Large-Scale DAC (Direct Air Capture) Facilities to be Built Soon

[kyphysics]

https://www.energy.gov/articles/bid...s-12-billion-nations-first-direct-air-capture

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As part of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced up to $1.2 billion to advance the development of two commercial-scale direct air capture facilities in Texas and Louisiana. These projects—the first of this scale in the United States—represent the initial selections from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law-funded Regional Direct Air Capture (DAC) Hubs program, which aims to kickstart a nationwide network of large-scale carbon removal sites to address legacy carbon dioxide pollution and complement rapid emissions reductions. These emissions are already in the atmosphere, fueling climate change and extreme weather and jeopardizing public health and ecosystems across the globe. The Hubs are expected to ensure meaningful community and labor engagement and contribute to the President’s Justice40 Initiative. Together, these projects are expected to remove more than 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year from the atmosphere—an amount equivalent to the annual emissions from roughly 445,000 gasoline-powered cars—and create 4,800 good-paying jobs in Texas and Louisiana.

Today’s announcement will be the world’s largest investment in engineered carbon removal in history and each Hub will eventually remove more than 250 times more carbon dioxide than the largest DAC facility currently operating.

I've never heard of a DAC, but this sounds promising.

Google tells me that annually we (the entire world) release 35+ million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Removing 2 million metric tons is a nice start, but I'm curious if there are any notable drawbacks with such technology? Can these DACs be a long-term solution for climate change/global warming problems?

 

[Frabjous]

35+ million metric tons

Should be billion.

 

[kyphysics]

Should be billion.

My thoughts went from: "Hey, this could significantly change global warming"

to

"Meh. This doesn't do anything." [relatively speaking]



eta: I'll leave the incorrect figure for reference/comparison purposes.

 

[Rive]

I'm curious if there are any notable drawbacks with such technology?

Just a few.

First, the unclear energy requirement.

Then, the long term safe storage of a breath-inhibiting dangerous gas with a bad history.

Also, the matter of effectiveness compared to other solutions, like emission-reduction.

... Overall, this feels rather like PR- than climate-engineering.
Sure, time to start doing big things since waiting will just cook us, but ... this one just cannot bring me the right feeling