.1 54.1 54.1
18. Ca(OH)2 outlet 166.4 179.1 191.8 204.5 217.1 229.7 242.5 255.1

Table 5
Thermal and Electric Balance at different, climate-dependent CO2 capture rates.
Power [MW] CO2 Capture Rate

50 % 55 % 60 % 65 % 70 % 75 % 80 % 85 %

Thermal Power
Coolers − 89.3 − 94.7 − 98.6 − 103.7 − 107.9 − 111.3 − 116.4 − 120.6
Heaters 60.7 62.1 64.8 68.3 71.7 74.3 76.8 80.4
Steam Slaker − 37 − 42 − 47 − 52 − 62 − 62 − 68 − 72.6
Mix Tank − 62 − 62 − 63 − 63 − 63 − 63 − 63 − 64
Water Knockout − 9 − 11 − 12 − 14 − 17.5 − 18 − 19.5 − 21.6
Separator 2.56 2.53 2.5 2.45 2.42 2.38 2.35 2.31
Electrical Power
CO2 Compressor 14.9 15.85 17 18.3 19 20 21.6 23
Compressor – ASU 9.51 10.13 11 11.7 12.37 13.1 13.83 14.66
Compressor – NGCC 41.2 42.55 44 45.34 46.54 47.98 49.25 50.5
Gas Turbine − 75.01 − 77.23 − 79.9 − 82.36 − 84.31 − 89.46 − 89.46 − 92.15
Steam Turbine − 11.3 − 12 − 12.8 − 13.68 − 14.3 − 15.92 − 15.92 − 16.71
Auxiliary Equip. 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7

Air Separation Unit (ASU), CO2 compression, and in the NGCC. The
electrical power generation of the NGCC, including the steam and gas
turbine output, varies depending on the overall electrical power demand
of the system. The power from the NGCC depends on the mass flow rate
entering the combined cycle. The details of the NGCC model and vali­
dation details are described in the Supplementary file (Section 2). En­
ergy requirements for the DAC plant are met by natural gas input to the
calciner and NGCC. The energy consumption of the calciner changes
little with the CO2 capture rate as compared to the energy demand for
the NGCC which decreases from 5 to 3.1 GJ/tCO2 as the CO2 capture rate
increases due to the higher rate of increment on captured atmospheric
CO2 compared to the rate of natural gas input to combined cycle
(Figure S4).
In the Calciner, 54% to 62% of total natural gas is fed to support the
calcining process to break down the CaCO3 to CaO and CO2. The highest
CO2 capture rate considered (85%) results in the largest CO2 flow, and
thus the largest energy requirement for each process. We assume a
constant auxiliary electric power demand of 20.7 MW (from Keith et al.
[10]), which accounts for the air contactor fans, pumping, and mixing
power. The heating duty of the plant varies from 60.7 MW at a 50%
capture rate to 80.36 MW at an 85% capture rate. Similarly, cooling duty
varies from 89.3 MW to 120.6 MW for the 85% CO2 capture rate. The
slaker is the fluidized bed reactor used to hydrate the quicklime (CaO)
that comes from the calciner, and to recycle the Ca(OH)2 solution to the
pellet reactor. The steam slaker works at 300 ◦ C and atmospheric
pressure, and the reaction specified in the block is the slaking reaction
between water and quicklime (CaO), where it enters at 652 ◦ C that
generates the negative heat duty over varying CO2 capture rates.
3.3. Water consumption
The water demand in the direct air capture system depends on the
relative rates of water evaporation and generation in the air contactor,
the scale of the type of process, and the mode of heat transfer for solvent
regeneration. Equations (1)–(3) are the representative reactions for CO2
absorption (along with a few other reactions listed in the supplementary
file), and these show that water is also generated as a by-product. The
rate of water generation is based on the kinetics of absorption reactions,
which are dependent on the incoming air and solvent temperatures.
With the variation of RH and temperature, the evaporation rate of water
also changes and that leads to the overall water makeup required. Fig. 3
represents the net water production/evaporation in the air contactors

6
K. An et al.
Fig. 3. (a) Net water production and (b) Net water production/consumption per tonne-CO2 in the Air-contactor at a wide range of climate conditions (negative sign
signifies evaporation; grey-colored area represents unreachable air conditions).
for various temperatures and RH. We estimate a net water consumption
of 6.6 t/tCO2 at 21 ◦ C and 69 % RH, which is somewhat higher than
presented by Keith et al. (4.7 t/tCO2) [10]. Water loss from DAC has also
been investigated by Rosa et al. [43], who estimated water loss from a
high-temperature solvent-based DAC system between 0 t/tCO2 to 50 t/
tCO2 as a function of air temperature, relative humidity, and molarity of
the solvent.
Under hot and humid conditions, incoming air will lose sensible heat
based on the length of the air contactor over which air encounters sol­
vent. Water production is mainly due to Equation (2) and there is less
evaporation as it is already close to saturation. For instance, air can
reach a maximum RH of 100% at a saturation temperature of 32 ◦ C, and
air will not hold any further moisture and any further increase of hu­
midity would result in precipitation or condensation. With an increase of
temperature to 40 ◦ C, the maximum RH decreases to 63% (e.g., T:35 ◦ C,
maximum RH: 82%). The maximum RH achievable by the air for a
temperature of 40 ◦ C is 62%, which results in a net water loss of 736 t/h
or 5.42 t/tCO2 based on Fig. 3(b) [44]. In the present analysis, the inlet
temperature of air and solvent is assumed to be the same but, during the
interaction of solvent and air along the length of the reactor, the heat of
vaporization of moisture is taken from the sensible heat of liquid solvent,
and that leads to decrease in solvent exit temperature.
For hot and dry conditions (e.g., RH of 20% at 40 ◦ C, which repre­
sents Arizona, US conditions in June), the humidity ratio in this condi­
tion is very low (9 g of moisture/kg of dry air), which leads to a very high
evaporation rate. The net water loss at this condition is 2340 t/h (19.8 t/
tCO2) at a CO2 capture rate of 83 %. Therefore, a large water make-up
needs to be arranged for DAC to operate under such climate condi­
tions, and storing and pumping such large amounts of water would in­
crease the OPEX and auxiliary pumping power. It is worth noting that
the temperature has a larger influence on the water evaporation rate
than RH, as seen in Fig. 3. At 20% RH, as the inlet air temperature drops
from 40 ◦ C to 0 ◦ C, the net water loss decreases from 2340 t/h (19.8 t/
tCO2) to 650 t/h (7.3 t/tCO2) due to decrease saturation temperature
and humidity ratio. For a higher RH condition, the humidity ratio results
in more evaporation, leading to increased KOH molarity and, thus,
higher CO2 capture rates. This, in turn, results in formation of water as a
by-product compensating the water loss. For RH of 63% and if the
temperature drops from 40 ◦ C to 0 ◦ C, the net water loss decreases from
736 t/h (5.42 t/tCO2) to 230 t/h (2.7 t/tCO2). From the above discus­
sion, it can be concluded that net water loss is higher in hot and dry
conditions. It stands to reason that this will strongly influence deploy­
ment of liquid solvent-based DAC in geographical locations with such
climate conditions.
If DAC is deployed in a cold and dry location where the temperature
drops well below 0 ◦ C, net water loss is lower as the effect of RH is
smaller at lower temperatures. However, the CO2 capture rates drop
7
Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895
below 50 %, which may increase the energy demand (GJ/tCO2) signif­
icantly. Therefore, while warmer temperatures are positive in acceler­
ating the kinetics of CO2 capture, they may also increase water loss (at
lower relative humidity), which means that the trade-off between
climate (air temperature and relative humidity) and water availability
will need to be carefully balanced.
3.4. Climate impact on CO2 capture efficiency and energy demand
The present model shows that the energy demand for industrial-scale
DAC could vary from 8.3 GJ/tCO2 to 11.1 GJ/tCO2 as a function of
capture rate, which is determined by not only process design, but also
environmental conditions. The CO2 capture efficiency of the system is of
importance, as it reflects the overall climate benefit of DAC. The CO2
capture efficiency is considered as the ratio of the difference between the
CO2 captured and resulting GHG emissions (in CO2 equivalent terms) to
the captured CO2, and it is given as Equation (4).
ṁCO2 ,captured − ṁCO2 ,NGCC − ṁCO2 ,grid − ṁCO2 ,upstream gas
ηCO2 ,capture = (4)
ṁCO2 ,captured
where ṁCO2 ,captured is the capture rate of CO2 in tonnes from the at­
mosphere and the remaining terms represent emissions associated with
DAC. Specifically, these are emissions from: integrated power genera­
tion, ṁCO2 ,NGCC , or any external sources of electricity, ṁCO2 ,grid ; and, natural
gas supply to the DAC facility (i.e. extraction, processing, and trans­
mission), ṁCO2 ,upstream gas . Strictly speaking, each of the emissions terms
should include climate impacts from their full life cycle (i.e., construc­
tion, operation and decommissioning), but in the present analysis, only
emissions associated with operation of the system are considered. This
approach is consistent with that taken by previous researchers
[17,29,45,46] who investigated the life cycle of DAC systems. Fig. 1
shows that the electrical energy required to run the direct air capture
plant is provided by an NGCC plant in the stand-alone case, the capture
system for which is integrated with the DAC plant. For the stand-alone
case, we include emissions from the NGCC plant (there is no imported
electricity from the grid). To meet the second objective of the study, we
substitute imported grid electricity for the NGCC plant and, in this case,
we include emissions from external electricity generation (at an
assumed grid intensity) since there is no electricity generation internal
to the DAC plant.
We consider a range of upstream emissions intensities for natural gas
supply to the DAC system. Three cases of natural gas upstream emissions
were considered from the most optimistic case, 3 gCO2e/MJ (at 0.3%
CH4 emission rate), medium value, 15.5 gCO2e/MJ (at 1.57% CH4
emission rate) and a high value, 59.5 gCO2e/MJ (at 6% CH4 emission
rate) including pre-production, production, processing, transmission
using 100-year global warming potential (GWP 100) [47–49]. The
K. An et al.
resulting overall CO2 capture efficiency of the DAC system varies from
32 % to 97 % as shown in Fig. 4. CO2 capture efficiency varies on two
factors: CO2 capture rate and upstream emission of natural gas. In the
the optimistic case, upstream emissions have a very minimal effect on
CO2 capture efficiency of DAC plant over a wide range of CO2 capture
rates. However, in the high case, the CO2 capture efficiency varies from
32 % to 49 % which is a wider range compared to both optimistic and
medium cases of natural gas upstream emissions. The energy con­
sumption decreases exponentially from 11.1 to 8.3 GJ/tCO2 (a drop of
25%) as the CO2 capture rate increases from 40 % to 85%. This can be
compared to the energy consumption estimate from Carbon Engineering
of 8.81 GJ/tCO2 at a capture rate of 75 % [10].
3.5. Climate impact on CO2 capture efficiency in context
We compare the sensitivity of CO2 removal efficiency (for both the
natural gas standalone and grid-connected DAC system) to climate
conditions with the carbon intensity of grid electricity, the global
warming potential time horizon, and the upstream methane emission
rate. The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 5. In this
work, we include CO2 emissions from the DAC plant flue gas (i.e.,
uncaptured CO2) and those resulting from natural gas supply because
the climate only affects the operational emissions, not other emissions
(e.g., in construction). The baseline CO2 capture efficiency of 86% is
based on 20 ◦ C air temperature, 60% relative humidity, and 1.57%
upstream methane emissions (15.5 g-CO2e/MJ using GWP 100) [49].
Interestingly, the impact of climate on CO2 capture efficiency is small
in both scenarios relative to the other factors shown in Fig. 5. While the
temperature and relative humidity variation result in a capture rate that
varies between 55% and 92% at the air contactor, this has a relatively
small impact on the CO2 emission term in Equation (3). In contrast,
Fig. 5(a) shows that variation in methane emission rate between 6% and
0.2% results in a CO2 capture efficiency between 67% and 92%. The
lower bound for the methane emission rate, 0.3% is a 2025 target set by
the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative [50].
For the electricity grid-connected system (i.e., no NGCC, but the
calciner uses natural gas), the carbon capture efficiency is strongly
dependent on the carbon intensity of electricity generation: variation in
electricity generation intensity from 10 to 680 g-CO2e/kWh results in
variation in capture efficiency from 91% to 32% of CO2, as shown in
Fig. 5(b) (see also Table S4). An electricity carbon intensity of 62 gCO2e/
kWh is required to compete with the standalone NGCC case (for a cap­
ture efficiency of 86.3%), implying that there are few electricity grids
from which it would make sense to draw electricity. For instance, with
the 2020 Swedish grid intensity of 8.8 gCO2/kWh [51], a DAC plant
would have a carbon capture efficiency of close to 90 % under moderate
Fig. 4. Energy consumption and CO2 capture efficiency over varying CO2
capture rates.
8
Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895
climate conditions (T: 20 ◦ C RH: 60%). In contrast, CO2 capture effi­
ciency would be around only 32% for the Alberta grid, which had a GHG
intensity of 670 gCO2/kWh in 2019 [52]. The importance of choosing
carefully between energy supply options was highlighted by McQueen
et al. [19] given the impact of energy supply carbon intensity on CO2
capture efficiency [17,53]. Were the liquid-based DAC plant planned for
the Permian Basin [54] in Texas to rely on grid electricity (with an
emissions intensity of around 335 gCO2/kWh [55]), the result would be a
CO2 capture efficiency of around 62%. Therefore, the idea of using grid
electricity instead of NGCC for solvent based DAC is highly debatable
[19].
3.6. Climate impact on levelized cost of CO2 capture
The climate impacts on the levelized cost of the DAC system are
analyzed for two scenarios: natural gas standalone and electricity grid-
connected system. The equation for the levelized cost of CO2 capture
is provided as Equation (5).
CAPEX × CRF + O&MNon− Energy + O&MEnergy
Levelized Cost = U
(5)
Actual CO2 Capture Rate
We use the baseline (75 % capture rate) levelized cost is from pre­
vious work [10], which includes capital cost, non-energy O&M, and
energy-related O&M. The capital cost and non-energy O&M (water,
labor, make-up chemicals) are normalized by the different amounts of
CO2 capture capacity that vary from different climate conditions.
Energy-related O&M result from natural gas and electricity consumption
derived from the Aspen process modeling. We use the capital cost re­
ported by Keith et al. [10] for their natural gas standalone scenario (first-
of-a-kind), updated from 2016 USD to 2021 USD (using the Chemical
Engineering Plant Cost Index [56]). Other economic parameters are
presented in Table 6, including a cost for water that could be sufficient to
cover the losses due to evaporation from desalination in water-scarce
locations ($0.67/m3 to $1.8/m3) [9]. We assume a capital recovery
factor (CRF) of 12.5%, which is determined by the project cost of capital
and lifetime (e.g., 11.7% and 25 years).. The energy costs are assumed
$3.5/GJ for natural gas and $60/MWh for grid electricity [10].
Annual average climate conditions (i.e. climate) are assumed to vary
from 10% to 90% of relative humidity for the temperature range from
0 ◦ C to 40 ℃, excluding unreachable air conditions are considered.
Importantly, these climatic conditions reflect the average climate and
temperature over the life of a DAC plant—daily and seasonal variations
in climate will lead to varying marginal costs of capture. For each cli­
matic condition, the corresponding CO2 capture rates are calculated and
used to estimate the levelized cost of CO2 capture from the atmosphere.
The climate conditions affect not only the CO2 capture capacity from
different CO2 capture rates from the air contactor but also the natural
gas and electricity demand which were evaluated by the Aspen Plus
simulation. The levelized cost of CO2 capture, as shown in Fig. 6, in the
natural gas standalone scenario varies from $240/tCO2 to $409/tCO2
and the electricity grid-connected scenario varies from $265/tCO2 to
$440/tCO2. In both of these cases, the capital cost is consistently the
largest component of the calculated LCOE from 60.4% to 75.8%, fol­
lowed by non-energy O&M from 14.6% to 17.1%. For the energy-related
O&M, there are substantial difference for the grid connected system
(18.3% to 24.5%) and natural gas standalone (7.5% to 11.4%) mainly
due to the electricity cost (in this study, $60/MWh). For both scenarios,
the levelized cost is more sensitive to temperature than relative hu­
midity, which is consistent with earlier observations for the CO2 capture
rate (Fig. 2). It is, thus, clear that climate conditions significantly affects
the levelized cost for the DAC process, regardless of the energy supply.
This means that future assessments of DAC technology potential should
explicitly consider the regional climate when assessing the economic
potential of DAC.
K. An et al. Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895

Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis on CO2 capture efficiency of (a) natural gas standalone and (b) electricity grid-connected system. Blue color is below the baseline and red
color is above the baseline).

tCO2 from 40% to 85% CO2 capture rate which is estimated by Aspen
Table 6 process modeling.
Economic parameters of capital and operational cost for DAC plant
The sensitivity analysis on the DAC system was performed for two
[10,56–59].
different systems, natural gas standalone and grid connected, and we
Project Year 25 varied the carbon intensity of grid electricity (for the grid connected
CRF (Capital Recovery Factor) [%/year] 12.5
system), global warming potential for methane, upstream methane
U (Utilization) [%] 90
Natural gas cost [$/GJ] 3.5 emission rate for natural gas, and different climate conditions. For both
Electricity cost [$/MWh] 60 scenarios, the climate impacts on CO2 capture efficiency are small
Water cost [$/m3] 1 relative to the impact of upstream natural gas supply GHG intensity for
CAPEX [$M] 1126.8
the stand-alone plant, and the carbon intensity of electricity generation
CEPCI Inflator (2016 to 2021) 1.35
Gross Product Inflator (2016 to 2021) 1.11 for the grid-connected plant. For example, varying the GHG intensity of
Labor Inflator (2016 to 2021) 1.16 electricity production from 10 to 680 gCO2e/kWh results in a reduction
of CO2 capture efficiency from 91% to 31.6%. Thus, from the standpoint
of climate benefits, fugitive emissions from the natural gas supply chain
4. Conclusions and carbon intensity of electricity are more important than the climate
in plant siting decisions.
The response of solvent-based DAC system was investigated at However, for both scenarios, we find that the levelized cost of CO2
different CO2 capture rates, which we show represent the performance capture can vary by a factor of nearly two between cold, dry conditions
of the system across a wide range of temperature and humidity condi­ and warm, humid conditions. We note that the levelized cost of CO2
tions. The air contactor was designed and simulated using Aspen soft­ capture is much more sensitive to temperature than relative humidity. In
ware to achieve the same CO2 capture rate, 75%, under reference addition, we estimate the levelized cost of CO2 capture for the natural
conditions presented by Keith et al. [10], and the climate conditions gas standalone DAC system to be 7% to 10% lower than the electricity
(specifically temperature and RH) were varied to estimate the actual grid-connected scenario for all ranges of climate conditions. The lev­
CO2 capture rate. The CO2 capture efficiency was estimated for both the elized cost of CO2 direct air capture for a liquid solvent-based system
natural gas standalone and grid-electricity connected DAC systems. The can, thus, be reduced by deploying the plant in a warm and humid
energy demand of the DAC plant was found to vary from 8.3 to 11.1 GJ/ climate which maximizes the CO2 capture rate at the air contactor

9
K. An et al.
Fig. 6. Levelized cost of DAC powered by (a) natural gas standalone and (b) electricity grid-connected system (Grey-colored area represents unreachable
air conditions).
(maximizing capital utilization) and reduces the demand for makeup
water and requires a lower energy consumption (minimizing operating
costs).
The objective of the study was to assess the impact of climate con­
ditions (temperature and RH) on liquid-solvent based DAC systems and
how it might influence the CO2 capture rates, CO2 capture efficiency,
and cost of DAC. The results show that deploying DAC in some locations
will result in a lower cost than in others simply by virtue of the climate
conditions. The implications of this study are multiple. First, any eco­
nomic assessment of DAC potential should consider specific climate
conditions rather than just assuming generic performance figures at
moderate temperature and relative humidity conditions. Second, the
results suggest that climate conditions should be added to the list of
factors—such as proximity to geologic CO2 storage and access to ener­
gy—that influence the deployment of DAC facilities and, indeed,
emphasize emerging findings that geographical location matters when
siting DAC facilities cannot be located anywhere. Finally, it is likely that
the solid-sorbent based DAC systems will also exhibit a sensitivity to
climate conditions, which means that different types of DAC systems
could be optimal in specific locations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Keju An: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Visuali­
zation, Writing – original draft. Azharuddin Farooqui: Methodology,
Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Sean T. McCoy: Conceptu­
alization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This research was undertaken thanks in part to funding from the
Canada First Research Excellence Fund.
10
Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119895.
References
[1] Eyring V, Gillett NP, Achuta Rao KM, Barimalala R, Barreiro Parrillo M, Bellouin N,
et al. Human Influence on the Climate System. In: Valérie M-D, Zhai P, Pirani A,
Connors S, Pean C, Berger S, et al., editors. Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press; In
Press.
[2] Seneviratne SI, Zhang X, Adnan M, Badi W, Dereczynski C, Di Luca A, et al.
Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate. In: Valérie M-D, Zhai
P, Pirani A, Connors S, Pean C, Berger S, et al., editors. Climate Change 2021: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press; In Press.
[3] Hilaire J, Minx JC, Callaghan MW, Edmonds J, Luderer G, Nemet GF, et al.
Negative emissions and international climate goals—learning from and about
mitigation scenarios. Clim Change 2019;157(2):189–219.
[4] Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, Gabrielle B, et al. Biophysical and
economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Clim Change 2016;6(1):42–50.
[5] Minx JC, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Fuss S, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, et al. Negative
emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environ Res Lett 2018;13(6):
063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b.
[6] Realmonte G, Drouet L, Gambhir A, Glynn J, Hawkes A, Köberle AC, et al. An inter-
model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat
Commun 2019;10:3277. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10842-5.
[7] Nemet GF, Callaghan MW, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Hartmann J, Hilaire J, et al. Negative
emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling. Environ Res Lett 2018;13(6):063003.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4.
[8] Breyer C, Fasihi M, Aghahosseini A. Carbon dioxide direct air capture for effective
climate change mitigation based on renewable electricity: a new type of energy
system sector coupling. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 2020;25:43–65. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-9847-y.
[9] Fasihi M, Efimova O, Breyer C. Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air
capture plants. J Cleaner Prod 2019;224:957–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.03.086.
[10] Keith DW, Holmes G, St. Angelo D, Heidel K. A Process for Capturing CO2 from the
Atmosphere. Joule 2018;2(8):1573–94.
[11] Beuttler C, Charles L, Wurzbacher J. The Role of Direct Air Capture in Mitigation of
Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Front Clim 2019;1:10. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fclim.2019.00010.
[12] E. Bajamundi CJ, Koponen J, Ruuskanen V, Elfving J, Kosonen A, Kauppinen J,
et al. Capturing CO2 from air: Technical performance and process control
improvement. J CO2 Util 2019;30:232–9.
[13] Gutknecht V, Snæbjörnsdóttir SÓ, Sigfússon B, Aradóttir ES, Charles L. Creating a
carbon dioxide removal solution by combining rapid mineralization of CO2 with
direct air capture. Energy Procedia 2018;146:129–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2018.07.017.
[14] Didas SA, Choi S, Chaikittisilp W, Jones CW. Amine-Oxide Hybrid Materials for CO
2 Capture from Ambient Air. Acc Chem Res 2015;48:2680–7. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00284.
K. An et al.
[15] Stampi-Bombelli V, van der Spek M, Mazzotti M. Analysis of direct capture of $
${\hbox {CO}}_{2}$$ from ambient air via steam-assisted temperature–vacuum
swing adsorption. Adsorption 2020;26:1183–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10450-
020-00249-w.
[16] Choi S, Drese JH, Eisenberger PM, Jones CW. Application of Amine-Tethered Solid
Sorbents for Direct CO 2 Capture from the Ambient Air. Environ Sci Technol 2011;
45:2420–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/es102797w.
[17] Deutz S, Bardow A. Life-cycle assessment of an industrial direct air capture process
based on temperature–vacuum swing adsorption. Nat Energy 2021;6:203–13.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00771-9.
[18] Holmes G, Nold K, Walsh T, Heidel K, Henderson MA, Ritchie J, et al. Outdoor
Prototype Results for Direct Atmospheric Capture of Carbon Dioxide. Energy
Procedia 2013;37:6079–95.
[19] McQueen N, Desmond MJ, Socolow RH, Psarras P, Wilcox J. Natural Gas vs.
Electricity for Solvent-Based Direct Air Capture. Front Clim 2021;2:618644.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2020.618644.
[20] Holmes G, Keith DW. An air–liquid contactor for large-scale capture of CO 2 from
air. Phil Trans R Soc A 2012;370:4380–403. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rsta.2012.0137.
[21] Wilcox J, Rochana P, Kirchofer A, Glatz G, He J. Revisiting film theory to consider
approaches for enhanced solvent-process design for carbon capture. Energy
Environ Sci 2014;7:1769. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4ee00001c.
[22] McQueen N, Psarras P, Pilorgé H, Liguori S, He J, Yuan M, et al. Cost Analysis of
Direct Air Capture and Sequestration Coupled to Low-Carbon Thermal Energy in
the United States. Environ Sci Technol 2020;54(12):7542–51.
[23] Sabatino F, Grimm A, Gallucci F, van Sint AM, Kramer GJ, Gazzani M.
A comparative energy and costs assessment and optimization for direct air capture
technologies. Joule 2021;5:2047–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joule.2021.05.023.
[24] Keith DW, Ha-Duong M, Stolaroff JK. Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the
air. Clim Change 2006;74:17–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-9026-x.
[25] Sanz-Pérez ES, Murdock CR, Didas SA, Jones CW. Direct Capture of CO 2 from
Ambient Air. Chem Rev 2016;116:11840–76. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
chemrev.6b00173.
[26] Larsen J, Herndon W, Grant M, Marsters P. Capturing Leadership: Policies for the
US to Advance Direct Air Capture Technology. Washington, D.C.: Rhodium Group,
LLC; 2019.
[27] Lackner KS, Azarabadi H. Buying down the Cost of Direct Air Capture. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2021;60:8196–208. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c04839.
[28] Meckling J, Biber E. A policy roadmap for negative emissions using direct air
capture. Nat Commun 2021;12:2051. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-
22347-1.
[29] Madhu K, Pauliuk S, Dhathri S, Creutzig F. Understanding environmental trade-offs
and resource demand of direct air capture technologies through comparative life-
cycle assessment. Nat Energy 2021;6:1035–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-
021-00922-6.
[30] Terlouw T, Bauer C, Rosa L, Mazzotti M. Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide
removal technologies: a critical review. Energy Environ Sci 2021;14:1701–21.
https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EE03757E.
[31] Liu CM, Sandhu NK, McCoy ST, Bergerson JA. A life cycle assessment of
greenhouse gas emissions from direct air capture and Fischer-Tropsch fuel
production. Sustain Energy Fuels 2020;4:3129–42. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C9SE00479C.
[32] Pinsent BRW, Pearson L, Roughton FJW. The kinetics of combination of carbon
dioxide with hydroxide ions. Trans Faraday Soc 1956;52:1512. https://doi.org/
10.1039/tf9565201512.
[33] Kucka L, Kenig EY, Górak A. Kinetics of the Gas− Liquid Reaction between Carbon
Dioxide and Hydroxide Ions. Ind Eng Chem Res 2002;41:5952–7. https://doi.org/
10.1021/ie020452f.
[34] Garcia M, Knuutila HK, Gu S. ASPEN PLUS simulation model for CO 2 removal with
MEA: Validation of desorption model with experimental data. J Environ Chem Eng
2017;5:4693–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.08.024.
[35] Liheng G, Yudong D, Xiaoqiang Li, Xun Zu, Qiang L, Shaojun Y. Simulation and
optimization study on aqueous mea-based co2 capture process. Chem Eng Trans
2018;70:751–6. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1870126.
11
Applied Energy 325 (2022) 119895
[36] Pina-Martinez A, Privat R, Jaubert J-N, Peng D-Y. Updated versions of the
generalized Soave α-function suitable for the Redlich-Kwong and Peng-Robinson
equations of state. Fluid Phase Equilib 2019;485:264–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fluid.2018.12.007.
[37] Sanku MG, Svensson H. Modelling the precipitating non-aqueous CO2 capture
system AMP-NMP, using the unsymmetric electrolyte NRTL. Int J Greenhouse Gas
Control 2019;89:20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.07.006.
[38] Kim J, Na J, Kim K, Bak JH, Lee H, Lee U. Learning the properties of a water-lean
amine solvent from carbon capture pilot experiments. Appl Energy 2021;283:
116213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116213.
[39] Rastegar Z, Ghaemi A. CO2 absorption into potassium hydroxide aqueous solution:
experimental and modeling. Heat Mass Transf 2022;58:365–81. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00231-021-03115-9.
[40] Sander R. Compilation of Henry’s law constants (version 4.0) for water as solvent.
Atmos. Chem Phys 2015;15:4399–981. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4399-
2015.
[41] Cadogan SP, Maitland GC, Trusler JPM. Diffusion Coefficients of CO 2 and N 2 in
Water at Temperatures between 298.15 K and 423.15 K at Pressures up to 45 MPa.
J Chem Eng Data 2014;59:519–25. https://doi.org/10.1021/je401008s.
[42] Haghighi H, Chapoy A, Tohidi B. Freezing Point Depression of Electrolyte
Solutions: Experimental Measurements and Modeling Using the Cubic-Plus-
Association Equation of State. Ind Eng Chem Res 2008;47:3983–9. https://doi.org/
10.1021/ie800017e.
[43] Rosa L, Sanchez DL, Realmonte G, Baldocchi D, D’Odorico P. The water footprint of
carbon capture and storage technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;138:
110511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110511.
[44] Ayoub A, Gjorgiev B, Sansavini G. Cooling towers performance in a changing
climate: Techno-economic modeling and design optimization. Energy 2018;160:
1133–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.080.
[45] de Jonge MMJ, Daemen J, Loriaux JM, Steinmann ZJN, Huijbregts MAJ. Life cycle
carbon efficiency of Direct Air Capture systems with strong hydroxide sorbents. Int
J Greenhouse Gas Control 2019;80:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijggc.2018.11.011.
[46] Deutz S, Bardow A. How (carbon) negative is direct air capture? Life cycle
assessment of an industrial temperature- vacuum swing adsorption process.
ChemRxiv 2020:28.
[47] Liu RE, Ravikumar AP, Bi XT, Zhang S, Nie Y, Brandt A, et al. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of Western Canadian Natural Gas: Proposed Emissions Tracking for Life
Cycle Modeling. Environ Sci Technol 2021;55(14):9711–20.
[48] Bauer C, Treyer K, Antonini C, Bergerson J, Gazzani M, Gencer E, et al. On the
climate impacts of blue hydrogen production. Sustain Energy Fuels 2021;6(1):
66–75.
[49] Littlefield JA, Marriott J, Schivley GA, Skone TJ. Synthesis of recent ground-level
methane emission measurements from the U.S. natural gas supply chain. J Cleaner
Prod 2017;148:118–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.101.
[50] Cooper J, Balcombe P, Hawkes A. The quantification of methane emissions and
assessment of emissions data for the largest natural gas supply chains. J Cleaner
Prod 2021;320:128856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128856.
[51] European Environment Agency. Greenhouse gas emission intensity of electricity
generation in Europe 2021.
[52] NIR. NATIONAL INVENTORY REPORT 1990 –2019: GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCES
AND SINKS IN CANADA 2019.
[53] Viebahn P, Scholz A, Zelt O. The Potential Role of Direct Air Capture in the German
Energy Research Program—Results of a Multi-Dimensional Analysis. Energies
2019;12:3443. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183443.
[54] Carbon Engineering. Engineering of world’s largest Direct Air Capture plant begins
2019.
[55] Austin Energy. Austin Energy system average carbon intensity. 2015. doi:
10.26000/040.000019.
[56] Vatavuk WM. Updating the CE plant cost index. Chem Eng 2002;109:62–70.
[57] Ray Sinnott, Gavin Towler. Chemical engineering design: principles, practice and
economics of plant and process design. 2021.
[58] Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index, Chemical Engineering essentials for the
CPI professional 2021.
[59] Palligarnai T. Vasudevan, Gael D. Ulrich. How to Estimate Utility Costs.
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 2006:4.