PRESENTED TO Direct Air Capture of CO and recycling CAAFI 2 PRESENTED BY Anna Stukas and Ellen Stechel CO2 into Sustainable Aviation Fuels DATE June 20, 2019 2 | ASU LIGHTWORKS   inspired, - organizational organizational LightWorks - Stechel Director, ASU Director, Ellen -  Co Arizona State University disciplinary, multi and - Ellen is in Professor the of Practice School of Molecular Sciences with 25 over since 2012 years experience use in managing multi deployment of and development research, new technology energy. for clean Presenters Anna Stukas Anna Business Business Development, Carbon Engineering Ltd.  Anna is a professional professional Anna is a engineer experience years’ with 15 over between the gap bridging technology business and to to cleantech barriers overcome commercialization. 3 A S U LIGHTWORKS  feedstock feedstock 2 carbonization carbonization fuel of the stability - options, with few to effectively to effectively options,few no with scale limitations Solar fuels are complementary not competitive biofuels with Direct air capture (DAC) of CO enables full de also DAC enables negative emissions offsets Need many “arrows in quiver” the Sustainable fuels and biofuels have been as synonymous treated Renewable synthetic fuels are a great opportunity toportfolio expand the of       Future of Liquid of Liquid Future and Aviation? Hydrocarbons Low water, no arable land, land efficient, and price 4 CARBON ENGINEERING term average and average term - Emissions Emissions by Source 2 CO bathtub is much more full than normal (almost twice as full 2 growing faster than every before. than faster growing Concentration 2 The Bathtub is Very Full and Still Filling Full Still and Very Rapidly is Bathtub The as the average over human history), and it is being filled faster than ever before. analysis shows that current levels are almost double long the are almost levels current that shows analysis Atmospheric Atmospheric CO 2 CO Using a bathtub analogy, the CO 5 A S U LIGHTWORKS  Matter that that missions missions E Cumulative Paris target Paris The Carbon Budget is almost exhausted

It is the the It is

date To 6 A S U LIGHTWORKS  900 - emissions 2 industrial - in the atmosphere the in 2 total in the total in 2 2 ppmv ocean 2 and and ~2800 Gt potential CO Cumulative budget left ~400 GtCO Was ~ 2200 Gt Was ~ 2200 pre    much >450 much Proven fossil reserves: ~3100 GtCO atmosphere too ~3500 Gt is considered Beyond    35 additional GtCO additional 35 atmosphere atmosphere  880 880 340 both the the both → in 2011 2011 - Uptakes ~25% content content 2 CO profit would be $1.25T. profit be would in the atmosphere as a resource and an option to deal with likely overshoot likely with deal to option an and resource a as atmosphere the in 2 453 Land metric ton metric Vegetation and and Vegetation Uptakes ~35% cumulative emissions 1750 emissions cumulative Reducing Reducing atmospheric concentration CO of 439 2 Problem: Increasing Increasing Problem: at $2.5 per 2 CO - 310 GtCO 310  37 Use Change Use 500 Gt Actively mine the excess CO excess the mine Actively Accounts for for Accounts Anthropogenic ~76% of GHG Fossil Burning + + Burning Fossil 2040 2040   Land Land 7 CARBON ENGINEERING removal 2 2 reduction in in reduction 2 C. All pathways ° removal (opening the drain the (openingremoval How do we keep the bathtub from overflowing? from bathtub keep the do we How 2 Direct Air Capture plants for CO plants Air Capture Direct for CO plants FUELS TO AIR fuels transportation bathtub) large scale CO bathtub). of the very aggressive reduction in CO reductionvery aggressive of the taps down the (turningemissions 1. 2.   Carbon Engineering’s mission is to mitigate Engineering’s Carbon mass scale through change climate linked technologies:of two deployment include: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel Panel Intergovernmental Nations United The has identified (IPCC) Change Climate on pathways caused by to limitglobal warming togases 1.5 house green   8 CARBON ENGINEERING low Carbon Fuels Carbon low - DAC Enables Enables DAC Ultra . decarbonizing the heavy the decarbonizing sector transportation Scalable options for Scalable Solar Fuels Pathway Compared to Biofuels and Fossil Fuels A2F can do within  All fuels begin with a common set of ingredients - air, sun and water – whether hours what took the they are fossil, biofuels, or solar/electrofuels Earth millions of  CE’s AIR TO FUELS™ solution, one example of a solar/electrofuel, is a years. technological, rather than biological or geological approach to creating

hydrocarbon fuels Solar fuels

CARBON ENGINEERING 9 10 A S U LIGHTWORKS  High efficiency in - , Democratic any carbon neutral primary energy energy primary any carbon neutral r dollars of infrastructure o source cleanburning, drop can be of trillionscan take advantage of Electro Fuels Electro • • • • Based on the sun (scalable but sun resource) the on Based photosynthesison not the to store means to nature’s Alternative bonds in chemical sun’s energy Low (net) or zero carbon intensitycarbon or zero Low (net) • • • Price stability , and Flexible products , Land efficient, Methane, Methane, Affordable cost HC (Renewable (Renewable HC Diesel or Jet) or Diesel Carbon Neutral Carbon Syngas, Methanol, Methanol, Syngas, Synthetic Synthetic Liquid Liquid No arable land Alternative Fuels: Solar Fuels and Fuels Solar Fuels: Alternative Significant scale, Low water, Ammonia Hydrogen, Hydrogen, Solar & Electro Fuel pathways have the potential for relatively Carbon Free Carbon 11 A S U LIGHTWORKS  Many Synthetic Pathways: Many Synthetic PEC H Electrolysis 2 O/CO PV Solar toSolar Electronic CO CSP 2 2 /H 2 O Intermediate Therm olysis H - H 2 O/CO 2 /CO/H Synthesis chemical Thermo Many Arrowsthe Quiver in 2 Fuel Products typically Energy Solar 2 O/CO - 2 Solarto Heat Reforming C Liquid Fuel, Hydrogen x H H y 2 O O/CO z 2 /NG/Coal/ Pyrolysis Gasifi cation - A chemist’s dream ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Pathways Etc. Combinations Catalytic Electro Thermo Chemical Photo Bio ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ - chemical Hybrid Sulfur 2 Photosynthesis Artificial Band Gap Excitation Dye - - Step Metal Oxide Step Metal (Electro) - Chemical - - Sensitized Sensitized Chemical - 12 ASU LIGHTWORKS targeting Greenhouses targeting – Deep Skepticism on Direct Air Capture is Melting is SkepticismDeep Air Capture on Direct , Zurich, Switzerland Based , Zurich, Switzerland (formerly Kilimanjaro) (formerly to Alcohol to Jet at room temperature temperature room at Jet to Alcohol to 2 Humidity Humidity Swing Humidity swing, passive CO Aqueous based steam Amine based temperature low and sorbent pumping Amine based vacuum sorbent,       Prometheus, founded 2018 founded Prometheus, Silicon Holdings, Silicon Kingdom Based Ireland Infinitree Climeworks Carbon Engineering, Calgary, Canada Based Carbon Engineering, Calgary, USA Based California, Global Thermostat,       Advantage/Disadvantage of Air Capture vs. Point Sources

Advantages: Disadvantages:

 Source essentially infinite: 3 trillion metric tons  Source very diffuse

 Distribution: Anywhere  C ~400 ppmv ; factor of 300 less than from coal  Readily sited to use a pure renewable source  Must process large amount of the source

 Energy to move that source can be appreciable 13

 CO2 captured can equal CO2 avoided S K R O W T H G I L U S A  Readily sited for point of consumption (limits compression  Minimum work to separate and transportation costs  Relatively slow function of C (log)  Capture Temperature: Ambient  e.g. compare 50% air capture at ambient to 90%  Favors exothermic capture point source at 40°C – ratio is 2.8 x << 300 x  Don’t have to manage heat removal  Competition with binding water – much more water in

 Source contaminants: Cleaner than most point sources the air than CO2

 Source Handling  Can use some natural air movement or “engineered” flows  Fans, updraft towers, passive  Pressure drop is inherently much lower

More advantages than disadvantages – it is not evident that from a systems perspective that direct air capture is less cost effective than from point source DAC Has Many Advantages Compared to Point Source

This can be essentially zero Cleaner and Lower Temperature Integrate with heat available from downstream 14

 U S A processing and with Less harsh conditions, longer cycle times, S K R O W T H G I L

longer lifetime  Compression minimized

Fig 2.1 from the APS POPA Report Transport essentially eliminated

For 10 Gt per year, minimum energy is ~144 GW (0.45 MJ/kg);

Compare global energy 18 TW and 32.6 Gt/year CO2 emissions (17.4 MJ/kg) Air Capture Passes the “Thermodynamic Hurdle”

Minimum Separation Work ~3%  8.5 kg CO2 per gallon Jet Fuel GJ/t  82.5 B gallon/year(2012)

 ~700 Mt/year CO2 15

 Minimum separation work U S A S K R O W T H G I L  10.2 GW; Could be ~20x or ~200 GW  Separation efficiency challenge

 14.4 GJ Jet Fuel per metric ton CO2 

 320 GW of fuel  If 10% efficiency sunlight to fuel synthesis

% CO2 Remaining  3.2 TW (~4M acres of collectors, < 0.2 % U.S.)

Separation work is a small fraction of total energy to make fuel < 10% What About the Cost of Energy: Fundamentals for Sorbent-Based

kWh per metric ton of CO 2 $ per metric ton of CO2 $ per metric ton of CO2 Cost for separation Cost to move the air work at 50% capture at 50% capture effectiveness, effectiveness, increases by ~3% for decreases by 33% 16

75% capture for 75% capture U S A S K R O W T H G I L

Energy to move

the air

Pressure Drop (Pa) (Pa) Drop Pressure Cost of energy $/kWh $/kWh energy of Cost

Separation efficiency Capture Effectiveness Cost of energy $/kWh

Contactor design and approach to moving the air matters – key parameters are the capture effectiveness, the pressure drop, and the cost per unit energy What About the Cost of Capital: Sorbent-Based

Project Investment $ per t/d $ per metric ton of CO2

$/kg

17 U S A

15 cycles per day S K R O W T H G I L

 Project Investment $K per per t/day $K Investment Project

% loading by weight (kg CO2 per kg Capture Media) Capital Cost Recovery % per year

Cycle time, lifetime, and financial terms for the investment are all important Expect first of a kind >> Nth of a kind; Expect learning curves will decrease cost

CE’s Direct Air Capture of Atmospheric CO2

18 G N I R E E N I G N E N O B R A C

A combination of pre-existing technologies have been adapted and Industrially Scalable combined with patented innovations, and proprietary know-how, which has reduced scale up risk and improved cost estimation.

Closed Chemical Non-volatile non-toxic chemical process, meets environmental health and Cycle safety standards.

Freedom of Plants can be located where economics are optimum, to take advantage of Location low cost local energy or proximity to demand center.

CE has been developing Direct Air Capture technology since 2009, and has proven the technology through successive prototype and pilot demonstrations 19 CARBON ENGINEERING 1 2 a CO - for 232/t - analysis cost plant and capture air engineering direct detailed /year 2 CO - CE comprehensivepublished technoeconomic analysis of our DAC process in the journal Joule, June 2018 Included Mt costs,Levelized including financing, of $94 Full mass and energy balance pilot plant for data with each unit operation included     Economic Analysis - CE Techno 20 CARBON ENGINEERING 3.pdf - 4351(18)30225 - https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542 Economic (1) Analysis - CE Techno 21 CARBON ENGINEERING | CONFIDENTIAL Hydrogen: A Clean, Flexible Energy Carrier

 10M metric tons per year produced today Diverse domestic sources Many applications rely on  Energy carrier – can deliver or store energy can be used to produce H2 or could benefit from H2

 Petroleum and fertilizer largest uses today

 Transportation fuels and utilities are emerging markets 22 U S A  Alternative reductant to coal, e.g., to make steel S K R O W T H G I L

 Production pathways

 Steam methane reforming (could capture CO2)   High and low temperature electrolysis  Direct Solar Water splitting: Photo-electro-chemical or Solar thermochemical  Biological or thermochemical biomass gasification

with WGS (could capture CO2)

 Can make CO from H2 + CO2 → CO + H2O Hydrogen is a versatile, carbon free, and effective energy carrier: Multiple roles in the energy transition towards sustainability The Advantage of Producing Syngas (CO and H2)

Jet  Universal intermediate

 Unite fossil and biomass with direct

solar technologies 23 U S A

 Bridge old energy to new energy S K R O W T H G I L  Make more product for the same

feedstock – no process CO2   Directly splitting water and can also directly split CO Jet 2

 Aim for ~2:1 H2:CO

Can aim to achieve high carbon atom efficiency and to enable a smooth transition 24 CARBON ENGINEERING intensity intensity Aviation fuel Aviation carbon Low fuel conventional fungible pending pending approval Once blended w Once blended conventional, treated as treated conventional, Fungible with Fungible approved up to 50% blend to up approved SPK - processing path path processing - FT Co Blending path Blending path FT Liquids to SAJF already approved under ASTM Conventional Crude Conventional From FT Liquids Liquids Jet Fuel Aviation Sustainable to FT From 25 CARBON ENGINEERING | CONFIDENTIAL 26 CARBON ENGINEERING 3% fresh water requirements vs. soy biodiesel - Land and Water Use Compared to Biofuels to Compared Use and Water Land 0.06% land and ~0.3% - ~0.04%

DAC Enables Negative Emissions

27 G N I R E E N I G N E N O B R A C

Another tool in the toolbox as we look towards decarbonizing aviation Path Forward

 Direct Air Capture is an essential tool for

decarbonization 28

 Two significant new tools: G N I R E E N I G N E N O B R A C

 Highly scalable ultra low carbon fuels

 Large scale atmospheric carbon removal

 Front end engineering commencing for CE’s first commercial plant in 2019

 CE is actively seeking partners to help accelerate global deployment Frequently Asked Questions Addressed Some Not All

 How cheap can the process eventually get? 29 S K R O W T H G I L U S A  Why capture from air when it should be much easier to capture from concentrated sources?

 How much will it add to energy demand? 

 Is it a moral hazard – excuse to continue to d n a

emit and count on to cleaning it up in the N O B R A C

future? G N I R E E N I G N E  What kinds of businesses can startups build around the ventures?

 Will there ever be big enough markets for all the carbon dioxide we’d need to capture to meaningfully reduce climate risks? 30 CARBON ENGINEERING | ASU LIGHTWORKS  lightworks . B. Stechel B. lightworks - asulightworks asulightworks Ellen asu sustainability.asu.edu/ [email protected] [email protected] @ @  Arizona State University For More Information More For carbonengineering.com @ s Engineering Ltd. CarbonEngineer carbonengineeringltd Anna Stukas Anna @ CarbonEngineering Carbon Engineering Ltd. [email protected] busines www.carbonengineering.com @  Carbon