energies

Review
The Role of Direct Air Capture in EU’s Decarbonisation and
Associated Carbon Intensity for Synthetic Fuels Production
Rocio Gonzalez Sanchez, Anatoli Chatzipanagi * , Georgia Kakoulaki, Marco Buffi and Sandor Szabo

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Direct air capture (DAC) is considered one of the mitigation strategies in most of the
future scenarios trying to limit global temperature to 1.5 ◦ C. Given the high expectations placed
on DAC for future decarbonisation, this study presents an extensive review of DAC technologies,
exploring a number of techno-economic aspects, including an updated collection of the current and
planned DAC projects around the world. A dedicated analysis focused on the production of synthetic
methane, methanol, and diesel from DAC and electrolytic hydrogen in the European Union (EU) is
also performed, where the carbon footprint is analysed for different scenarios and energy sources.
The results show that the maximum grid carbon intensity to obtain negative emissions with DAC
is estimated at 468 gCO2 e/kWh, which is compliant with most of the EU countries’ current grid
mix. Using only photovoltaics (PV) and wind, negative emissions of at least −0.81 tCO2 e/tCO2
captured can be achieved. The maximum grid intensities allowing a reduction of the synthetic fuels
carbon footprint compared with their fossil-fuels counterparts range between 96 and 151 gCO2 e/kWh.
However, to comply with the Renewable Energy Directive II (REDII) sustainability criteria to produce
renewable fuels of non-biological origin, the maximum stays between 30.2 to 38.8 gCO2 e/kWh.
Only when using PV and wind is the EU average able to comply with the REDII threshold for all
scenarios and fuels, with fuel emissions ranging from 19.3 to 25.8 gCO2 e/MJ. These results highlight
the importance of using renewable energies for the production of synthetic fuels compliant with the
EU regulations that can help reduce emissions from difficult-to-decarbonise sectors.
Citation: Gonzalez Sanchez, R.;
Chatzipanagi, A.; Kakoulaki, G.;
Keywords: direct air capture; decarbonisation; synthetic fuels; carbon footprint; renewable energy;
Buffi, M.; Szabo, S. The Role of Direct
hydrogen
Air Capture in EU’s Decarbonisation
and Associated Carbon Intensity for
Synthetic Fuels Production. Energies
2023, 16, 3881. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en16093881 1. Introduction

Academic Editor: José Carlos

Current global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reach up to almost 50 GtCO2 e every
Magalhães Pires
year, 40% higher than emissions in 1990 [1]. To limit the global temperature to 1.5 ◦ C above
pre-industrial levels (1850–1900), global CO2 emissions need to reach net zero by 2050,
Received: 30 March 2023 according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model
Revised: 28 April 2023 pathways, relying heavily on negative emissions towards the second half of the century [2].
Accepted: 29 April 2023 All 1.5 ◦ C IPCC pathways with no or limited overshoot include carbon dioxide removals
Published: 3 May 2023
(CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over this century, requiring up to ~10 GtCO2 /year
removed in 2050 and ~17 GtCO2 /year in 2100 [2]. Similarly, most of the 400 scenarios
with at least a 50% chance of limiting global temperature increase at 2 ◦ C analysed by the
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
IPCC in the Fifth Assessment Report [3] include large-scale deployment of various negative
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
emissions technologies (NETs) [4]. These technologies can help offset emissions of certain
This article is an open access article
sectors that are difficult to decarbonise, such as heavy industries or aviation. According
distributed under the terms and to the International Energy Agency (IEA) “Net-Zero Emissions by 2050” Scenario (NZE),
conditions of the Creative Commons which is compatible with limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 ◦ C, almost 2 Gt of carbon
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// removal is expected to occur on a global scale through bioenergy with carbon capture
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and storage (BECCS) and direct air capture with carbon storage (DACCS) by 2050 [5]. Of
4.0/). these, ~980 Mt CO2 /year is projected to be captured using direct air capture (DAC) by 2050

Energies 2023, 16, 3881. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16093881 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 3881 2 of 28

and 85 Mt CO2 /year by 2030 [6]. The net zero scenarios in the Special Report on Global
Warming of 1.5 ◦ C (IPCC SR1.5) increase the amount of CO2 captured and stored using
BECCS and DACCS to up to 3.5–16 Gt in 2050 [5]. These numbers evince the need for large-
scale demonstration plants to reduce costs and reach technological maturity. In fact, the
IEA’s NZE indicates that almost half of the CO2 emission reductions in 2050 are expected to
come from technologies currently at the demonstration or prototype phase. This means that
an important innovation effort needs to take place to bring these technologies to market on
time [5].
In the European Union, the total GHG emissions in 2021 were 3.78 GtCO2 e, 14% lower
than 2010 levels [7]. Europe is aiming to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent
by 2050, with the announcement of the EU Green Deal in 2019 [8]. The EU Green Deal has
climate action at its core, including ambitious measures not only to reach net zero emissions
by 2050 but also to invest in cutting-edge research and innovation while preserving the
natural environment. To put Europe on track to reach climate neutrality by 2050, the EU
launched the 2030 Climate Target Plan, proposing to raise the 2030 emissions target from
the previous 40% to at least 55% compared with 1990 levels [9]. To implement this increased
ambition, the “Fit for 55” legislative package was announced in July 2021 [10]. The latest
REPowerEU plan [10], adopted due to the current geopolitical risks and energy market
disruptions, accelerates the process of the green transition [11]. Policy support is considered
one of the most critical factors for the future development and scaling up of NETs tech-
nologies. In December 2021, the European Commission launched the Sustainable Carbon
Cycles Communication with the objective of putting in place a regulatory framework for
certification of carbon removals, which started in late 2022 [12]. One of the aspirational
objectives of this action is to remove and permanently store through industrial technologies
5 MtCO2 /year from the atmosphere by 2030. This framework aims to standardise the
monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) methodologies for carbon accounting to
provide high-quality carbon removals. NETs, including DAC, are part of the technologies
included in the future certification, which will help to enable the growth of these technolo-
gies. The Innovation Fund, funded by the EU ETS and planning to provide approximately
EUR 38 billion from 2020 to 2030, is another mechanism that was put in place by the EU
in 2020 to help the achievement of the net zero emissions target [13]. It is the world’s
largest funding programme for the deployment of innovative low-carbon technologies
at scale, including NETs and DAC, and it comprises net carbon removals as part of the
award criteria. In November 2021, the EU-Catalyst partnership was also launched by the
European Commission, the European Investment Bank, and Breakthrough Energy Catalyst
aiming to mobilise approximately EUR 820 million between 2022 and 2026 to accelerate the
deployment and commercialisation of innovative low carbon technologies in Europe, with
DAC being one of the three technologies eligible for funding [14]. Including CDRs in the
EU ETS could also provide suitable incentives for the development of DAC and further
accelerate its growth [15].
Since the release of the long-term strategy “A Clean Planet for All” in 2018, carbon
removals have been present in EU climate modelling scenarios that aim to reach net zero
emissions by 2050. Two of these long-term scenarios (LTS) reach carbon neutrality by 2050,
one relying more on negative emissions technologies (1.5TECH), while the other relies less
on these technologies and focuses more on changes in business and consumption patterns
towards a circular economy [16]. In these two scenarios, the total amount of CO2 captured
and stored/used in 2050 to reach net zero is estimated at approximately 600 MtCO2 e.
The two NETs considered in the model are BECCS and DAC, with the main purpose of
compensating for unabated emissions, especially in non-CO2 emitting sectors [17]. The
projections allocate 210 MtCO2 e and 123 MtCO2 e to DAC in the 1.5TECH and 1.5LIFE
scenarios in 2050, respectively [16]. Similarly, the latest scenarios released by the European
Commission as part of the “Fit for 55” package also include BECCS and DAC, with a total
of 547 MtCO2 captured and stored/used (synthetic fuels and materials) in 2050 in the MIX
scenario. In this scenario, 152 MtCO2 e of carbon removals are allocated to DAC [10].
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 3 of 28

Globally, DAC needs to move to the gigatonne scale removals by 2050 and reach the
megatonne scale by 2030 in order not to miss the 2050 target [18]. An important factor to
consider when evaluating the role of DAC in mitigation scenarios and the comparison with
other negative emissions technologies is the ability to scale up at the required levels. This
is especially critical for sorbent production (including potential chemical pollutants and
extra energy needs to produce the sorbents) and for electricity and heat supply. If future
DAC deployments fail to meet the targets assumed in terms of deployment at scale, this
could lead to a global temperature overshoot of up to 0.8 ◦ C [19].
This study has two main objectives reflected in the different sections. The first one (cov-
ering Sections 2 and 6) is to provide an updated and extensive review of DAC technologies
and the current state of the art, including operational and planned facilities. Furthermore,
the most important technological aspects and challenges of DAC (energy demand, sorbents,
carbon footprint, etc.), and economic aspects are also discussed. The second is focused
on synthetic fuels production from CO2 captured through DAC. A literature review of
synthetic fuels is provided in Section 3. Sections 4 and 5 include a carbon footprint analysis
of DAC and synthetic fuels production using electrolytic hydrogen in the EU. The analysis
is performed at the country level, considering different future scenarios in the EU (“EU
Reference Scenario 2020” and “Fit for 55”) and different combinations of energy sources
(grid, PV, and wind).

2. DAC State of the Art

The number of studies in the literature analysing the feasibility of DAC as a climate
change mitigation option have increased significantly in the last few years due to the
growing presence of such technologies (together with other CDRs) in future decarbonisation
scenarios [19–22]. It is generally agreed that the current status of DAC technologies is still
far from its future expectations, which is considered by most to be an important risk when it
comes to relying on this technology as a mitigation strategy in the future. The main concerns
are related to cost, energy sources, and scaling-up capacity, which are further exacerbated
by the lack of investment and policy support needed to reach the scale required in some of
the decarbonisation scenarios. Many studies perform techno-economic analyses aiming
to provide the current status of the main challenging aspects [23–27]. Some others focus
on deeper analyses of the main two technologies (solid and liquid) [28–30], cost [31–33], or
new sorbent developments [34–38], among other topics. The following sections provide
more details on some of these aspects.
Regarding the high-energy consumption of DAC, there are a growing number of
studies investigating the potential use of low-cost renewable energies as energy sources,
including making use of the excess energy. DAC has shown good flexibility when coupled
with intermittent and volatile wind power when the capture process is optimized [39]. A
technical and economical sustainability study combining DAC with PV and wind energy
has also shown great coupling benefits in the Maghreb region, obtaining a Levelised Cost of
DAC (LCOD) of ~55 EUR/tCO2 in 2050, with a potential reduction up to 50% considering
a negligible area demand [40]. In addition, in the Maghreb region (Morocco), the capture
cost of a DAC hybrid PV–wind–battery system has been analysed as a case study, obtaining
an LCOD of 222–133 EUR/tCO2 in 2020 and down to 54–32 EUR/tCO2 in 2050 for a
conservative scenario [24]. This study also performs a wider techno economic analysis
evaluating the different DAC technologies, capital expenditures, energy demands, and costs
under two scenarios combining different DAC capacities and financial learning rates [24].
The results indicate that commercialisation in the 2020s and massive implementation
in the 2040s and 2050s could reduce DAC cost significantly, becoming a competitive
solution compared with carbon capture from point sources. The role of low temperature
DAC systems is highlighted due to the lower cost of heat supply and the possibility of
using waste heat. In California, DAC powered by excess renewable energy could be
able to capture ~1 million tonnes of CO2 per year, reaching up to 20–140 million tonnes
during 2030–2050 with increased PV penetration [41]. This study also underlines the large
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 4 of 28

operational flexibility of the system across a wide range of capacity factors and concludes
that energy consumption and net GHG emissions could be lower than the average range of
carbon dioxide removal technologies. In Europe, a study shows that up to 500 MtCO2 /year
could be captured using only excess renewable energy [42]. A recent survey conducted
amongst 18 experts on NETs and DAC drew a number of conclusions and insights [43]. Low
consensus is observed regarding the best DAC technology in the market at the present time.
The experts also reported a lack of reliable information regarding the actual cost of DAC.
Despite the fact that projections show a significant decrease over time (from estimated
current levels of 500–600 USD/tCO2 ), costs will continue to remain high (approximately
200 USD/tCO2 in 2050). The two most important limitations to future DAC growth are
energy use and policy support, while the development of new sorbents, process designs,
and energy sources are highlighted as key aspects to reduce the future costs.

2.1. DAC Main Technologies

2.1.1. Solid Adsorption
The solid adsorption technology uses a weak base as sorbent (normally an amine). In
this case, the adsorbent material that sits inside the collectors captures the CO2 contained
in the air that is drawn in by the fans. When the adsorbent becomes saturated, the collector
closes, and the desorption process begins. The adsorbent is regenerated by heating it to
80–100 ◦ C and lowering the pressure to 0.2–0.3 atm [44]. With this process, the CO2 is
released and collected in high-purity and concentration, and the sorbent is subsequently
cooled down and ready for the next cycle [44,45]. In one of the current modules from the
Swiss company Climeworks, the full cycle lasts approximately 3.5 h, with the desorption
process taking approximately 30–40 min [44]. Climeworks current sorbent also adsorbs the
water vapor in the air, which increases the energy needs during the regeneration of the
sorbent, especially in humid environments. Drier conditions are, therefore, preferred for
this process. For each tonne of CO2 captured, one tonne of water can be produced under
moderate climate conditions [44].
Since its foundation in 2009, the Swiss company Climeworks has deployed 18 DAC
projects throughout Europe, with the second commercial plant under construction in
Iceland [46]. The company’s scale-up target is to reach the multi-megatonne capacity by
2030 and deliver gigatonne capacity by 2050. Details on the main projects from Climeworks
can be found in Table S7 of the Supplementary Material. Climeworks’ DAC is a modular
technology based on solid adsorption, with an initial capacity of 50 tCO2 per module,
which has the advantage that collectors can be assembled as needed to match the target
size [45]. The current Climeworks assembly line can produce up to 150 CO2 collectors per
year, which is equivalent to removing 7500 tCO2 [47]. A life-cycle assessment (LCA) based
on Climeworks’ data from the Hinwil and Hellisheidi plants shows that this technology,
combined with permanent storage, can reach a net CO2 removal efficiency of 85.4% to
93.1% (using wind and depending on the heat source) [30]. The study also shows that
net efficiency can be further increased in the future to reach 96% and 96.6% using wind
power [47].
The U.S. company Global Thermostat has also been developing solid-sorbent-based
DAC technology since its foundation in 2010. Details on the main projects can be found
in Table S8 of the Supplementary Material. Global Thermostat has also included the
possibility of integrating flue gases into their system called DAC-PLUS [18]. The flue gas
is injected into the panels during the last step before regeneration, allowing the use of
low-cost natural gas to power the plant with a very low additional capital required. This
results in a reduction of cost for net carbon removals.

2.1.2. Liquid Absorption

The liquid adsorption technology uses a strong liquid base (normally a hydroxide)
that flows through the surface of the contactor, binding chemically with the CO2 from the
air. Using a strong base facilitates the absorption of CO2 ; however, as it creates a stronger
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 5 of 28

chemical bond, the solvent regeneration is more complex, requiring higher temperatures
(~900 ◦ C) than the ones used for solid sorbents. In this case, as opposed to solid sorbents,
water is needed throughout the process, as it evaporates in the CO2 contactor. Dry and
hot conditions that increase the water losses as well as low temperatures that increase the
viscosity of the solvent are less preferable for this type of process [44].
Based in Canada, Carbon Engineering has been developing liquid absorption tech-
nology since 2009 [48]. Three plant configurations with variations in the power system,
oxygen supply, and CO2 compression are being designed for different markets [29]. The
baseline configuration is designed for combination with permanent storage (delivering CO2
at specifications appropriate for pipelines), and it is fully powered by natural gas to reach
to the high temperatures needed. The CO2 emissions from the natural gas are captured
by the plant and mixed with the CO2 from the air. A second variation also considers the
use of electricity to cover part of the energy needs and would be suitable for locations
with low-carbon energies at low cost. Finally, the third variation is optimized to provide
CO2 for synthetic fuels production. In this case, the DAC plant is assumed to be coupled
with an electrolyser to produce hydrogen that would also provide the oxygen needed for
the capture process [29]. One of the advantages of liquid absorption DAC technology is
the possibility of using the already existing industrial equipment of different sectors, thus
facilitating the deployment at scale. For instance, the air contactor is based on industrial
cooling towers, the pellet reactor has been used in the water treatment industry, the slaker
in the pulp and paper industry, and the calciner in the cement and metals industries [18].
Details on the main projects from Carbon Engineering can be found in Table S9 of the
Supplementary Material.
There are advantages and disadvantages in both solid and liquid DAC systems. Solid-
based systems require low operating costs and low energy input, as the desorption tem-
perature is lower (therefore, they can be powered by geothermal energy, waste heat, or
renewables through heat pumps). They also present greater modularity than liquid DAC
since the contactor configuration is segmented, allowing individual unit regeneration and
facilitating the scaling-up process [49]. However, these systems do not operate on a continu-
ous basis, and the collectors need to be sealed from the ambient air during the regeneration
process when temperature, pressure, and humidity are controlled. In addition, solid-based
systems require developing sorbents with high performance, low cost, and long economic
life in impure ambient air [29]. Liquid-based systems can be operated continuously, can use
inexpensive cooling-tower hardware and, as the liquid surface is continuously renewed,
it allows very long contactor lifetimes despite dust and atmospheric contaminants [29].
The highly integrated nature of the system reduces modularity, reaching an economic
optimum at approximately 1 MtCO2 /year. However, some of the large process equipment
(e.g., calciner and slaker) provides benefits in terms of economies of scale, providing an
advantage for large-scale operations [49]. On the other hand, the regeneration system is
complex, expensive, requires higher temperatures (currently using natural gas), and water
is needed to replace the water loss during the process in dry environments [29].

2.2. Energy Use and Sorbents

Current DAC technologies require large amounts of energy, especially during the des-
orption process. Electricity is needed mainly to operate the fan that passes the air through
the CO2 collector (which depends on the pressure drop) and the vacuum pumps, while
thermal energy is used in the desorption process to heat up the collector [30]. The future
energy needs to meet large-scale deployments of DAC compared with other mitigation and
negative emissions strategies is one of the key challenges that is causing some skepticism.
For instance, to remove 30 GtCO2 /year (roughly the CDR rate considered by a number of
models to keep global warming well below 2 ◦ C by 2100 [19,50]), DACCS would require
about 50 EJ/year of electricity (more than half of today’s total electricity production and
approximately 10–15% of the projections in 2100) and 250 EJ/year of heat (more than half
of today’s final energy consumption globally) [19,51,52].
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 6 of 28

For solvent-based technologies, findings available in literature show ranges of elec-

tricity use between 361 and 500 kWh/tCO2 and heat between 5.3 and 8.1 GJ/tCO2 [19].
For solid-sorbent-based technologies, the values are in the range of 166–305 kWh/tCO2
for electricity and 4.4–7.2 GJ/tCO2 for heat [19]. Carbon engineering and Climeworks
have also published a detailed description of their DAC processes, including energy in-
puts [29,30]. Carbon engineering reports an energy use of 8.81 GJ/tCO2 for their baseline
plant configuration (fully powered by natural gas), delivering CO2 at specifications appro-
priate for pipelines for permanent storage [29]. For the configuration that uses electricity
as part of the energy supply, the energy inputs reported are 5.25 GJ/tCO2 of natural gas
and 366 kWh/tCO2 of electricity [29]. It is important to note that these energy balances
reported are not based on real data from a commercial plant, since Carbon Engineering’s
first commercial plant is still under development and only the pilot plant (which tests
only certain high-risk units) is currently running. The energy data reported are based on
simulations and models of the individual units’ operations that are ultimately fed by a
combination of vendor data and data from the pilot plant [29]. On the other hand, a recently
published Climeworks’ LCA study reports the actual measured values of energy use in
their commercial plants in Hinwil (Switzerland) and Hellisheidi (Iceland) on the basis of
daily averaged data. To run such plants, it is used an electric power of 700 kWh/tCO2
and a heat supply (below 100 ◦ C) of 11.9 GJ/tCO2 (in comparison with the 2.77 GJ/tCO2
thermal energy required by a power plant with amine CCS [44]). In a future scenario
based on Climeworks’ energy targets, taking into account heat recovery and optimization
potential, the electricity use is expected to decrease to 500 kWh/tCO2 and the heat supply
to 5.4 GJ/tCO2 [30].
Sorbent production is another challenge of DAC technologies, not only in terms of
availability but also regarding the energy needs. A sorbent-focused techno-economic analy-
sis concluded that sorbents should be able to stand tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
regeneration cycles to be economically viable [34]. The cost can be optimised by setting
an appropriate cycle time on the basis of the existing correlation with loading capacity.
The study highlights cycle duration and stability of the sorbent (normally neglected) as
key parameters to consider in a DAC cost analysis [34]. Solid adsorption technology has
gained ground thanks to the need of lower temperatures for sorbent regeneration [25,49];
however, the liquid absorption technology also presents a good potential for commercial-
isation if more efficient absorbents with lower regeneration costs can be developed [53].
Regarding liquid DAC, the current market for the production of sodium or potassium
hydroxides (today only obtained as a side product of chlorine) would allow capturing
300–500 MtCO2 /year. However, sodium hydroxide production is a very energy-intensive
process, requiring 611–1055 kWh/tCO2 captured, more than twice the electricity needed to
operate a DACCS plant [19]. For solid DAC, according to an LCA study using data from
the currently operating Climeworks plants [30], the energy consumption of the production
of six adsorbents evaluated ranges between 36 and 188 kWh/tCO2 captured (including
production and end of life). Currently, the plants’ sorbent consumption (amine on silica)
is 7.5 g/kgCO2 captured; however, a reduction to 3 g/kgCO2 captured is foreseen in the
future. The study concluded that to capture 1% of the global annual CO2 emissions in
2019 (0.368 GtCO2 /year), approximately 18% of the ethanolamine and synthetic amor-
phous silica (primary materials) produced globally today would be needed. However,
ethanolamine needs to be further processed to produce the amine used for the sorbent
(polyethyleneimine), whose current market size is considerably small, requiring, in this
case, a 10-fold increase to sustain the DAC capacity considered. Nonetheless, despite the
small market size of polyethyleneimine today, the production scale is well-established
for polymeric materials, so no limitation is foreseen in this regard. In terms of energy
consumption, the production of 1 kg of polyethyleneimine requires 2.35–12.6 MJ of heat
from natural gas and 0.27–0.42 kWh of electricity [30].
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 7 of 28

2.3. Carbon Footprint

It is important to analyse the full lifecycle of a DAC process to evaluate the real carbon
removals. The carbon capture efficiency is defined as the net amount of CO2 captured by
the plant since the amount of carbon captured from the atmosphere is partially offset by
the emissions from adsorbent production, plant construction, end of life, and operation of
the DAC plant (e.g., energy supply) [54]. The type of energy used is a key parameter to
achieve net carbon removals using DAC, since electricity is the largest contributor to the
carbon footprint and presents a linear dependency [30,54]. The carbon removal efficiency
is the ratio of the total avoided CO2 emissions by the system to the CO2 captured, and it is
calculated adding the emissions due to CO2 transport and storage to the carbon capture
efficiency [30,54].
An LCA from Climeworks’ first commercial plants in Hinwil (Switzerland), which
uses electricity and waste heat, and in Hellisheidi (Iceland), which uses geothermal en-
ergy, shows that these two plants can provide CO2 with a negative carbon footprint from
cradle-to-gate today using waste heat or electricity with a carbon footprint lower than
500 gCO2 e/kWh when using a heat pump [30]. These plants result in a carbon cap-
ture efficiency from cradle-to-gate of 93.1% and 85.4%—carbon footprint of −0.93 and
−0.85 tCO2 e/tCO2 captured, respectively—increasing in the future to 95% and 88.8% con-
sidering certain performance targets [55]. The carbon footprint of plant construction and
adsorbents production play a more important role in scenarios that use clean electricity, as
in the case of the plant in Iceland where they contribute up to a total of 59% to the carbon
footprint of the captured CO2 . The carbon capture efficiency reaches its maximum when
using wind power, with values between 95.1 and 96.4% depending on the heat source.
When looking at the full LCA from cradle-to-gate, negative emissions can be achieved
when the final destination of the CO2 is permanent underground storage. In this case,
storage has a low impact and both carbon removal and carbon capture efficiencies are very
similar. If the CO2 is used for the production of synthetic fuels (therefore reaching carbon
neutrality only in the best-case scenario), the LCA reveals that only in countries with a grid
carbon footprint lower than ~120 gCO2 e/kWh, synthetic methane produced using CO2
from DAC would have a lower carbon footprint than fossil-based methane [30]. Such is the
case today in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and France.
For the liquid DAC, considering the full lifecycle with permanent storage and electric-
ity from a natural gas combined-cycle plant with a carbon footprint of 500 gCO2 e/kWh,
the carbon removal efficiency is estimated at 62%. If solar power is used to generate the
required electricity, the efficiency increases to 84% [54]. Two more scenarios are analysed
considering variations in a number of parameters, including the carbon footprint of the
electricity source. In the optimistic scenario (using PV), the carbon removal efficiency is
estimated at 92%, while in the pessimistic scenario (using coal), it is 10% [54]. Most of
the emissions are caused by the energy demand (65% for electricity and 32% for heat),
while water and material use contribute less than 1% to the total emissions. A second
LCA analyses a DAC system on the basis of data from Carbon Engineering’s pilot plant
paired with Fischer–Tropsch synthesis (FT) to produce synthetic diesel. Assuming an elec-
tricity carbon footprint of 13 gCO2 e/kWh (hydropower-based electricity), the estimated
emissions are 0.51 tCO2 e/tCO2 captured or 29 gCO2 e/MJ including combustion [56]. To
produce synthetic fuels with a lower carbon footprint than conventional petroleum diesel,
the electricity carbon footprint should be lower than 139 gCO2 e/KWh [56]. It is important
to note that an oxy-fired natural gas calciner is used in this process, generating additional
CO2 emissions from natural gas, which are also captured and combined with the CO2 from
the air to produce the new fuel. If an electric calciner is used, the carbon footprint of the fuel
would be reduced to 12 gCO2 e/MJ. A second study analysing the production of FT fuels
with Carbon Engineering’s data and different energy sources obtained plant efficiencies
between 22.6 and 36.5% and CO2 removal efficiencies between 31 and 68.3% [57].
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 8 of 28

3. Synthetic Fuels Pathways

3.1. Definition and State of the Art
CO2 captured from DAC can be coupled with hydrogen to produce synthetic fuels,
also named power-to-liquids (PtL), power-to-gas, or power-fuels when hydrogen comes
from electrolysis [58]. When such fuels are produced from renewable sources, they offer
an alternative to biofuels to decarbonise the transport sector towards the most recent
targets imposed by the European Commission [59]. In the EU context, these fuels fall
under the category of renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs), according to the
recast Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) [60]. They are defined as a category of fuels
produced from hydrogen derived from renewable energy (except biomass sources) in the
form of heat or electricity and from CO2 derived from fossil sources, such as flue gases,
DAC technologies, and other non-renewable and natural sources. These fuels can be fully
drop-in fuels or chemicals, not requiring further conversion/upgrading steps to be used in
the market. They do not require dedicated infrastructures for distribution and storage [61],
although no composition or blending standards have been developed so far.
Even though synthetic fuels conversion technologies have been developed for decades,
today there are only a relatively limited number of these plants, most of them still at
demonstration scale [62]. Among the available technologies developed so far, the output
fuels could be methane for natural gas vehicles and/or directly injected into the natural
gas grids; synthetic drop-in liquid fuels for gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel (also including other
hydrocarbons, depending on the marked demand); or other fuels/chemicals as alcohols or
ammonia. Hydrocarbons produced from synthesis processes are mainly paraffins, which
lead to cleaner combustion than their fossil counterparts and contain an aromatic frac-
tion [63]. Thus, they can potentially meet more stringent limits than the current commercial
blends [64], making them really interesting to meet both environmental targets in terms
of GHGs emissions and pollutants reduction. Methanol as an energy carrier or chemical
can also be produced, which could be of high interest for biodiesel production and other
applications. Today, biodiesel is produced mainly using fossil-derived methanol that im-
pacts negatively on its carbon footprint [65]; therefore, adding a fully renewable component
along its supply chain will contribute significantly to reducing the carbon footprint. More-
over, methanol could also be used as a blending component for maritime fuels [66]. Other
pathways to produce synthetic fuels are possible but still at early stages of development,
such as direct solar fuel synthesis and others. Although 220 projects of synthetic fuels have
been identified in 20 different countries worldwide, the current facilities in the EU are still
at demonstration scale at approximately TRL 6 [62]. France and Germany are the leading
countries planning to install approximately 500 MW of capacity by 2025 [67]. It is essential
to provide adequate incentives for the development of RFNBOs to become cost-competitive;
for this reason, the upcoming Horizon Europe programme [68] will provide more support
for scaling up and building demonstration plants. In parallel, other programs, such as
the Innovation Fund [13], Connecting Europe Facility [69], InvestEU [70], and EU Catalyst
partnership [14], will contribute to the sector development towards the EU targets for 2030.
When it comes to fuel production using CO2 from DAC, the studies in the literature are
scarce. Two studies based on life cycle assessments have been performed on the production
of FT-derived fuels using data from Carbon Engineering’s DAC pilot plant (liquid-based
DAC), analysing the carbon footprint of the new fuel, the amount of fuel produced, the
cost and the plant, and CO2 removal efficiencies [56,57]. A similar life cycle assessment has
been performed using data from Climeworks plants (solid-based DAC) for the production
of methane [30]. More details of these studies can be found in Section 2.3. Methanol
production using DAC is also analysed in the literature as a valuable compound that can be
used as a fuel and chemical. One of the studies analyses a wind-DAC-to-methanol stand-
alone system, obtaining efficiencies of ~50% and a cost of 750–800 EUR/tonne methanol [71].
The second study focuses on evaluating how synergies between DAC and the synthetic
fuel production (heat and process integration and use of by-products) affect the efficiency
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 9 of 28

of the whole system, concluding that solar-to-fuel efficiencies up to 10.2% can be reached
compared with the 8.8% efficiency when no synergies are implemented [72].

3.2. EU Legislation
Hydrogen is considered one of the main pillars of Europe’s decarbonisation strategy
for the near future, offering an alternative solution for transport, industrial applications,
or synthetic fuel production. However, without reliable systems and infrastructures ded-
icated to hydrogen generation, new initiatives towards fuels production are still limited.
According to the European Green Deal [8], hydrogen is considered today one of the main
energy vectors towards EU carbon neutrality by 2050; however, some techno-economic,
sustainability, and legislative barriers do still exist. In an effort to close this gap, the Euro-
pean Commission promoted the sector development with the communication “A hydrogen
strategy for a climate-neutral Europe” [73], which recently updated its targets to more
ambitious achievements through the RePowerEU plan by setting the objective to produce
10 Mt of domestic hydrogen and import another 10 Mt by 2030 [11]. To attain this goal,
the Commission announced the creation of a new European Hydrogen Bank to guarantee
the future purchase of hydrogen and create a market by investing EUR 3 billion [74]. The
prospective role of hydrogen is also recognised in the Member States’ Recovery and Re-
silience Plans, with a central role in the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) [75]. The
first Important Project of Common European Interest (IPCEI) has also been approved by
the Commission in July for EUR 5.4 billion of investments, and it involves 15 Member
States [76]. In addition, the “Next Generation EU” recovery fund [77] (to support the mem-
ber states after the Covid crisis) is stimulating the development of new clean technologies,
including hydrogen, to boost its market uptake.
The Renewable Energy Directive recast (EU 2018/2001) or REDII [60] sets the frame-
work towards targets and sustainability criteria for alternative renewable transport fuels,
including Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin (RFNBOs), that can be produced using
additional renewable energy production. Otherwise, if grid electricity is used, a reliable
methodology (recently published in two delegated acts integrating the RED II [78,79]) has
been proposed to properly assess the real carbon footprint of such fuels. RFNBOs are
defined by the European Commission as “liquid and gaseous fuels the energy content of
which is derived from renewable sources other than biomass”, and according to the new
proposal for the revision of RED II released in July 2021, they can be counted towards
Member States’ targets of renewable energy only if the GHG emissions savings from their
use are at least 70% compared with a fossil fuel comparator (FFC) set at 94 gCO2 e/MJ [10].
The proposal for the revision of RED II includes the renewable energy additionality criteria
as well as the GHG methodology to assess emissions from RFNBOs. This revision also
replaces the 14% target of renewable energy in transport (as set by RED II) to a 13% GHG
intensity reduction target by 2030. It also includes sub-targets, such as a 2.6% share (on an
energy basis) of RFNBOs in the transport sector and a 50% share of RFNBOs in hydrogen
consumption in industry by 2030. Moreover, the revision excludes the use of multipliers,
thus resulting in a real target that guarantees equal volumes of renewable fuels replacing
fossil fuels. The only multiplier maintained is based on a figure of 1.2× for advanced biofu-
els and RFNBOs in aviation and maritime sectors. Finally, RFNBOs can also contribute to
the targets imposed by ReFuel EU and FuelEU Maritime [80,81], which set a target of 63%
of SAFs in the commercial jet blend and 75% GHGs emissions reduction intensity by 2050.

3.3. Case Studies

This study selects three pathways for synthetic fuels production using hydrogen pro-
duced from electrolysis and CO2 captured from DAC, followed by the synthesis reactions
(i.e., stand-alone thermochemical reactors as those used in the chemical industry). Exhaus-
tive descriptions of the technologies assumed in this work are reported and discussed in
the literature [82,83].
 3.3. Case Studies
This study selects three pathways for synthetic fuels production using hydrogen pro-
duced from electrolysis and CO2 captured from DAC, followed by the synthesis reactions
(i.e., stand-alone thermochemical reactors as those used in the chemical industry). Exhaus-
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 tive descriptions of the technologies assumed in this work are reported and discussed in
10 of 28
the literature [82,83].
This study considers only specific selected pathways focusing on synthetic methane
and methanol.
This studyAconsiders
third case derived
only from
specific methanol
selected synthesis
pathways to produce
focusing synthetic
on synthetic diesel
methane
is also analysed. Diesel fuel has been selected as the main representative
and methanol. A third case derived from methanol synthesis to produce synthetic diesel one for the cate-
is
gory of liquid hydrocarbons. The rationale behind this concept lies in the
also analysed. Diesel fuel has been selected as the main representative one for the categoryfact that market
demand
of liquid can rapidly change,
hydrocarbons. Theespecially
rationale during
behindthe thislast years following
concept lies in thethe COVID-19
fact that market cri-
sis and more
demand recently
can rapidly with the
change, war in Ukraine.
especially during the This
lastsolution would also
years following cover a broader
the COVID-19 crisis
range
and of products
more recently compared
with the warwithinaUkraine.
traditionalThisoil solution
refinery, would
with a also
faster adaptation.
cover a broader In
particular, this concept would allow to shift between methane/methanol
range of products compared with a traditional oil refinery, with a faster adaptation. In and hydrocar-
bons production
particular, with would
this concept a limited capital
allow investment
to shift between (CAPEX), since synthetic
methane/methanol gas and liq-
and hydrocarbons
uids production
production with affects onlycapital
a limited 15% and 17% of the
investment total plant
(CAPEX), investment,
since syntheticrespectively
gas and liquids[61].
The conversion
production pathways
affects only 15% analysed
and 17% inofthis
thestudy
total are summarised
plant investment, inrespectively
Figure 1. [61]. The
conversion pathways analysed in this study are summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Synthetic
Synthetic fuels
fuels production
production pathways
pathways considered
considered in
in this
this study.
study.

4.
4. Data
Data and
and Methodology
Methodology
LCA
LCA data from
data from solid
solid DAC
DAC plants
plants (Climeworks)
(Climeworks) are are used
used inin the
the calculations
calculations of of the
the
carbon footprint and the production of the three synthetic fuels [30]. LCA data
carbon footprint and the production of the three synthetic fuels [30]. LCA data from liquid from liquid
DAC
DAC are
arenot
notconsidered
consideredininthis
thisstudy
studysince
sincecurrent configurations
current configurations always consider
always considera certain
a cer-
input of natural gas for heat [29], while the focus of this analysis is to evaluate
tain input of natural gas for heat [29], while the focus of this analysis is to evaluate the the different
options
differenttooptions
powertoDAC powerusing
DAC only electricity.
using The production
only electricity. of three
The production of fuels
three (methane,
fuels (me-
methanol, and diesel), using CO 2 from DAC and hydrogen via electrolysis,
thane, methanol, and diesel), using CO2 from DAC and hydrogen via electrolysis, is evaluated
is eval-
according to the reactions
uated according below:below:
to the reactions
Methane production
Methane through
production methanation
through reaction:
methanation CO
reaction: 2 2++ 4H
CO =>CH
4H22 => CH
4 + + 2H
4 2H2O 2 O

Methanol
Methanol production
production from from H2 and
H2 and CO2CO 2 synthesis:
synthesis: CO CO
2 2++ 3H
3H22 =>
=>CH3OH
CH + H+2O
3 OH H2 O
Diesel production from methanol as direct dimethyl ether (DME) synthesis [84]:
Diesel production from methanol as direct dimethyl ether (DME) synthesis [84]:
2CH3OH => CH3-O-CH3 + H2O
2CH3 OH => CH3 -O-CH3 + H2 O
Olefin synthesis: CH3-O-CH3 => (CH2)2 + 2H2O
Olefin synthesis: CH3 -O-CH3 => (CH2 )2 + 2H2 O
Oligomerization: 0.5 n (CH2)2 => CnH2n

Oligomerization: 0.5 n (CH2 )2 => CnH2 n

Hydrogenation: CnH2n + H2 =>CnH2n + 2

Hydrogenation: CnH2 n + H2 =>CnH2 n + 2

A number of cases and scenarios with projections are considered in the analysis. The
first case assumes the use of grid electricity to power DAC and produce hydrogen (grid
case); the second case assumes the use of PV and wind energy for DAC and hydrogen
production (PV&Wind case); and the third case assumes DAC powered by grid electricity
and hydrogen produced using PV and wind (hybrid case). Two EU energy scenarios, “EU
Reference Scenario 2020” and “Fit for 55-MIX” (referred as REF2020 and FF55 hereafter)
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 11 of 28

are considered for the current and future electricity generation and grid carbon footprint
at the EU country level [10,85]. The REF2020 scenario builds on EU and Member State
policies concerning energy, transport, and climate adopted as of the end of 2019, including
some EU policies considered adopted at the end of 2019, although not published until
2020 [85]. The FF55 scenario is based on the “Fit for 55” package that aims to reduce
net GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared with 1990. More specifically, the
MIX scenario is defined to do this by relying on a carbon price signal extension to road
transport and buildings and a strong intensification of energy and transport policies [10].
The year 2020 is considered to be the current status and the common starting point for
both scenarios. The FF55 scenario provides projections until 2030; therefore, only the 2030
values are presented for this scenario. Instead, REF2020 provides projections until 2050;
therefore, the values for 2030 and 2050 are also presented for this scenario. It is assumed
that the synthetic fuels are produced in Europe near the fuel markets; therefore, transport
of synthetic fuels into Europe is not evaluated in this study. The carbon footprints of the
fossil equivalents for the three synthetic fuels analysed are also shown in the results for
comparison. The REDII threshold is also included, which represents 70% GHG emissions
reduction compared with the FFC.
Table 1 summarises the data with the sources used in the analysis.

Table 1. Data used in the analysis.

Process Value Source Notes

Electricity supply for 2520 MJ/tCO2 Present values considered
[30]
DAC captured (Climeworks)
11,898 MJ/tCO2 Present values considered
Heat supply for DAC [30]
captured (Climeworks)
COP heat pump 2.51 [30] Based on Climeworks design
Plant construction carbon 0.015 gCO2 e/gCO2 Based on a 4 KtCO2 /year
[30]
footprint captured capacity plant (Climeworks)
Upper value considered from
0.046 gCO2 e/gCO2 six adsorbents value range:
Sorbent carbon footprint [30]
captured 0.01–0.046 tCO2 e/tCO2
captured
Electricity generation by
source and carbon At EU country level [10,85] FF55 and REF2020 scenarios
intensity
Range of 38–81 gCO2 e/kWh
PV carbon footprint At EU country level [86]
(data from 2011)
Wind carbon footprint 3 gCO2 e/MJ [87]
Energy consumption of
184 MJ/kgH2 [30,88]
water electrolysis
LHV methane 50 MJ/kgfuel [89]
Assuming a grid with a
CO2 emissions from
0.6 gCO2 e/MJ [90] carbon footprint of
methane synthesis
392 gCO2 e/kWh
Methane combustion
55 gCO2 e/MJ [84]
emissions
LHV methanol 19.9 MJ/kgfuel [89]
Assuming a grid with a
CO2 emissions from
2.1 gCO2 e/MJ [90] carbon footprint of
methanol synthesis
392 gCO2 e/kWh
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 12 of 28

Table 1. Cont.

Process Value Source Notes

Methanol combustion
69 gCO2 e/MJ [84]
emissions
GMCG1 pathway;
Natural gas emissions 64 gCO2 e/MJ [84] conditioning and distribution
not included
GRME1 pathway;
Fossil methanol
91.6 gCO2 e/MJ [84] conditioning and distribution
emissions
not included
COD1 pathway; conditioning
Fossil diesel emissions 92.2 gCO2 e/MJ [84]
and distribution not included
REDII 70% GHG
28.2 gCO2 e/MJ [60]
emission reduction

For the cases in which PV and wind electricity are assumed as the energy sources
(either to power DAC or to produce hydrogen), a combined weighted average carbon
footprint is calculated, considering the share of PV and wind in the energy mix and the PV
and wind carbon footprint data obtained from the literature [86,87].
Figure 2 presents the share of PV and wind in the energy mix, the combined carbon
footprint, and the grid carbon footprint for the REF2020 and FF55 MIX scenarios. As it can
be observed, the grid carbon footprint (represented by the size of the circles) decreases in
2030 (for both scenarios) and 2050 compared with REF2020 for most of the countries. The
combined PV&Wind share in the grid mix is expected to increase in the future in all the
member states; however, the carbon footprint of the combined PV&Wind mix (shown on
the x-axis) will change on the basis of the share of these two sources. The countries with
more wind energy installed will benefit from a lower PV&Wind combined carbon footprint
since the carbon footprint of wind energy is lower than PV in all countries, according to the
literature sources used [86,87].
To calculate the CO2 emissions from the methanol-to-diesel conversion pathway,
the calculation scheme proposed in RESD1 from JECv5 has been considered [84]. The
model assumes a downstream process to methanol production, considering methanol and
hydrogen as feedstock, reacting together in a series of transformations towards paraffins
production (in the range of diesel fuels). The formulae used is reported here as follows:

Diesel emissions [gCO2 e/MJ] = Methanol emissions × 1.113 + Hydrogen emissions × 0.0245

where the corrective factors consider the stoichiometric ratios of the multiple reactions
that occurred, reaction efficiency, and reactor geometry. Further details of the reaction
schemes and the technology deployed have been recently reported in the literature [91].
Finally, the system boundaries are based on a cradle-to-gate approach; hence, the carbon
intensity of the selected fuel is calculated up to the plant outlet and evaluated in grams of
CO2 equivalent per MJ of fuel.
Energies 2023,
Energies 2023, 16,
16, 3881
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13
13 of 28
of 28

Figure
Figure 2. PV&Wind share
2. PV&Wind share in
in the
the grid
grid mix
mix and
and its
its combined
combined carbon
carbon footprint
footprint for
for the
the EU
EU member
member
states
states in 2020 (present), 2030 REF2020, 2050 REF2020, and 2030 FF55. The circles’ sizes indicate
in 2020 (present), 2030 REF2020, 2050 REF2020, and 2030 FF55. The circles’ sizes indicate the
the
grid
grid mix
mix footprint.
footprint.

5. Results
To calculate the CO2 emissions from the methanol-to-diesel conversion pathway, the
This section
calculation scheme presents
proposed theinresults
RESD1offromthe carbon
JECv5 has footprint analysis for
been considered theThe
[84]. direct air
model
capture process and the production of three synthetic fuels: methane, methanol,
assumes a downstream process to methanol production, considering methanol and hy- and diesel.
The results
drogen are expressed
as feedstock, at EUtogether
reacting countryin level for the
a series ofyears 2020, 2030, and
transformations 2050 paraffins
towards for three
different cases of energy sources (grid, PV&Wind, and hybrid) and two scenarios
production (in the range of diesel fuels). The formulae used is reported here as follows: (REF2020
and FF55).
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 14 of 28

The carbon footprint of the DAC process is shown in Figure 3, considering the use of
the grid and PV&Wind as energy sources. In 2020 using the grid mix, there are five countries
in which the carbon footprint of DAC is above zero (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Estonia, and Poland) with values ranging from 0.007 to 0.747 tCO2 e/tCO2 captured. The
high carbon intensity of the grid in these countries due to the large presence of fossil fuels,
currently does not allow them to obtain negative emissions using DAC. In 2030 for the
REF2020 scenario, all countries except Poland can obtain negative emissions using DAC,
and in 2050 REF2020 and 2030 FF55, all countries deliver negative emissions. Sweden is
the country with the highest negative emissions potential using DAC, obtaining a carbon
footprint of −0.864 tCO2 e/tCO2 , already captured in 2020 using the grid (37 gCO2 e/kWh)
thanks to the high penetration of hydropower in the country’s mix. It is followed by France,
Denmark, and Spain, for which an important presence of nuclear energy and renewables
decrease the carbon footprint of the grid mix. The EU aggregated carbon footprint of
DAC using the grid is −0.407, −0.586, −0.708, and −0.794 tCO2 e/tCO2 captured in 2020,
2030 REF2020, 2030 FF55, and 2050 REF2020, respectively. A grid carbon footprint of
468 gCO2 e/kWh is the threshold above which the DAC carbon footprint starts being
positive. This is in line with the results presented in [30]. When using PV&Wind as the
energy source for the DAC process, all countries are able to obtain negative emissions
of at least −0.81 tCO2 e/tCO2 captured starting already in 2020, with little but variable
changes in the future depending on which of these two energy sources is further developed
in each country. The EU aggregated carbon footprint of DAC remains at approximately
−0.89 tCO2 e/tCO2 captured for all the years and scenarios. The country values of DAC
carbon footprint for the different scenarios and years can be found in detail in Table S2 of
the Supplementary Material.
The production of synthetic methane, methanol, and diesel using DAC and hydrogen
from electrolysis is also analysed.
Figure 4 shows the CO2 emissions throughout the different stages of methanol produc-
tion: hydrogen production, CO2 capture using DAC, fuel synthesis (negligible compared
with the other stages and, therefore, not shown in the figure), and combustion. The equiva-
lent figures for methane as well as the results for the hybrid case of methanol can be found
in the Supplementary Material (Figures S1 and S2) since they follow a similar logic (the
different stages for diesel are not included since the methanol pathway has been chosen for
its production). For the year 2020 when using the grid to power DAC and produce hydro-
gen, hydrogen production is clearly the most important contributor to the CO2 emissions
due to the carbon intensity of the grid. It represents up to 77% of the total emissions in
Poland (527 gCO2 e/MJ). As seen in Figure 3, in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,
and Poland, DAC contributes with positive emissions, and in the case of Poland, these
are almost equivalent to the emissions from combustion (69 gCO2 e/MJ). At the EU level,
hydrogen production contributes, with 75% to the total emissions (170 gCO2 e/MJ). In this
case, it is important to take into account that the total emissions are reduced by 16% due to
the negative emissions from DAC. In Sweden, on the other hand, the negative emissions
from DAC almost compensate for all the combustion emissions, which in combination
with the low emissions from hydrogen production, result in a total carbon footprint of
30 gCO2 e/MJ for methanol. In 2030, the carbon footprint is reduced significantly compared
with 2020; such is the case for Croatia, Lithuania, and Greece, which present a reduction of
more than 70%. The values for FF55 2030 are indicated along with the REF2020 scenario
in Figure 4, represented by thinner dashed bar graphs. The biggest reduction compared
with REF2020 is observed in countries with the highest carbon footprint. In 2050, the
carbon footprint of hydrogen production becomes smaller than combustion emissions in
all countries except for Malta and Belgium, which do not appear to have a significant
reduction of grid carbon intensity throughout the years, always staying close to 2020 values.
When looking at the case of using PV&Wind for DAC and hydrogen production, the total
carbon footprint of methanol production is rather stable for all countries, ranging from 13
to 45 gCO2 e/MJ for all years.
 Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 28

Energies 2023, 16, 3881 15 of 28

Figure
Figure 3. Carbon footprint 3. Carbon
of DAC footprint
(tCO2 e/tCO of in
2 captured) DAC (tCO
the EU 2e/tCO
member 2 captured)
states in the
for the grid mix and EU member
PV&Wind casesstates for the
for the years grid
2020, 2030mix
REF2020, 2050
REF2020, and 2030 FF55.
and PV&Wind cases for the years 2020, 2030 REF2020, 2050 REF2020, and 2030 FF55.

The production of synthetic methane, methanol, and diesel using DAC and hydrogen
from electrolysis is also analysed.
Figure 4 shows the CO2 emissions throughout the different stages of methanol pro-
duction: hydrogen production, CO2 capture using DAC, fuel synthesis (negligible com-
pared with the other stages and, therefore, not shown in the figure), and combustion. The
equivalent figures for methane as well as the results for the hybrid case of methanol can
be found in the Supplementary Material (Figures S1 and S2) since they follow a similar
logic (the different stages for diesel are not included since the methanol pathway has been
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 16 of 28

In Figure 5, the total carbon footprints of synthetic methane, methanol, and diesel for
the different years, scenarios, and cases are presented. The carbon footprints of the fossil
equivalents are also included in the figures for comparison (natural gas (64 gCO2 e/MJ),
fossil methanol (91.6 gCO2 e/MJ), and diesel (92.2 gCO2 e/MJ)). The REDII threshold for
RFNBOs is also included, which represents the 70% GHG emissions reduction threshold
(i.e., 28.2 gCO2 e/MJ) compared with a fossil fuel comparator (FFC) set at 94 gCO2 e/MJ.
Fuels produced at a lower carbon intensity can potentially count towards the REDII targets
as RFNBOs. The current REDII LCA methodology does not account for emissions from
construction, decommissioning, or waste disposal of the infrastructures; however, the
emission factors from PV and wind used in this study consider a wider range of upstream
emissions [86,87]. Therefore, the results obtained in this study in terms of compliance with
the REDII threshold are considered conservative. The values presented in the figure can be
found in the Supplementary Material (Tables S3–S5).
Using the grid in 2020, only a few countries can produce the fuels considered with
a lower carbon footprint than their fossil equivalent. This is the case for Sweden, France,
Denmark, and Spain for methanol; Sweden, France, and Denmark for diesel; and Sweden
and France for methane. With regard to the REDII threshold (28.2 gCO2 e/MJ), currently
only Sweden would produce methane below this value (27.3 gCO2 e/MJ). The maximum
grid carbon footprints that allow for production of each of the fuels with lower or equal car-
bon footprint as their fossil equivalents are 96 gCO2 e/kWh for methane, 137.6 gCO2 e/kWh
for methanol, and 121.3 gCO2 e/kWh for diesel. To comply with the REDII threshold, the
maximum grid carbon footprints are 38.8 gCO2 e/kWh for methane, 35.3 gCO2 e/kWh
for methanol, and 30.2 gCO2 e/kWh for diesel. As a comparison, an LCA from Carbon
Engineering (liquid DAC) obtained a carbon footprint of 29 gCO2 e/MJ for FT-derived
diesel when using electricity from a grid with a carbon intensity of 13 gCO2 e/kWh, and
if the plant were using an electric calciner, the carbon footprint would be reduced to
12 gCO2 e/MJ [56]. Instead, our results show a carbon footprint of 18 gCO2 e/MJ when
using the same electricity carbon intensity (for solid DAC). In 2030 REF2020, ten more
countries can produce at least one of the three fuels analysed with a lower carbon footprint
than their fossil equivalent, although the EU average remains above all the fossil values.
However, for 2030 FF55, not only are these countries able to produce two or the three fuels
evaluated with lower emissions than their fossil equivalent, but also three more countries as
well as the EU average for methanol and diesel (78 and 88 gCO2 e/MJ) fall below the fossil
thresholds. Regarding the RED II threshold in 2030 REF2020, Sweden, France, Denmark,
Luxembourg, and Portugal are compliant for methane and methanol production, while
only Luxembourg and Portugal remain below the threshold also for diesel. In comparison,
for FF55, these five countries and Spain are all able to produce the three fuels with a carbon
footprint below the RED II threshold, while Croatia can do so for methane and methanol
only. Finally, in the year 2050 REF2020, a majority of the countries can produce at least one
fuel, and in many cases, the three fuels, with lower emissions than their fossil equivalent.
However, with regard to the REDII threshold, the results are very similar to 2030 FF55.
The EU average, on the other hand, does not comply with the REDII threshold for any of
the fuels, years, or scenarios, presenting the lowest values in 2050 REF2020 (48.9, 51, and
57.6 gCO2 e/MJ for methane, methanol, and diesel, respectively).
In the case of using PV&Wind as the energy source, all countries are able to produce
the three fuels with lower carbon emissions than their fossil equivalent for all the years. In
addition, most of the countries can comply with the REDII threshold, depending on the
year, the fuel, the scenario, and, ultimately, on the share of wind and solar energy, with
values ranging between 10.8 and 51.2 gCO2 e/MJ. In 2020, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary,
Malta, and Czech Republic are not able to produce any of the fuels with a lower carbon
footprint than the REDDII threshold. Throughout all the years and scenarios, Slovenia,
Hungary, and Malta are the only countries in which the production of all three fuels exceeds
the REDII threshold. The EU average, however, complies with it for all fuels, years, and
scenarios, with values ranging between 19.3 and 25.8 gCO2 e/MJ.
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 17 of 28

Figure 4. Methanol production emissions for the grid mix and PV&Wind cases; REF2020 and FF55
scenarios for 2020, 2030, and 2050. The 2030 graph includes both scenarios; the FF55 values are
indicated with dashed bars and the REF2020 values with solid bars.

In comparison with the grid case, the hybrid case (that assumes grid use for DAC and
PV&Wind for hydrogen production) allows to more countries with higher grid carbon foot-
prints to produce fuels in compliance with the REDII threshold, since hydrogen production
is the most limiting component in terms of carbon emissions. In contrast to the “grid case”,
the EU average in this case is able to produce methane in 2050 with lower emissions than
the REDII threshold.
Energies 2023, 16, 3881
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 28 18 of 28

Figure 5. Figure
Carbon5.footprint
Carbon footprint of e-methane,
of e-methane, e-methanol,
e-methanol, and for
and e-diesel e-diesel for the different
the different cases
cases (grid (grid mix,
mix,
PV&Wind, and hybrid) and years/scenarios (2020, 2030 REF2020, 2050 REF2020, and
PV&Wind, and hybrid) and years/scenarios (2020, 2030 REF2020, 2050 REF2020, and 2030 FF55). The 2030 FF55). The
fossil equivalents (natural gas, methanol, and diesel) and the RED II threshold are also
fossil equivalents (natural gas, methanol, and diesel) and the RED II threshold are also included. included.
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 19 of 28

6. Additional Considerations
6.1. CO2 Transport and Permanent Storage
As an alternative to the production of synthetic fuels, the CO2 captured using DAC
can also be stored permanently underground producing negative emissions overall from
cradle-to-gate. The two main CO2 storage options are in saline formations and existing oil
fields for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Saline formation storage has been used for the
past 25 years in the North Sea, with a total of more than 20 Mt of CO2 stored. Storage with
EOR has been taking place for almost 50 years, mainly in the U.S. [92,93]. Other options
for CO2 storage are in depleted oil and gas fields (at demonstration level) [93] as well as
storage in Basalt and ultramafic rocks and storage in coal seams through Enhanced Coal
Bed Methane (ECBM) production [94]. The conversion of CO2 into an inactive compound
with a high combustion point, is considered a long-term CO2 storage solution that promotes
sustainability by reducing emission risks at later stages [24]. According to the IPCC, when
the geological reservoirs fulfil certain requirements (e.g., proper selection and management),
they are highly likely to retain more than 99% of the sequestered CO2 over 100 years and
likely to retain 99% over 1000 years [95].
Currently, CO2 is compressed and transported mainly through pipelines. Pipeline
transportation is a safe and well-established means of transportation that can be optimal in
the case of large volumes, with capacities between 1 and 5 million tonnes per year and for
distances between 100 and 500 km [24]. CO2 can also be transported by train, ship, or truck.
Large-scale transportation by ships and rail is, however, a practice not yet applied [94].
Ship transport becomes more cost effective for long distances (>2400 km) over pipelines
due to its advantages in terms of flexibility and scalability. On the other side, CO2 for ship
transport needs to be liquefied, increasing the overall costs.
In Europe, the CCS Directive constitutes the regulatory framework across EU countries
for the implementation of CCS technologies [96]. In 2013, the availability of permanent
geological storage capacity in Europe was estimated at more than 300 Gt of CO2 (more than
200 GtCO2 in the North Sea) or 117 GtCO2 , as a more conservative capacity [97]. To put it
in context, the total CO2 emissions from EU power generation and industry in 2013 were
approximately 2.2 GtCO2 . For instance, “Longship” is a full-scale CCS value chain project
announced by the government of Norway in 2020, planning to capture 800 thousand tonnes
of CO2 per year from industrial sources. The transport and storage facilities, developed
by Northern Lights, will transport by ship and pipelines up to 1.5 million tonnes of CO2
per year to be stored offshore under the North Sea. The first phase of the project will be
completed in 2024, while the second phase is foreseen to transport an additional capacity
of 3.5 million tonnes CO2 per year [98,99].

6.2. Area and Water Requirements

An important advantage of DAC over other NETs, such as BECCS, is that it requires
a considerably lower amount of water (5–20 vs. 545–682 tH2 O/tCO2 captured) and land
(0.1–1.5 vs. 2731–16,362 m2 /tCO2 captured) [19], making it specially suited for water
and land scarce regions. However, DAC’s land and water requirements are also highly
dependent on the energy source and technology used.
Table S6 in the Supplementary Material summarises the water and land requirements
gathered from the literature for the different DAC technologies and energy sources. The
water requirements depend on the ambient air temperature and humidity, while the land
footprint is higher for DAC plants using PV and wind as energy sources. For instance, to
capture 1% of global CO2 emissions (0.368 GtCO2 /year), 3683 DAC plants covering an area
of 29 km2 would be needed. The total area increases by 445 km2 and 4450 km2 if wind and
PV are used as energy sources, respectively. In comparison, BECCS would require at least
100,000 km2 [30].
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 20 of 28

6.3. DAC Costs and the Future CO2 Pricing Boundary Condition for Technology Costs
There is a large uncertainty regarding current and future DAC costs due to the initial
stages of deployment. The current cost that has been reported in the literature is based on
some operating facilities, pilot plants, and various simulations [24,29,45]. Most of the pro-
jections anticipate a technological learning potential similar to PV technology development
in the early 2000’s. However, many of the underlying assumptions are different, such as
the initial cost and the energy sources. The learning rate approach that calculates the cost
decrease rates according to the capacities installed (not based on the time series) is more
adequate, since without learning from installation experiences, time alone will not lower
the cost components. However, with this approach, the projected future costs decrease
ignores the fact that there will be a need for enormous financial aid at the beginning of the
learning curve until enough capacity is installed. To put DAC cost in context, other nature-
based carbon removal solutions, such as reforestation, today costs less than 47 EUR/tCO2 ,
although with a considerably higher land and water use. Carbon price, on the other hand,
provides a proxy value of the cost of current available carbon removal solutions (depending
on the sectors covered by the EU ETS in the future). If DAC remains at a much higher cost
compared with the carbon price, it will not be able to deliver the expected CO2 removal at
a competitive cost.
Figure 6 presents the EU ETS carbon price forecast and the DAC cost projections from
various sources derived from the literature. As of August 2022, the EU ETS carbon price is
83.84 EUR/tCO2 , having peaked at 96.99 EUR/tCO2 in February 2022 [100], significantly
higher than some projections carried out in 2016 (~15 EUR/tCO2 ). More recent projections
from the year 2022 forecast an increasing EU ETS carbon price of 85.45 EUR/tCO2 , on
average, between 2022 and 2025 and 99.63 EUR/tCO2 between 2026 and 2030, caused by
the final stages of a number of EU policy proposals from the “Fit for 55” package [101].
To become cost competitive (cost reductions to the level of the carbon price) and reach
large-scale deployment, DAC technologies require a decrease in cost through technological
learning and a higher future carbon price. As depicted in Figure 6, even following the
most optimistic learning curves, the earliest cost competitiveness of the technology is
not expected to arrive before 2035. It is important to add that today, only Climeworks
is providing a real price on permanent carbon removals through DAC selling credits at
1000 EUR/tCO2 [45], far more expensive compared with most of the values in the literature,
as can be observed in Figure 6. One important reason for the high cost is that CO2 markets
are limited and cannot provide enough revenue to offset the capture cost [102]. Addressing
this gap between DAC cost and carbon price will likely involve public intervention in the
early stages of DAC deployment. This could include re-investing a portion of the revenues
from the carbon market, as is the case of the Innovation Fund, which uses revenues from
the EU ETS [13]. The ambitious EU funding programs mentioned previously (REPowerEU
and Innovation Fund) set a good example in this policy direction that could be followed
by other key international players. As carbon capture is a public benefit, the international
diplomacy to include all stakeholders is vital in the early financing. This will provide the
necessary incentives to bridge the cost gaps at the initial stages of the technology learning
until DAC becomes a profitable option for private investment based on the future carbon
price. According to some studies, the most optimistic DAC technology scenarios can
become feasible for carbon prices over 80 EUR/tCO2 [103].
Another aspect to explore, one that may affect future DAC deployment, is transport
and storage cost for permanent storage. The cost of CO2 storage depends on the location
and type of storage site, the reservoir capacity, and the injectivity (the ratio of injection
rate per unit of pressure difference between the injection pressure and reservoir pressure),
ranging between 2 and 20 EUR/tCO2 . Large, onshore, depleted oil and gas fields with high
injectivity are at the lower end of the range, while small, offshore, deep saline aquifers with
low injectivity are at the higher end [104]. The cost of CO2 transport, on the other hand,
depends on capacities and distance, with pipelines exhibiting the widest range between
1.5 and 43.6 EUR/tCO2 and between 3.4 and 51.7 EUR/tCO2 for onshore and offshore
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 28
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 21 of 28

storage respectively. Truck and railway transportation costs are estimated at approxi-
storage respectively. Truck and railway transportation costs are estimated at approximately
mately 13–7.3 EUR/tCO2, respectively, while cost of shipping transportation varies be-
13–7.3 EUR/tCO2 , respectively, while cost of shipping transportation varies between 11
tween
and 2011 and 20 EUR/tCO
EUR/tCO [104]. 2 [104].
2

Figure 6. Cost of DAC

Figure DAC from
fromthe
theliterature
literatureand
andEU
EUETS carbon
ETS price
carbon with
price future
with projections
future (light
projections and
(light
and
darkdark colours
colours referrefer to maximum
to maximum and minimum
and minimum values,
values, respectively,
respectively, of arange).
of a cost cost range). Sources:
Sources: DAC
DAC cost [6,24,27,29,31,44,45,105–109]
cost [6,24,27,29,31,44,45,105–109] and EUand EUcarbon
ETS ETS carbon
price price
[100]. [100].

6.4.
6.4. DAC
DAC Projects
Projects
Currently,
Currently, there
there are
are 19
19 operational
operational direct
direct air
air capture
capture plants
plants in
in the
theworld
worldconcentrated
concentrated
in
in Europe,
Europe, U.S.A., and Canada
U.S.A. and Canada [6].
[6]. Most
Most of
of them
them are selling or
are selling or are
are planning
planning to
to sell
sell the
the CO
CO22
captured
captured to to the
the market
market for
for various
various applications
applications [6,44,47,110].
[6,44,47,110]. All
All these
these plants
plants together
together are
are
capturing,
capturing, in in total,
total, more
more than
than 10
10 ktCO
ktCO22/year
/yearby bythe
theend
endofof2021
2021[6].
[6].
In
In addition
addition to toClimeworks,
Climeworks, Carbon
Carbon Engineering,
Engineering, and and Global
GlobalThermostat,
Thermostat, several
severalnewnew
companies
companies and start-ups have been emerging in the last few years, focusing their efforts
and start-ups have been emerging in the last few years, focusing their efforts
on
on reducing
reducing cost
cost and
and energy
energy use
use [18]. Details
Details on
on the
the existing
existing and
and planned
planned DAC
DAC projects
projects
around
around thethe world
world cancan be
be found
found in
in Tables
Tables S7–S10 of the Supplementary Material.

7. Discussion
7. Discussion
A number
A number of oflimitations
limitationswere
wereencountered
encountered during
during this
this analysis
analysis for
forwhich
whichfuture
futurework
work
couldhelp
could helpimprove
improvethe the results.
results. Firstly,
Firstly, the the availability
availability of up-to-date
of up-to-date data ondataPVonandPVwind
and
wind carbon
carbon footprintfootprint
in the in the literature
literature is veryislimited,
very limited, withone
with only only one overall
overall value
value for for
wind
wind power from 2013 and country data for PV from 2011. Further
power from 2013 and country data for PV from 2011. Further work could focus on devel- work could focus on
developing up-to-date and future projections of PV and wind carbon
oping up-to-date and future projections of PV and wind carbon footprints, which would footprints, which
would increase
increase the accuracy
the accuracy of the Future
of the results. results.work
Future work
could could
also focus also
on focus on geospatial
geospatial analysis
analysis of the optimal locations for DAC and hydrogen production
of the optimal locations for DAC and hydrogen production according to future RES according to future
avail-
RES availability
ability in the countries.
in the different different countries.
RegardingRegarding fuel production,
fuel production, future workfuture work
could could
expand
expand
this thisanalysing
study, study, analysing additional
additional fuels conversion
fuels conversion pathways pathways targeting
targeting the EUthe EU mid-
mid-term
term policy scenarios for the transport sector, such as liquid hydrocarbons
policy scenarios for the transport sector, such as liquid hydrocarbons ready to be used ready to in
be
used in hard-to-decarbonise sectors, such as aviation, shipping, and heavy
hard-to-decarbonise sectors, such as aviation, shipping, and heavy road freight transport. road freight
transport.
Most of the future scenarios trying to limit global temperature to 1.5 °C above pre-
Mostlevels
of thealready
future scenarios trying tooflimit global temperature to 1.5 ◦ C above pre-
industrial include some sort carbon removals, including DAC. The high
industrial levels already include some sort of carbon removals, including DAC. The high
uncertainty surrounding DAC, especially in terms of energy use, scale-up capacity, and
uncertainty surrounding DAC, especially in terms of energy use, scale-up capacity, and
cost, creates some scepticism when relying upon this technology in future scenarios to
cost, creates some scepticism when relying upon this technology in future scenarios to
reduce emissions since a possible failure to meet the deployment targets could lead to a
reduce emissions since a possible failure to meet the deployment targets could lead to a
global temperature overshoot. In Europe, the EU Green Deal has set the path towards net
global temperature overshoot. In Europe, the EU Green Deal has set the path towards net
zero emissions by 2050, and the latest REPowerEU plan is accelerating the green transition.
zero emissions by 2050, and the latest REPowerEU plan is accelerating the green transition.
The “Fit for 55” scenario already considers the introduction of DAC in 2035, which implies
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 22 of 28

The “Fit for 55” scenario already considers the introduction of DAC in 2035, which implies
that more large-scale demonstration plants will need to be deployed to reduce the cost
and reach maturity. Currently, 10 ktCO2 /year are being removed with DAC globally, and
the largest commercial plant is removing 4 ktCO2 /year (with two future plants in the
pipeline of 35 ktCO2 /year and 1MtCO2 /year). In contrast, 200 MtCO2 are expected to be
removed from DAC in the EU to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, and the aspirational goal
for EU sustainable carbon cycles is to remove 5 MtCO2 /year by 2030. The gap between
current DAC capacities and CO2 removals targets is clearly very large. To overcome this
challenge and enable the future deployment of DAC at scale—which will also contribute
to reducing the cost overtime—policy development and governmental support in the
early stages are key. A few programs have been put in place in the last few years in the
EU (i.e., Innovation Fund, EU-Catalyst partnership, and the Sustainable Carbon Cycles
certification framework) that are expected to incentivize the development of DAC on a
large scale in the future. Modularity is also an important factor to enable faster deployment
on that scale. Regarding energy use, DAC technologies that require lower temperatures
and can be fully powered by RES or waste heat are better positioned in terms of energy
availability and independence from fossil fuels. During the first period of scaling up pilot
projects, the cost of DAC is substantially high; however, it is expected to decrease with a
combination of more installations and technological advancements that will contribute to
the technology’s learning curve, as it has already occurred with other technologies, such as
PV, wind, and (partially) lithium batteries. The economic viability of DAC technologies is
highly dependent on the (future) carbon price developments that has become quite volatile
due to sudden policy and geopolitical changes. Carbon price increase and the simultaneous
DAC cost decrease is expected to bring an economic equilibrium that will enable DAC to
become competitive. Public intervention in the early stages of DAC deployment and/or
dedication of the carbon market revenues for the installation of pilot DAC projects is
considered to be of high importance. From a policy perspective, EU funding programs
(such as REPowerEU and Innovation Fund) can be proven vital for the future of DAC
technology investments.
When coupled with electrolysers powered by renewable energies, DAC can also help
to offset emissions from sectors difficult to decarbonise (e.g., energy intensive industries,
aviation, and maritime) through the production of synthetic fuels, and it may potentially
cover a large part of the RFNBOs share for the transport sector. Moreover, in a highly
decarbonised future economy, CO2 availability from concentrated sources may be limited,
and DAC could be a CO2 source for the production of carbon-based synthetic fuels needed
in these residual sectors. Despite their conversion technologies being at early TRLs, the “Fit
for 55” package introduced specific targets for RFNBOs with regard to their production,
so their market uptake is expected soon. As with DAC, it is essential to provide adequate
incentives for the development of synthetic fuels to make them cost competitive. Drop-in
fuels can be very advantageous, as they are compatible with the existing fuel distribution
and usage infrastructure, and moreover, some of these fuels can also be used in the industry
as chemicals. The results of this study highlight the importance of using renewable energies
(wind and solar) for synthetic fuel production if the REDII threshold for RFNBOs is to
be met. This is fully in line with the “Fit for 55” targets and the recent REPowerEU
plan whereby wind and solar energy production is expected to increase and, therefore,
potentially be available for DAC and hydrogen production in order to produce compliant
fuels and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

8. Conclusions
The present study provides an in-depth review of direct air capture, exploring various
technological and economical aspects as well as providing an overview of the current DAC
projects around the world. It also performs an analysis of the current and future carbon
footprint of the DAC technology in the EU countries under different cases and scenarios as
well as its utilisation to produce three synthetic fuels (i.e., methane, methanol, and diesel).
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 23 of 28

The following conclusions can be drawn from this article:

• A grid carbon intensity of 468 gCO2 e/kWh is the threshold below which DAC can
deliver negative emissions. Currently, DAC powered by the grid electricity mix does
not provide negative emissions in five EU countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Estonia, and Poland); however, the lower grid carbon intensities would allow this in
2050 REF2020 and 2030 FF55.
• The average negative emissions using DAC in the EU range from −0.407 to
0.794 tCO2 e/tCO2 captured for the different years and scenarios. If only PV&Wind
are used to power DAC, all countries would already be able today to obtain negative
emissions of at least 0.81 tCO2 e/tCO2 captured.
• For the production of the considered fuels, currently only a few countries would be
able to produce them with a lower carbon footprint than their fossil equivalent using
the grid, and only Sweden would be able to comply with the REDII threshold (only
for e-methane).
• The maximum grid carbon intensities that allow production of the selected fuels
with lower or equal carbon footprints than their fossil equivalent are 96, 121, and
151 gCO2 e/kWh for methane, diesel, and methanol, respectively.
• To comply with the REDII threshold, the maximum grid carbon intensity ranges
between 30.2 and 38.8 gCO2 e/kWh.
In 2050 REF2020, almost all countries are able to produce at least one of the synthetic
fuels analysed and, in many cases, all three fuels with lower emissions than their fossil
counterpart. However, only few countries are able to comply with the REDII threshold,
and the EU average is always above it for all fuels, years, and scenarios. When using only
PV&Wind, all countries are able to produce the three fuels with lower carbon emissions
than their fossil equivalent, and most of them complying with the REDII threshold. In
this case, the EU average would be also able to comply with the REDII for all fuels, years,
and scenarios, with values ranging between 19.3 and 25.8 gCO2 e/MJ. The hybrid case
allows more countries to produce fuels compliant with the REDII threshold, since hydrogen
production is the most influencing factor in terms of carbon emissions. In this case, in
contrast to the grid case, the EU average would be able to produce methane in 2050 in
compliance with the REDII requirements.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/en16093881/s1, Figure S1. Methane production emissions for
the Grid mix and PV&Wind cases; REF2020 and FF55 scenarios for 2020, 2030, and 2050; Figure S2.
Methane and methanol production emissions for the Hybrid case; REF2020 and FF55 scenarios
for 2020, 2030, and 2050; Table S1. List of EU countries’ codes; Table S2. DAC carbon footprint;
Table S3. Fuel total carbon footprint for the “Grid Case”; Table S4. Fuel total carbon footprint
(gCO2 e/MJ) for the “PV&Wind Case”; Table S5. Fuel total carbon footprint (gCO2 e/MJ) for the
“Hybrid Case”; Table S6. Area and water requirements of DAC technologies; Table S7. Main projects
from Climeworks; Table S8. Main projects from Global Thermostat; Table S9. Main projects from
Carbon Engineering; Table S10. Other DAC companies. References [111–126] are cited in the
Supplementary Materials.
Author Contributions: R.G.S., conceptualization, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—
review and editing, investigation, formal analysis, and methodology; A.C., conceptualization,
writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, investigation, and methodology; G.K., vi-
sualization, writing—review and editing, methodology, and software; M.B., writing—original draft,
writing—review and editing, methodology, and formal analysis; S.S., writing—original draft, investi-
gation, methodology, and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available in the present article
“The role of direct air capture in EU’s decarbonisation and associated carbon intensity for synthetic
fuels production” and the corresponding Supplementary Materials available, as mentioned above.
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 24 of 28

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The scientific output expressed is
based on the current information available to the authors and does not imply a policy position of the
European Commission.

References
1. Our World in Data. GHG Emissions by Sector. 2020. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
(accessed on 20 November 2022).
2. IPCC. Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 ◦ C. Summary for Policymakers. 2018. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15
/chapter/spm/ (accessed on 20 November 2022).
3. IPCC. AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014. 2014. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ (accessed on
20 November 2022).
4. EASAC. Negative Emission Technologies: What Role in Meeting Paris Agreement Targets? 2018. Available online: https://easa
c.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Negative_Carbon/EASAC_Report_on_Negative_Emission_Technologies.pdf (ac-
cessed on 20 November 2022).
5. IEA. Net Zero by 2050—A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero
-by-2050 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
6. IEA. Direct Air Capture. 2022. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture (accessed on 20 Novem-
ber 2022).
7. Eurostat. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the EU. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/ind
ex.php?title=Quarterly_greenhouse_gas_emissions_in_the_EU#Greenhouse_gas_emissions (accessed on 4 March 2022).
8. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal. 2019. Available online:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN (accessed on 20 November 2022).
9. European Commission. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Establishing the Framework for Achieving
Climate Neutrality and Amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law). 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1119 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
10. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Fit for 55’: Delivering the EU’s 2030 Climate Target on the Way
to Climate Neutrality. 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0550
(accessed on 20 November 2022).
11. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions REPowerEU: Joint European Action for More
Affordable, Secure and Sustainable Energy. 2022. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CO
M%3A2022%3A230%3AFIN (accessed on 20 November 2022).
12. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Sustainable Carbon
Cycles. 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0800 (accessed on
20 November 2022).
13. European Commission. Innovation Fund. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/funding-climate-actio
n/innovation-fund_en (accessed on 20 November 2022).
14. European Commission. EU-Catalyst Partnership: Request for Proposals of Pioneering Green Technology Projects Is Launched.
2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/eu-catalyst-partnership-request-proposals-pioneering-green-techno
logy-projects-launched-2022-jan-11_en (accessed on 11 January 2022).
15. Rickels, W.; Proelß, A.; Geden, O.; Burhenne, J.; Fridahl, M. Integrating Carbon Dioxide Removal into European Emissions
Trading. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 690023. [CrossRef]
16. European Commission. In-Depth Analysis in Support on the COM(2018) 773: A Clean Planet for All—A European Strate-
gic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy. 2018. Available online:
https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/depth-analysis-support-com2018-773-clean-planet-all-european-strateg
ic-long-term-vision_en (accessed on 20 November 2022).
17. Capros, P.; Zazias, G.; Evangelopoulou, S.; Kannavou, M.; Fotiou, T.; Siskos, P.; De Vita, A.; Sakellaris, K. Energy-system modelling
of the EU strategy towards climate-neutrality. Energy Policy 2019, 134, 110960. [CrossRef]
18. Climeworks. Direct Air Capture Summit 2021. 2021. Available online: https://climeworks.com/news/direct-air-capture-summi
t-2021 (accessed on 10 January 2022).
19. Realmonte, G.; Drouet, L.; Gambhir, A.; Glynn, J.; Hawkes, A.; Köberle, A.C.; Tavoni, M. An inter-model assessment of the role of
direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3277. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Beuttler, C.; Charles, L.; Wurzbacher, J. The Role of Direct Air Capture in Mitigation of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Front. Clim. 2019, 1, 10. [CrossRef]
21. Hanna, R.; Abdulla, A.; Xu, Y.; Victor, D.G. Emergency deployment of direct air capture as a response to the climate crisis. Nat.
Commun. 2021, 12, 368. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 25 of 28

22. Breyer, C.; Fasihi, M.; Bajamundi, C.; Creutzig, F. Direct Air Capture of CO2: A Key Technology for Ambitious Climate Change
Mitigation. Joule 2019, 3, 2053–2057. [CrossRef]
23. Ozkan, M.; Nayak, S.P.; Ruiz, A.D.; Jiang, W. Current status and pillars of direct air capture technologies. iScience 2022, 25, 103990.
[CrossRef]
24. Fasihi, M.; Efimova, O.; Breyer, C. Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 957–980.
[CrossRef]
25. Erans, M.; Sanz-Pérez, E.S.; Hanak, D.P.; Clulow, Z.; Reiner, D.M.; Mutch, G.A. Direct air capture: Process technology, techno-
economic and socio-political challenges. Energy Environ. Sci. 2022, 15, 1360–1405. [CrossRef]
26. Broehm, M.; Strefler, J.; Bauer, N. Techno-Economic Review of Direct Air Capture Systems for Large Scale Mitigation of
Atmospheric CO2 . SSRN Electron. J. 2015. [CrossRef]
27. Sabatino, F.; Grimm, A.; Gallucci, F.; Annaland, M.V.S.; Kramer, G.J.; Gazzani, M. A comparative energy and costs assessment and
optimization for direct air capture technologies. Joule 2021, 5, 2047–2076. [CrossRef]
28. 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, 1035–1044. [CrossRef]
29. Keith, D.W.; Holmes, G.; Angelo, D.S.; Heidel, K. A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere. Joule 2018, 2, 1573–1594.
[CrossRef]
30. Deutz, S.; Bardow, A. Life-cycle assessment of an industrial direct air capture process based on temperature–vacuum swing
adsorption. Nat. Energy 2021, 6, 203–213. [CrossRef]
31. McQueen, N.; Psarras, P.; Pilorgé, H.; Liguori, S.; He, J.; Yuan, M.; Woodall, C.M.; Kian, K.; Pierpoint, L.; Jurewicz, J.; 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, 7542–7551. [CrossRef]
32. Ishimoto, Y.; Sugiyama, M.; Kato, E.; Moriyama, R.; Tsuzuki, K.; Kurosawa, A. Putting Costs of Direct Air Capture in Context.
FCEA Working Paper Series: 002. SSRN Electron. J. 2017. [CrossRef]
33. Sutherland, B.R. Pricing CO2 Direct Air Capture. Joule 2019, 3, 1571–1573. [CrossRef]
34. Azarabadi, H.; Lackner, K.S. A sorbent-focused techno-economic analysis of direct air capture. Appl. Energy 2019, 250, 959–975.
[CrossRef]
35. Darunte, L.A.; Oetomo, A.D.; Walton, K.S.; Sholl, D.S.; Jones, C.W. Direct Air Capture of CO2 Using Amine Functionalized
MIL-101(Cr). ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 5761–5768. [CrossRef]
36. Deng, Y.; Li, J.; Miao, Y.; Izikowitz, D. A comparative review of performance of nanomaterials for Direct Air Capture. Energy Rep.
2021, 7, 3506–3516. [CrossRef]
37. Custelcean, R.; Williams, N.J.; Garrabrant, K.A.; Agullo, P.; Brethomé, F.M.; Martin, H.J.; Kidder, M.K. Direct Air Capture of CO2
with Aqueous Amino Acids and Solid Bis-iminoguanidines (BIGs). Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 23338–23346. [CrossRef]
38. Sayari, A.; Liu, Q.; Mishra, P. Enhanced Adsorption Efficiency through Materials Design for Direct Air Capture over Supported
Polyethylenimine. Chemsuschem 2016, 9, 2796–2803. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Li, C.; Shi, H.; Cao, Y.; Kuang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, D.; Sun, L. Modeling and optimal operation of carbon capture from the air
driven by intermittent and volatile wind power. Energy 2015, 87, 201–211. [CrossRef]
40. 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. Chang. 2020, 25, 43–65. [CrossRef]
41. USingh, U.; Colosi, L.M. Capture or curtail: The potential and performance of direct air capture powered through excess
renewable electricity. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2022, 15, 100230. [CrossRef]
42. Wohland, J.; Witthaut, D.; Schleussner, C.-F. Negative Emission Potential of Direct Air Capture Powered by Renewable Excess
Electricity in Europe. Earth’s Futur. 2018, 6, 1380–1384. [CrossRef]
43. Shayegh, S.; Bosetti, V.; Tavoni, M. Future Prospects of Direct Air Capture Technologies: Insights From an Expert Elicitation
Survey. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 630893. Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fclim.2021.630893 (accessed
on 6 February 2021). [CrossRef]
44. Herzog, H.J. Chapter 6: Direct Air Capture. In Greenhouse Gas Removal Technologies; The Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK,
2022. Available online: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/ebook/978-1-83916-199-5 (accessed on 6 February 2021).
45. Climeworks. CO2 Removal. Available online: https://climeworks.com/ (accessed on 6 February 2021).
46. Climeworks. Climeworks Takes Another Major Step on Its Road to Building Gigaton DAC Capacity. 2022. Available on-
line: https://climeworks.com/news/climeworks-announces-groundbreaking-on-mammoth?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medi
um=Social&utm_campaign=mammothannouncement&utm_content=mammothnews (accessed on 28 June 2022).
47. Climeworks. Orca: The First Large-Scale Plant. Available online: https://climeworks.com/roadmap/orca (accessed on 8
September 2021).
48. Carbon Engineering. Carbon Engineering. Available online: https://carbonengineering.com/our-story/ (accessed on 20
February 2003).
49. McQueen, N.; Gomes, K.V.; McCormick, C.; Blumanthal, K.; Pisciotta, M.; Wilcox, J. A review of direct air capture (DAC): Scaling
up commercial technologies and innovating for the future. Prog. Energy 2021, 3, 032001. [CrossRef]
50. Tavoni, M.; Socolow, R. Modeling meets science and technology: An introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim.
Chang. 2013, 118, 1–14. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 26 of 28

51. Realmonte, G.; Drouet, L.; Gambhir, A.; Glynn, J.; Hawkes, A.; Köberle, A.C.; Tavoni, M. Reply to “High energy and materials
requirement for direct air capture calls for further analysis and R&D”. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 10–11. [CrossRef]
52. Chatterjee, S.; Huang, K.-W. Unrealistic energy and materials requirement for direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat.
Commun. 2020, 11, 10–12. [CrossRef]
53. Lin, Q.; Zhang, X.; Wang, T.; Zheng, C.; Gao, X. Technical Perspective of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage. Engineering
2022, 14, 27–32. [CrossRef]
54. De Jonge, M.M.; Daemen, J.; Loriaux, J.M.; Steinmann, Z.J.; Huijbregts, M.A. Life cycle carbon efficiency of Direct Air Capture
systems with strong hydroxide sorbents. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2018, 80, 25–31. [CrossRef]
55. Climeworks. Direct Air Capture Summit 2020. 2020. Available online: https://climeworks.com/news/direct-air-capture-summi
t-2020 (accessed on 8 September 2020).
56. Liu, C.M.; Sandhu, N.K.; McCoy, S.T.; Bergerson, J.A. A life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from direct air capture
and Fischer-Tropsch fuel production. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2020, 4, 3129–3142. [CrossRef]
57. Marchese, M.; Buffo, G.; Santarelli, M.; Lanzini, A. CO2 from direct air capture as carbon feedstock for Fischer-Tropsch chemicals
and fuels: Energy and economic analysis. J. CO2 Util. 2021, 46, 101487. [CrossRef]
58. Malins, C. What role is there for electrofuel technologies in European transport’s low carbon future? Cerulogy Rep. 2017, 1–86.
59. Panoutsou, C.; Germer, S.; Karka, P.; Papadokostantakis, S.; Kroyan, Y.; Wojcieszyk, M.; Maniatis, K.; Marchand, P.; Landalv, I.
Advanced biofuels to decarbonise European transport by 2030: Markets, challenges, and policies that impact their successful
market uptake. Energy Strat. Rev. 2021, 34, 100633. [CrossRef]
60. EU. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of
energy from renewable sources (recast). Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, L 328, 82–209.
61. Soler, A. A look into the role of e-fuels in the transport system in Europe (2030–2050) (literature review): Concawe Low Carbon
Pathways Joint Group (LCP JG). Concawe Rev. 2019, 28, 4–22.
62. JEC v5 WtT-and-BEST. Database on Facilities for the Production of Advanced Liquid and Gaseous Biofuels for Transport. IEA
Bioenergy Task 39. Available online: https://demoplants.best-research.eu/ (accessed on 17 June 2022).
63. Styring, P.; Dowson, G.R.M.; Tozer, I.O. Synthetic Fuels Based on Dimethyl Ether as a Future Non-Fossil Fuel for Road Transport
from Sustainable Feedstocks. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 663331. Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/
fenrg.2021.663331 (accessed on 12 May 2022). [CrossRef]
64. Transport & Environment. Magic Green Fuels: Why Synthetic Fuels in Cars Will not Solve Europe’s Pollution Problems. 2021.
Available online: https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/magic-green-fuels-why-synthetic-fuels-in-cars-will-not
-solve-europes-pollution-problems/ (accessed on 12 May 2022).
65. Sebos, I. Fossil fraction of CO2 emissions of biofuels. Carbon Manag. 2022, 13, 154–163. [CrossRef]
66. Svanberg, M.; Ellis, J.; Lundgren, J.; Landälv, I. Renewable methanol as a fuel for the shipping industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2018, 94, 1217–1228. [CrossRef]
67. CWulf, C.; Zapp, P.; Schreiber, A. Review of Power-to-X Demonstration Projects in Europe. Front. Energy Res. 2020, 8, 191.
Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00191 (accessed on 12 May 2022).
68. European Commission. Horizon Europe. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/funding/fund
ing-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en (accessed on 12 May 2022).
69. CINEA. Connecting Europe Facility. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility (accessed on 12
May 2022).
70. European Commission. InvestEU. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-pro
grammes/investeu_en (accessed on 12 May 2022).
71. Bos, M.J.; Kersten, S.R.A.; Brilman, D.W.F. Wind power to methanol: Renewable methanol production using electricity, electrolysis
of water and CO2 air capture. Appl. Energy 2020, 264, 114672. [CrossRef]
72. Prats-Salvado, E.; Monnerie, N.; Sattler, C. Synergies between Direct Air Capture Technologies and Solar Thermochemical Cycles
in the Production of Methanol. Energies 2021, 14, 4818. [CrossRef]
73. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2020.
74. European Commission. 2022 State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.
eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_22_5493 (accessed on 14 September 2022).
75. European Commission. Recovery and Resilience Facility. Available online: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industr
y/strategy/hydrogen/funding-guide/eu-programmes-funds/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en (accessed on 28 October 2022).
76. European Commission. State Aid: Commission Approves up to €5.4 Billion of Public Support by Fifteen Member States
for an Important Project of Common European Interest in the Hydrogen Technology Value Chain. 2022. Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_4544 (accessed on 15 July 2022).
77. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Europe’s Moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation;
European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; p. 18.
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 27 of 28

78. European Commission. Delegated Regulation for a Minimum Threshold for GHG Savings of Recycled Carbon Fuels and Annex.
Available online: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/delegated-regulation-minimum-threshold-ghg-savings-recycled
-carbon-fuels-and-annex_en (accessed on 2 May 2023).
79. European Commission. Delegated Regulation on Union Methodology for RFNBOs. Available online: https://energy.ec.europa.e
u/publications/delegated-regulation-union-methodology-rfnbos_en (accessed on 2 May 2023).
80. European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Use of Renewable and Low-Carbon
Fuels in Maritime Transport and Amending Directive 2009/16/EC; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
81. European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Ensuring a Level Playing Field for
Sustainable Air Transport; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
82. Dieterich, V.; Buttler, A.; Hanel, A.; Spliethoff, H.; Fendt, S. Power-to-liquid via synthesis of methanol, DME or Fischer-Tropsch-
fuels: A review. Energy Environ. Sci. 2020, 13, 3207–3252. [CrossRef]
83. Thema, M.; Bauer, F.; Sterner, M. Power-to-Gas: Electrolysis and methanation status review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 112,
775–787. [CrossRef]
84. Prussi, M.; Yugo, M.; De Prada, L.; Padella, M.; Edwards, R.; Lonza, L. JEC Well-to-Tank Report v5; EUR 30269 EN; Publications
Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; ISBN 978-92-76-19926-7. JRC119036. [CrossRef]
85. European Commission. EU Reference Scenario 2020: Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions: Trends to 2050; Publications Office of the
European Union: Luxembourg, 2021. Available online: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/energy-modelling/eu-re
ference-scenario-2020_en (accessed on 12 May 2022).
86. De Wild-Scholten, M.; Cassagne, V.; Huld, T. Solar Resources and Carbon Footprint of Photovoltaic Power in Different Regions in
Europe. In Proceedings of the 29th EUPVSEC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 22–26 September 2014; pp. 3421–3430. [CrossRef]
87. NREL. Wind LCA Harmonization. 2013. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57131.pdf (accessed on 12
May 2022).
88. Tenhumberg, N.; Büker, K. Ecological and Economic Evaluation of Hydrogen Production by Different Water Electrolysis
Technologies. Chem. Ing. Tech. 2020, 92, 1586–1595. [CrossRef]
89. Biograce. BioGrace Excel Tool V4. 2015. Available online: https://biograce.net/content/ghgcalculationtools/recognisedtool
(accessed on 12 May 2022).
90. Bongartz, D.; Doré, L.; Eichler, K.; Grube, T.; Heuser, B.; Hombach, L.E.; Robinius, M.; Pischinger, S.; Stolten, D.; Walther, G.; et al.
Comparison of light-duty transportation fuels produced from renewable hydrogen and green carbon dioxide. Appl. Energy 2018,
231, 757–767. [CrossRef]
91. Ruokonen, J.; Nieminen, H.; Dahiru, A.R.; Laari, A.; Koiranen, T.; Laaksonen, P.; Vuokila, A.; Huuhtanen, M. Modelling and Cost
Estimation for Conversion of Green Methanol to Renewable Liquid Transport Fuels via Olefin Oligomerisation. Processes 2021,
9, 1046. [CrossRef]
92. National Petroleum Council. Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage (CCUS) Report. 2019. Available online: https://dualchallenge.np
c.org/downloads.php (accessed on 18 May 2022).
93. Bui, M.; Adjiman, C.S.; Bardow, A.; Anthony, E.J.; Boston, A.; Brown, S.; Fennell, P.S.; Fuss, S.; Galindo, A.; Hackett, L.A.; et al.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS): The way forward. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 1062–1176. [CrossRef]
94. Kearns, D.; Liu, H.; Consoli, C. Technology Readiness and Costs of CCS. 2021. Available online: https://www.globalccsinstitute.c
om/resources/publications-reports-research/technology-readiness-and-costs-of-ccs/ (accessed on 18 May 2022).
95. IPCC. Carbon Capture and Storage. 2018. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholerep
ort.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2022).
96. European Commission. Implementation of the CCS Directive. 2009. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/car
bon-capture-use-and-storage/implementation-ccs-directive_es (accessed on 18 May 2022).
97. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe. 2013. Available
online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52013DC0180 (accessed on 18 May 2022).
98. Northern Lights. What We Do. Available online: https://norlights.com/what-we-do/ (accessed on 18 May 2022).
99. Equinor. Northern Lights. Available online: https://www.equinor.com/energy/northern-lights (accessed on 18 May 2022).
100. Trading Economics. EU Carbon Permits. Available online: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/carbon#:~:text= (accessed
on 4 August 2022).
101. IETA. GHG Market Sentiment Survey. 2022. Available online: https://www.ieta.org/resources/Documents/IETAGHGMarketSe
ntimentSurveyReport2022.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2022).
102. Lebling, K.; Leslie-Bol, H.; Byrum, Z.; Bridgwater, E. Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon Removal.
2022. Available online: https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal
(accessed on 5 July 2022).
103. ING. Rising Carbon Prices Increase Viability of Low-Carbon Technologies. 2022. Available online: https://think.ing.com/articles
/rising-carbon-prices-increase-viability-of-low-carbon-technologies (accessed on 20 March 2022).
104. ZEP. The Cost of Subsurface Storage of CO2. 2019. Available online: https://zeroemissionsplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/Co
st-of-storage.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2022).
Energies 2023, 16, 3881 28 of 28

105. IEA. Is Carbon Capture too Expensive? 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-exp
ensive (accessed on 20 September 2021).
106. Global Thermostat. We Have the Tech to Suck CO2 from the Air—But Can It Suck Enough to Make a Difference? 2019. Available
online: https://globalthermostat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Fast-Company-We-have-the-tech-to-suck-CO2-from-t
he-air-06.11.19.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).
107. Fuss, S.; Lamb, W.F.; Callaghan, M.W.; Hilaire, J.; Creutzig, F.; Amann, T.; Beringer, T.; Garcia, W.D.O.; Hartmann, J.; Khanna, T.;
et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 063002. [CrossRef]
108. Zeman, F. Reducing the Cost of Ca-Based Direct Air Capture of CO2 . Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 11730–11735. [CrossRef]
109. Paroussos, L.; Fragkos, P.; Capros, P. A Model-Based Analysis of the European Intended Nationally Determined Contribution.
Studies 2016, 7, 16–36. Available online: https://www.iddri.org/sites/default/files/import/publications/st0716_miles-eu-indc-
iccs.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2022).
110. The Chemical Engineer. Climeworks Pioneering Air-Captured CO2 for Drinks Carbonation. Available online: https://www.thec
hemicalengineer.com/news/climeworks-pioneering-air-captured-co2-for-drinks-carbonation (accessed on 23 April 2021).
111. Zeman, F. Energy and Material Balance of CO2 Capture from Ambient Air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 7558–7563. [CrossRef]
112. Climeworks. Capricorn. Available online: https://climeworks.com/roadmap/capricorn (accessed on 20 September 2022).
113. Climeworks. Artic Fox. Available online: https://climeworks.com/roadmap/arctic-fox (accessed on 20 September 2022).
114. Climeworks. Climeworks Launches Direct Air Capture Plant in Italy. News, 1 October 2018. Available online: https://climewor
ks.com/news/climeworks-launches-dac-3-plant-in-italy (accessed on 20 September 2022).
115. Store&Go. The STORE&GO Demonstration Site at Troia, Italia. Available online: https://www.storeandgo.info/demonstration-
sites/italy/ (accessed on 20 September 2022).
116. Climeworks. Turning CO2 into a High-Tech Resource: Carbon Black. Available online: https://climeworks.com/news/turning-
co2-to-a-high-tech-resource-carbon-black (accessed on 20 September 2022).
117. European Commission. Upscaling and Optimizing Subsurface, In Situ Carbon Mineralization as an Economically Viable Industrial
Option. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/764760;https://www.carbfadiferenciadeix.com/direct-air-ca
pture (accessed on 20 September 2022).
118. Carbfix. Direct Air Capture. Available online: https://www.carbfix.com/direct-air-capture (accessed on 20 September 2022).
119. Carbon Engineering. Air to Fuels. Available online: https://carbonengineering.com/air-to-fuels/ (accessed on 20 Septem-
ber 2022).
120. Carbon Engineering. Engineering Begins on UK’s First Large-Scale Facility That Captures Carbon Dioxide out of the Atmosphere,
(n.d.). Available online: https://carbonengineering.com/news-updates/uks-first-large-scale-dac-facility/ (accessed on 20
September 2022).
121. Air Capture. Available online: https://www.aircapture.com/ (accessed on 20 September 2022).
122. Carbon Capture. Available online: https://carboncapture.com/ (accessed on 20 September 2022).
123. Carbyon. Available online: https://carbyon.com/%0D%0A (accessed on 20 September 2022).
124. Heirloom. Available online: https://www.heirloomcarbon.com (accessed on 20 September 2022).
125. Mission Zero Technologies. Available online: https://missionzero.tech (accessed on 20 September 2022).
126. Soletair. Available online: https://www.soletairpower.fi/ (accessed on 20 September 2022).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Supplementary material
Table S1. List of EU countries´ codes.

Code Country
AT Austria

BE Belgium

BG Bulgaria

HR Croatia

CY Cyprus

CZ Czech Republic

DK Denmark

EE Estonia

EU European Union

FI Finland

FR France

DE Germany

EL Greece

HU Hungary

IE Ireland

IT Italy

LV Latvia

LT Lithuania

LU Luxembourg

MT Malta

NL Netherlands

PL Poland

PT Portugal

RO Romania

SK Slovakia

SI Slovenia

ES Spain

SE Sweden
Figure S1. Methane production emissions for the grid mix and PV&Wind cases and REF2020 and FF55 scenarios
for 2020, 2030 and 2050. The 2030 graph includes both scenarios, where, the FF55 values are indicated with
dashed bars and the REF2020 values with solid bars.
Figure S2. Methane and methanol production emissions for the Hybrid case and REF2020 and FF55 scenarios for
2020, 2030 and 2050. The 2030 graph includes both scenarios, where, the FF55 values are indicated with dashed
bars and the REF2020 values with solid bars.
Table S2. DAC carbon footprint.

Grid Mix (tCO2/tCO2 captured) PV&Wind (tCO2/tCO2 captured)

REF2020 REF2020 FF55 REF2020 REF2020 FF55
Country 2020 2020
2030 2050 2030 2030 2050 2030

Sweden -0.864 -0.877 -0.894 -0.898 -0.913 -0.910 -0.909 -0.909

France -0.835 -0.872 -0.883 -0.893 -0.894 -0.893 -0.897 -0.897

Denmark -0.703 -0.875 -0.902 -0.889 -0.911 -0.903 -0.901 -0.902

Spain -0.680 -0.855 -0.890 -0.879 -0.899 -0.901 -0.889 -0.898

Luxembourg -0.625 -0.897 -0.904 -0.907 -0.870 -0.839 -0.843 -0.843

Belgium -0.571 -0.481 -0.555 -0.513 -0.884 -0.890 -0.877 -0.889

Slovakia -0.561 -0.773 -0.851 -0.828 -0.813 -0.857 -0.868 -0.853

Austria -0.556 -0.733 -0.825 -0.784 -0.896 -0.880 -0.872 -0.871

Portugal -0.524 -0.881 -0.926 -0.896 -0.909 -0.896 -0.898 -0.894

Latvia -0.532 -0.651 -0.862 -0.682 -0.916 -0.916 -0.910 -0.913

Finland -0.488 -0.740 -0.802 -0.823 -0.914 -0.910 -0.911 -0.909

Slovenia -0.457 -0.521 -0.639 -0.605 -0.822 -0.832 -0.833 -0.850

Croatia -0.434 -0.805 -0.856 -0.876 -0.913 -0.905 -0.892 -0.895

Lithuania -0.413 -0.821 -0.885 -0.757 -0.904 -0.896 -0.879 -0.884

EU -0.407 -0.587 -0.794 -0.708 -0.890 -0.888 -0.885 -0.888

Ireland -0.393 -0.727 -0.770 -0.764 -0.917 -0.915 -0.911 -0.913

Italy -0.348 -0.544 -0.747 -0.727 -0.873 -0.867 -0.867 -0.874

Hungary -0.346 -0.765 -0.767 -0.788 -0.853 -0.839 -0.860 -0.849

Romania -0.303 -0.606 -0.810 -0.776 -0.897 -0.884 -0.886 -0.881

Malta -0.256 -0.331 -0.364 -0.367 -0.859 -0.859 -0.859 -0.860

Germany -0.234 -0.372 -0.778 -0.560 -0.884 -0.884 -0.886 -0.884

Greece -0.168 -0.728 -0.799 -0.704 -0.894 -0.892 -0.894 -0.891

Netherlands -0.095 -0.592 -0.726 -0.666 -0.882 -0.890 -0.893 -0.895

Bulgaria 0.007 -0.341 -0.825 -0.524 -0.876 -0.859 -0.876 -0.863

Cyprus 0.040 -0.450 -0.676 -0.537 -0.891 -0.872 -0.873 -0.871

Czech Republic 0.185 -0.293 -0.649 -0.476 -0.832 -0.856 -0.871 -0.890

Estonia 0.599 -0.062 -0.846 -0.494 -0.901 -0.908 -0.897 -0.907

Poland 0.747 0.391 -0.629 -0.205 -0.906 -0.895 -0.901 -0.891

 Table S3. Fuel total carbon footprint for the “Grid Case”.

Fuel total carbon footprint (gCO2e/MJ). Grid Case

2020 2030 REF2020 2050 REF2020 2030 FF55

Country Me. MeOl Di. Me. MeOl Di. Me. MeOl Di. Me. MeOl Di.

Sweden 27.4 29.6 33.4 23.2 25.5 28.7 18.0 20.3 22.8 16.8 19.0 21.4

France 36.2 38.4 43.3 24.9 27.1 30.5 21.5 23.7 26.7 18.3 20.5 23.1

Denmark 77.3 79.2 89.6 23.9 26.2 29.5 15.4 17.7 19.9 19.7 21.9 24.7

Spain 84.4 86.3 97.5 30.1 32.3 36.4 19.1 21.4 24.1 22.5 24.7 27.9

Luxembourg 101.5 103.3 116.8 17.1 19.4 21.8 14.7 17.0 19.1 14.0 16.2 18.3

Belgium 118.3 119.9 135.6 146.3 147.8 167.2 123.4 125.0 141.4 136.6 138.1 156.3

Slovakia 121.5 123.1 139.3 55.5 57.5 65.0 31.2 33.4 37.7 38.4 40.5 45.8

Austria 123.0 124.6 140.9 68.0 69.9 79.0 39.4 41.5 46.9 52.0 54.1 61.1

Portugal 133.0 134.6 152.2 22.0 24.2 27.3 8.0 10.4 11.6 17.3 19.5 22.0

Latvia 130.6 132.2 149.5 93.6 95.4 107.8 28.0 30.2 34.1 83.9 85.7 96.9

Finland 144.2 145.6 164.7 65.7 67.7 76.5 46.6 48.7 55.0 40.1 42.2 47.7

Slovenia 153.9 155.3 175.7 134.1 135.6 153.4 97.4 99.1 112.1 107.7 109.4 123.7

Croatia 161.1 162.5 183.8 45.6 47.7 53.8 29.7 31.9 36.0 23.5 25.7 29.0

Lithuania 167.7 169.0 191.2 40.8 42.9 48.5 20.9 23.1 26.0 60.7 62.7 70.9

EU 169.3 170.6 193.0 113.6 115.3 130.4 48.9 51.0 57.6 76.0 77.8 88.0

Ireland 173.8 175.1 198.1 70.0 71.9 81.3 56.5 58.5 66.2 58.3 60.3 68.2

Italy 188.0 189.1 214.0 127.0 128.6 145.4 63.7 65.7 74.3 70.0 71.9 81.3

Hungary 188.5 189.6 214.6 58.0 60.0 67.8 57.5 59.5 67.3 50.8 52.9 59.7

Romania 201.9 203.0 229.7 107.5 109.2 123.5 44.2 46.3 52.3 54.6 56.6 64.0

Malta 216.5 217.5 246.1 193.2 194.3 219.8 182.8 184.0 208.2 181.8 183.0 207.1

Germany 223.4 224.3 253.8 180.3 181.6 205.4 54.0 56.0 63.3 121.8 123.4 139.6

Greece 243.7 244.5 276.7 69.7 71.6 80.9 47.4 49.5 55.9 77.1 79.0 89.3

Netherlands 266.4 267.1 302.2 111.8 113.5 128.4 70.1 72.0 81.4 89.0 90.8 102.6

Bulgaria 298.2 298.7 338.0 190.0 191.2 216.3 39.5 41.7 47.0 133.0 134.5 152.2

Cyprus 308.4 308.8 349.5 156.0 157.4 178.1 85.9 87.7 99.2 129.1 130.7 147.8

Czech Republic 353.6 353.8 400.3 205.0 206.1 233.2 94.2 96.0 108.6 148.0 149.4 169.0

Estonia 482.3 481.6 545.1 276.6 277.3 313.7 32.8 35.0 39.5 142.4 143.9 162.7

Poland 528.5 527.5 597.0 417.8 417.5 472.5 100.4 102.1 115.5 232.4 233.3 264.0
 Table S4. Fuel total carbon footprint (gCO2e/MJ) for the "PV&Wind Case".

Fuel total carbon footprint (gCO2e/MJ). PV&Wind Case

2020 2030 REF2020 2050 REF2020 2030 FF55
Country Me. MeOl Di. Me. MeOl Di. Me. MeOl Di. Me. MeOl Di.

Sweden 11.9 14.2 16.0 13.1 15.4 17.3 13.2 15.5 17.4 13.3 15.6 17.6

France 17.9 20.2 22.7 18.4 20.6 23.2 17.1 19.4 21.8 17.1 19.3 21.8

Denmark 12.8 15.1 16.9 15.1 17.4 19.6 15.8 18.1 20.3 15.6 17.9 20.1

Spain 16.4 18.7 21.0 15.8 18.1 20.4 19.6 21.8 24.6 16.7 19.0 21.3

Luxembourg 25.6 27.8 31.3 35.0 37.2 42.0 33.8 36.0 40.6 33.9 36.1 40.7

Belgium 21.1 23.4 26.3 19.2 21.4 24.1 23.2 25.5 28.7 19.5 21.8 24.5

Slovakia 43.2 45.3 51.2 29.6 31.8 35.8 26.2 28.4 32.0 30.7 32.8 37.1

Austria 17.5 19.8 22.3 22.3 24.5 27.7 24.7 26.9 30.4 25.2 27.4 30.9

Portugal 13.4 15.7 17.7 17.4 19.6 22.1 16.6 18.9 21.2 17.9 20.2 22.7

Latvia 11.0 13.3 14.9 11.1 13.4 15.1 12.9 15.2 17.1 12.0 14.3 16.1

Finland 11.7 14.0 15.7 12.9 15.2 17.1 12.7 15.0 16.9 13.2 15.5 17.4

Slovenia 40.2 42.3 47.8 37.3 39.5 44.6 36.8 39.0 44.0 31.5 33.7 38.0

Croatia 12.1 14.4 16.1 14.5 16.8 18.9 18.7 21.0 23.6 17.5 19.8 22.3

Lithuania 14.9 17.2 19.3 17.3 19.5 22.0 22.7 25.0 28.1 21.2 23.4 26.4

EU 19.3 21.6 24.3 19.9 22.1 24.9 20.6 22.9 25.8 20.0 22.2 25.0

Ireland 10.8 13.1 14.8 11.5 13.8 15.5 12.6 14.9 16.8 11.9 14.2 16.0

Italy 24.6 26.8 30.2 26.5 28.7 32.4 26.3 28.5 32.1 24.2 26.4 29.8

Hungary 30.6 32.8 37.0 35.2 37.4 42.2 28.5 30.7 34.6 31.9 34.1 38.4

Romania 17.1 19.4 21.8 21.1 23.3 26.3 20.3 22.6 25.4 21.9 24.1 27.2

Malta 28.9 31.1 35.1 28.9 31.1 35.1 28.9 31.1 35.1 28.7 30.9 34.8

Germany 21.2 23.4 26.4 21.1 23.3 26.3 20.5 22.8 25.7 21.1 23.3 26.3

Greece 18.0 20.2 22.8 18.7 21.0 23.6 18.0 20.3 22.9 18.9 21.2 23.9

Netherlands 21.7 23.9 26.9 19.2 21.4 24.1 18.2 20.5 23.0 17.5 19.8 22.3

Bulgaria 23.7 25.9 29.2 29.0 31.2 35.2 23.7 25.9 29.2 27.5 29.7 33.5

Cyprus 18.8 21.0 23.7 24.7 26.9 30.3 24.6 26.8 30.3 25.0 27.2 30.7

Czech Republic 37.1 39.3 44.4 29.7 31.9 36.0 25.1 27.3 30.8 19.1 21.3 24.0

Estonia 15.7 18.0 20.2 13.6 15.9 17.9 16.9 19.2 21.6 13.9 16.2 18.2

Poland 14.2 16.5 18.6 17.7 20.0 22.5 15.7 18.0 20.3 19.0 21.3 24.0
 Table S5. Fuel total carbon footprint (gCO2e/MJ) for the "Hybrid Case".

Fuel total carbon footprint (gCO2e/MJ). Hybrid Case

2020 2030 REF2020 2050 REF2020 2030 FF55

Country Me. MeOl Di. Me. MeOl Di. Me. MeOl Di. Me. MeOl Di.

Sweden 14.7 17.7 19.8 14.9 17.6 19.8 14.1 16.6 18.6 13.9 16.4 18.4

France 21.2 24.2 27.3 19.5 22.1 24.8 17.9 20.4 22.9 17.3 19.6 22.1

Denmark 24.2 29.4 32.9 16.7 19.4 21.8 15.7 18.0 20.2 16.3 18.8 21.1

Spain 28.4 33.8 37.8 18.4 21.3 23.9 19.5 21.7 24.5 17.7 20.2 22.8

Luxembourg 39.0 44.7 50.1 31.9 33.2 37.6 30.4 31.7 35.9 30.4 31.6 35.8

Belgium 38.3 45.0 50.4 41.7 49.7 55.6 41.0 47.7 53.5 40.3 47.8 53.5

Slovakia 57.1 62.7 70.5 34.2 37.5 42.3 27.1 29.5 33.3 32.0 34.6 39.0

Austria 36.2 43.2 48.3 30.4 34.7 38.9 27.3 30.2 34.0 30.0 33.4 37.6

Portugal 34.6 42.3 47.2 18.2 20.7 23.2 15.1 17.0 19.1 17.8 20.0 22.6

Latvia 32.2 39.9 44.5 25.7 31.8 35.5 15.6 18.5 20.8 24.8 30.3 33.9

Finland 35.2 43.4 48.5 22.3 26.9 30.1 18.7 22.6 25.3 18.0 21.5 24.1

Slovenia 60.4 67.6 75.9 54.5 61.0 68.5 47.6 52.4 59.0 45.0 50.6 56.9

Croatia 38.5 47.5 53.0 20.0 23.7 26.5 20.7 23.4 26.4 18.6 21.1 23.8

Lithuania 42.0 51.2 57.1 21.4 24.8 27.8 22.4 24.5 27.7 28.2 32.2 36.2

EU 45.9 54.9 61.4 36.5 43.0 48.1 25.6 29.2 32.8 29.9 34.7 38.9

Ireland 39.7 49.4 55.1 21.8 26.8 30.0 20.4 24.7 27.6 20.1 24.5 27.5

Italy 53.5 63.1 70.6 44.3 51.0 57.2 32.9 36.8 41.4 32.3 36.6 41.1

Hungary 58.6 67.9 76.0 39.2 42.4 47.8 33.6 37.1 41.8 35.2 38.3 43.1

Romania 49.8 60.4 67.5 36.4 42.5 47.6 24.5 27.9 31.3 27.7 31.4 35.3

Malta 62.1 72.8 81.5 58.0 67.6 75.7 56.2 65.3 73.2 55.8 64.9 72.7

Germany 57.0 68.3 76.4 49.3 58.7 65.7 26.5 30.2 33.9 38.9 45.7 51.2

Greece 58.0 70.4 78.6 27.8 32.3 36.2 23.2 26.8 30.1 29.2 34.1 38.3

Netherlands 65.0 78.3 87.5 35.6 42.0 47.1 27.4 32.0 35.9 30.2 35.7 40.0

Bulgaria 72.3 86.9 97.1 57.5 67.0 75.0 26.5 29.4 33.1 46.2 53.1 59.6

Cyprus 70.1 85.4 95.3 47.9 56.1 62.8 35.5 40.4 45.4 43.4 50.3 56.4

Czech Republic 93.2 109.6 122.6 60.8 70.9 79.3 37.3 42.7 47.9 41.9 50.0 55.9

Estonia 98.3 121.6 135.6 60.2 74.4 83.0 19.7 22.7 25.5 36.6 44.7 50.0

Poland 105.3 130.8 145.8 88.6 108.9 121.4 30.7 36.8 41.2 56.8 68.7 76.8
 Table S6. Area and water requirements of DAC technologies.

Area Water
DAC technology and energy
Reference Reference
source [tH2O/tCO2 captured]
[m2/tCO2 captured]
0-50 [1]

4.7 (64% hum., 20˚C) [4]

LIQUID 1.5 [1] 50 (0% hum., 20˚C)

26 (0% hum., 10˚C) [5]

13 (50% hum., 20˚C)

LIQUID (NG with CCS) 0.4

LIQUID (NG with CCS + PV) 7.5

LIQUID (NG with CCS + 1-7 (70% hum., 10˚C - 30% hum.,
1.9 [2] [2]
geothermal) 50˚C)

LIQUID (NG with CCS +

14
wind)

0.4 [1] [1]

SOLID
0.05-0.1 [3] 1.9

1.6 (with steam condensation for

sorbent regeneration)
SOLID (NG with CCS) 0.5 [2]
0.8-2 (with indirect heating for
sorbent regeneration)
[2]
SOLID (PV) 34.7

SOLID (geothermal) 7.5

SOLID (wind) 66
Table S7. Main projects from Climeworks.

Plant Year Description Source

First commercial DAC plant. Located on a waste incineration plant that

Hinwil supplies waste heat and electricity to the facility. Delivers 900 tCO2 per
2017 [6, 7, 8]
(Switzerland) year to a greenhouse at 600USD/tCO2 and 600 tCO2 per year to the
beverage industry.

Artic Fox, Delivers carbon removals through mineralization by pumping CO2 mixed
Hellisheidi 2017 with water 800-2 000m underground where it reacts with basalt rock. [9]
(Iceland) Plant capacity of 50 tCO2 per year, powered by Carbfix’s geothermal plant.

Installed in combination with an electrolyser (producing green hydrogen

Troia (Italy) 2018 from excess solar energy) to produce methane for natural gas trucks. Plant [10, 11]
capacity of 150 tCO2. Part of the H2020 research project Store&Go.

Karlsruhe Part of a research project to produce carbon black from CO2 to be used as a
2020 [12]
(Germany) raw material for high-tech applications

Part of the EU H2020 funded Carbfix2 project to scale up the CO2 removal
capacity. Presents some innovations to help scaling up the technology,
Orca, Hellisheidi material’s reduction and faster adsorption/desorption cycles that increase [13, 14,
2021
(Iceland) the annual capture capacity, reaching 500 tCO2 captured per collector. The 15]
plant consists of 8 collectors capturing 4 000 tCO2 per year. Powered by a
geothermal power plant.

Mammoth,
Second commercial DACCS plant installed next to Orca with the main
Hellisheidi
objective of scaling up the technology. Nominal CO₂ capture capacity of 36 [16]
(Iceland) (under
000 tCO2/year when fully operational.
construction)

Table S8. Main projects from Global Thermostat.

Plant Year Description Source

Pilot, California
2011 Capture capacity of 700 tCO2/year [17]
(USA)

Pilot, California
2013 Capture capacity of 10 000 tCO2/year
(USA)

Demonstration,
2019 Capture capacity of 2 000tCO2/year
Alabama (USA)

Colorado (under
2022 Capture capacity of 5 000tCO2/year
construction)

Chile (under Capture capacity of 2 000tCO2/year. Will be installed together with a

2022
construction) wind-powered electrolyser to produce synthetic fuels for transport.
Table S9. Main projects from Carbon Engineering.

Plant Year Description Source

Capture capacity of 1tCO2/day. Powered by natural gas that provides electricity

Pilot, British and heat at 900°C. The CO2 from the natural gas combustion (~30% of the final
2015 [4, 6, 18]
Columbia (Canada) CO2 captured) is combined and captured together with the CO2 from the air.
The objectives are to test the operation of certain units.

An additional fuel synthesis capability was added to the pilot to produce liquid
Pilot + fuel synthesis 2017 [18]
fuels using hydrogen from a PV based electrolyser.

Capture capacity up to 1 MtCO2/year in partnership with 1PointFive. The CO2

captured will be partially stored permanently and partially used for enhanced oil
Demonstration
2025 recovery (EOR), producing oil that will qualify for California’s low carbon fuel [19, 6]
plant, Texas (USA)
standard credits, the 45Q tax credits from the US government and additional
revenue from CO2 sales (total revenues estimated to be USD 250/tCO2).

Capture capacity of 0.5-1 MtCO2/year in collaboration with Storegga. The project

North-East Scotland 2026 includes re-deploying the existing natural gas transport infrastructure to be used [20]
to transport CO2.

Table S10. Other DAC companies.

Plant Description Source

Modular DAC systems to provide CO2 at different qualities to small and

Air Capture medium size companies (e.g. breweries, beverage companies, etc.) to help
them decarbonize. Currently 3 active projects for beverage carbonation [21]
(USA) applications located in the EU, US and Latin America and one more under
development in the US

CarbonCapture Use of zeolites as capture material to build modular inexpensive and

scalable DAC systems powered by renewables. Production of CO2 with [22]
(USA) different concentrations (e.g. building materials, mineralization, etc).

Fast-swing rotating process that absorbs CO2 and regenerates a thin

Carbyon membrane with large internal surface in 60 seconds. Low cost and high
energy efficient adsorption and desorption thanks to the low pressure [23]
(Netherlands) drop and low temperature (use of electricity). Aiming to reach the
gigatonne scale in 2030s at a cost of EUR 50/tCO2.

Carbon removals through carbon mineralization using a modular system.

Carbonate minerals are thermally decomposed (powered by RES),
Heirloom producing oxide minerals and a stream of pure CO2 that is stored
[24]
(USA) underground. The oxide minerals are then passively exposed to ambient
air, absorbing the CO2 through an accelerated absorption process to re-
produce carbonates and restart the cycle.

Mission zero CO2 is captured electrochemically from the air and the solvent is
technologies regenerated at ambient temperature, lowering the energy use by 3-5 times
[25]
compared to other DAC technologies. Pilot trials planned from 2023 in the
(UK) UK to make carbon negative building aggregates.
 Modular building-HVAC-integrated CO2 capture system to produce
Soletair valuable products and improve well-being of building residents. Their
[26]
(Finland) standard ventilation unit can be integrated into buildings with the HVAC
system to capture up to 20 tCO2/year from an airstream of 3.3 m3/s.

References
[1] M. Fasihi, E. Olga, and C. Breyer, “Techno-economic assessment of CO 2 direct air capture plants,” vol. 224, 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.086.
[2] K. Lebling, H. Leslie-Bol, Z. Byrum, and E. Bridgwater, “Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for
Carbon Removal”, 2022. https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-
carbon-removal (accessed Jul. 05, 2022).
[3] G. Realmonte et al., “An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways”,
Nat. Commun., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10842-5.
[4] D. W. Keith, G. Holmes, D. St. Angelo, and K. Heidel, “A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere”, Joule,
vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 1573–1594, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.05.006.
[5] F. Zeman, “Energy and Material Balance of CO2 Capture from Ambient Air”, Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 41, no. 21
pp. 7558–7563, 2007, doi: 10.1021/es070874m.
[6] H. J. Herzog, Greenhouse Gas Removal Technologies. Chapter 6: Direct Air Capture. The Royal Society of Chemistry,
2022. [Online]. Available: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/ebook/978-1-83916-199-5
[7] The Chemical Engineer, “Climeworks pioneering air-captured CO2 for drinks carbonation”.
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/climeworks-pioneering-air-captured-co2-for-drinks-carbonation
(accessed Apr. 23, 2021).
[8] Climeworks, “Capricorn”. https://climeworks.com/roadmap/capricorn (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[9] Climeworks, “Artic Fox”. https://climeworks.com/roadmap/arctic-fox (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[10] Climeworks, “Climeworks launches direct air capture plant in Italy”, News 01.10.2018, (2018).
https://climeworks.com/news/climeworks-launches-dac-3-plant-in-italy (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[11] Store&Go, “The STORE&GO demonstration site at Troia, Italia”. https://www.storeandgo.info/demonstration-
sites/italy/ (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[12] Climeworks, “Turning CO₂ into a high-tech resource: Carbon black”. https://climeworks.com/news/turning-co2-to-
a-high-tech-resource-carbon-black (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[13] Climeworks, “Orca: the first large-scale plant”. https://climeworks.com/roadmap/orca (accessed Sep. 08, 2021).
[14] European Commission, “Upscaling and optimizing subsurface, in situ carbon mineralization as an economically
viable industrial option”. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/764760) (https://www.carbfa diferencia
deix.com/direct-air-capture (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[15] Carbfix, “Direct Air Capture”. https://www.carbfix.com/direct-air-capture (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[16] Climeworks, “Climeworks takes another major step on its road to building gigaton DAC capacity”, 2022.
https://climeworks.com/news/climeworks-announces-groundbreaking-on-
mammoth?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=mammothannouncement&utm_content=
mammothnews (accessed Jun. 28, 2022).
[17] Climeworks, “Direct Air Capture Summit 2021”, 2021. https://climeworks.com/news/direct-air-capture-summit-
2021 (accessed Jan. 10, 2022).
[18] Carbon engineering, “Air to fuels”. https://carbonengineering.com/air-to-fuels/ (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[19] IEA, “Direct Air Capture”, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture
[20] Carbon Engineering, Engineering begins on UK’s first large-scale facility that captures carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere, (n.d.). https://carbonengineering.com/news-updates/uks-first-large-scale-dac-facility/) (accessed
September 20, 2022).
[21] Air Capture. https://www.aircapture.com/ (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[22] Carbon Capture. https://carboncapture.com/ (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[23] Carbyon. https://carbyon.com/%0D%0A (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[24] Heirloom. https://www.heirloomcarbon.com (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[25] Mission zero technologies. https://missionzero.tech (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).
[26] Soletair. https://www.soletairpower.fi/ (accessed Sep. 20, 2022).