Figure 1 – “The Foundation for Creating the Circular Carbon Economy,” presents a roadmap for optimizing energy management that supports net-zero CO₂ emissions while preserving the high energy consumption required by an advanced civilization.

This roadmap defines the scope of work I am pursuing to solve the excess atmospheric CO₂ problem. Most of my published essays examine how the molecular biology of living organisms—the Molecular Biology Toolkit—can be used to engineer a CO₂ capture machine. That effort, ongoing for more than eleven years, is now conceptually complete. Building a cost-effective, energy-efficient (40 % or better second-law efficiency) technology that removes CO₂ from both air (Direct Air Capture) and point-source emissions is conceptually possible. Efficient CO₂ gas separation is a solved problem.

Capturing CO₂ is necessary but not sufficient. Durable sequestration and productive reuse of the captured carbon are equally important if civilization is to remain highly functional and energy-intensive. Hydrocarbon fuels remain too valuable to abandon.

This essay examines the three major components of the roadmap:

1. CO₂ Capture (universal gas separation)

2. Enhanced Weathering Mineralization Reactors

3. Enzymatic Hydrocarbon Synthesis

The binding themes are the application of Artificial Intelligence together with the Molecular Biology Toolkit, and the requirement to perform all work while generating as little irreversible heat as possible—thereby achieving very high thermodynamic efficiency.

Artificial Intelligence is still a young tool, yet it is already transforming scientific research and is expected to deliver substantial acceleration of materials innovation.

Artificial Intelligence and First-Principles Carbon Capture

Early commentary on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and AI, such as Noah Deich’s analysis (Carbon removal and AI ^[1]), or foundational Department of Energy frameworks^[2], rightly identified AI as an assistive tool for accelerating laboratory research. However, viewing AI merely as an analytical assistant understates its true potential. I am moving beyond reasoning by analogy and applying AI directly to first-principles system design.

Figure 2 – First principles thinking ^[3]

Most organizations funding carbon-dioxide removal still restrict support to “mature and proven approaches.” At the precise moment civilization needs first-principles reasoning, these organizations are explicitly avoiding the combination of first-principles analysis augmented by Artificial Intelligence—the most powerful intellectual tool ever developed.

Today’s preference for mature CO₂-capture technologies is analogous to supporting only mature launch systems such as the Space Shuttle in 2002, the year SpaceX was founded. While the Space Shuttle was a technological marvel, it was expensive to operate and carried a roughly 1 % catastrophic failure rate. By the end of the program, 40 % of the operational orbiter fleet had been destroyed and fourteen crew members lost. Mature technologies operating at the edge of their performance envelope almost always carry substantial, hard-to-remove limitations. SpaceX’s willingness to develop new and initially unproven technologies completely changed the economics of placing mass in orbit. The same magnitude of success awaits atmospheric CO₂ removal once it is funded on first-principles terms.

My approach begins with the Molecular Biology Toolkit – the strategies, technologies, and chemistries already perfected by living organisms. Nature supplies the blueprints; thermodynamics tightly constrains the allowable solution space. The remaining work is therefore less a search for “what to do” and more a precise threading of many interdependent constraints—materials, chemistry, topology, and entropy generation. Uncertainty typical of open-ended innovation is greatly reduced.

Working with increasingly capable AI systems, I have developed a comprehensive CO₂-capture framework and a feature-complete functional model. Multiple AI systems are used to model subsystems, perform complex mathematical analysis of materials performance, chemistry, topology, and integrated system behavior. Recent optimization identified a unique opportunity to use energy a second time, further improving overall efficiency.

A physical prototype could be constructed today, but it would be inefficient and some subsystems would be incapable of continuous cyclic operation. These limitations are materials problems, not conceptual ones. Civilization has repeatedly demonstrated excellence at creating and optimizing materials for novel applications. Artificial Intelligence is already accelerating that process and will accelerate it further.

The model is fully analyzable by AI now and will remain so indefinitely. This model and its successive versions will be continuously and iteratively improved as AI seeks practical physical implementations. Following the guidance of AI pioneer Ilya Sutskever, I am operating at the frontier of human–machine collaboration: approximately 1 % human judgment steering 99 % machine work.^[4]

Relative to what is thermodynamically possible, legacy thermal-swing adsorption approaches to CO₂ capture face fundamental, unalterable disadvantages at gigaton scale. AI cannot remove those limitations. Technologies aligned with the principles embedded in the present model will maximize the probability of success in achieving net-zero emissions, removing legacy CO₂, and restoring ocean chemistry.

Thermodynamics is forever. The model is maximally aligned with critical thermodynamic principles and is presently limited only by available materials. When implementations of this model are aggressively pursued, the valuation metrics applied to other CO₂-capture pathways, and companies, will require substantial revision.

Artificial Intelligence Enabling the Carbon Capture Brain (LLM)

Working with AI is itself an evolving skill. One of the highest-leverage practices I have adopted is the construction of a personal LLM-powered knowledge system—an AI second brain—containing everything relevant to carbon management. The concept is inspired by Andrej Karpathy’s vision of an AI companion that holds an individual’s accumulated knowledge and grows with it.^[5]

My Carbon Capture Brain is being built as a living, ever-evolving repository. At its core is the CO₂-capture framework developed over eleven years of studying molecular-biology pathways for carbon management. The Brain will incorporate:

• All published essays

• Unpublished essay fragments

• Nearly one thousand curated notes on every major form of CO₂ capture and sequestration

• A selected library of scientific papers

• Patents and technical disclosures from sources such as the Frontier Climate GitHub repository

• Insights into artifacts of nature exploited by living organisms but still unused by present technology

  • Structure and function of water

  • Water self-ionization and its role in enabling kelp’s rapid growth in seawater

• Carefully crafted prompts that model energy-efficient capture systems, including systems that remain unimplementable with today’s materials

• Working models together with commentary on their advantages and disadvantages

These prompts are designed to remain useful as AI technologies improve. As frontier AI systems scale to tens of trillions of parameters and integrate deep multi-physics and engineering datasets, the models and prompts will be continuously re-evaluated and refined by directed agents, always constrained by thermodynamic common sense. Priority goals include identifying implementations achievable within defined timeframes and budgets, and pathways capable of 80 % second-law efficiency.

Directed agents operating under an explicit rules system can enhance the models with minimal direct human participation, realizing the 1 % / 99 % division of labor. The Brain is constructed for the future: as models grow from hundreds of billions to trillions of parameters and eventually absorb the bulk of human technical knowledge, the system will leverage the surrounding AI infrastructure to sharpen and expand the framework far beyond any individual’s unaided capacity.

At the foundation of the entire effort is the recognition that point-source capture and direct-air capture are thermodynamically the same problem. Point sources simply offer higher CO₂ concentrations that create exploitable shortcuts.

CO₂ Capture – Universal Gas Separation

Figure 3 – Conceptual rendering of a passive CO₂ capture forest based on the universal process architecture

Developing a cost-effective, high-efficiency technology capable of removing CO₂ from any gas stream containing CO₂ is a solved conceptual problem. The common distinction between Direct Air Capture and Point-Source Capture is an artificial, human-imposed distinction. The laws of thermodynamics and the mechanisms used by living organisms both disregard feed-gas concentration as a fundamental barrier. Cyanobacteria concentrate CO₂ from roughly 1 ppm to hundreds of ppm. Plants operate near ambient levels. Mammalian respiration manages CO₂ partial pressures that can reach 50,000 ppm through a form of vacuum-swing passthrough.

My CO₂ capture model establishes a universal process architecture capable of efficiently handling feed gas at any concentration. The model has been optimized and analyzed with AI assistance and shows exceptional projected performance. Remaining obstacles to continuous, cyclic, energy-efficient operation are materials limitations. AI is already contributing to the search for solutions—screening alternative chemistries, evaluating membrane and sorbent candidates, optimizing topology, and identifying opportunities for energy recovery. Civilization’s proven ability to invent and refine materials, now accelerated by AI, makes the transition from model to scalable hardware a function of focused effort and resources.

Carbon capture is not primarily a chemical-regeneration problem; it is a thermodynamic-management and mass-manufacturing challenge. By combining deep thermodynamic discipline, high-volume manufacturing principles governed by Wright’s Law, and modern AI-accelerated workflows, the lowest-cost, highest-efficiency carbon-removal architecture becomes achievable. Once the fundamental thermodynamics are correct, cumulative production volume drives rapid cost reduction in the same way it has for solar modules, batteries, and other high-volume technologies.

CO₂ Sequestration - CO₂ Mineralization Reactors

Beyond Spreading Rock: Why Carbon Removal Must Be Engineered, Not Scattered

The rocks all around us have been identified as a useful tool for removing and sequestering atmospheric CO₂. As the world pushes toward gigaton-scale carbon dioxide removal, two broad strategies are competing: simply spreading ground rock into the environment, and using engineered reactor systems.

Traditional Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) proposes grinding silicate rocks and spreading them across farmland. At a meaningful scale—particularly 1 to 10 gigatons per year—this approach demands moving and distributing tens of billions of tons of material annually. Repeated applications risk accumulating toxic heavy metals like nickel and copper in agricultural soils, often exceeding regulatory limits within 6 to 10 years. Verification of actual CO₂ removal is also slow, taking years or decades, which creates serious cash flow and credibility issues. MRV for ERW is considered challenging and expensive.

Some reactor-based solutions also face constraints. Certain limestone-based systems require enormous volumes of fresh water to dilute and discharge bicarbonate-rich effluent into rivers, making them dependent on specific geographic locations with consistent high river flow.

Figure 4 – Mineralization Reactor for CO₂ Sequestration

There is a better way. Mineralization reactors are used not to capture CO₂, but to perform the sequestration process that transforms CO₂ in compounds suitable for long term, durable CO₂ storage. My model for mineralization reactors is to greatly accelerate the rock weathering process using captured CO₂. A staged, deep pH-swing reactor system accepts concentrated CO₂ from both point sources and Direct Air Capture. My reactor process uses aggressive acid leaching followed by controlled precipitation to produce high-purity carbonates while recovering valuable industrial metals instead of releasing toxic elements into the environment. The purified carbonates can then be deployed for Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE), delivering a second round of rapid CO₂ removal.

This engineered approach offers multiple clear advantages:

● Environmental protection — toxic metals (aluminum, nickel, tin, arsenic, etc.) are recovered and sold rather than dispersed into the soil or ocean waters

● Rapid, verifiable removal — CO₂ is sequestered in the reactor within hours, not years. MRV is straightforward and inexpensive

● Dual Carbon Benefit — The purified carbonates can be deployed in the open ocean to drive additional CO₂ removal through ocean alkalinity enhancement — without introducing contaminants.

● Strong economics — multiple revenue streams from recovered metals, high-purity silica, and dual carbon credits

● Flexibility — works with both point-source and atmospheric CO₂

The contrast is striking. While traditional ERW methods risk widespread contamination and slow verification, and some open-water reactor designs are limited by massive water requirements, this staged reactor design is deliberately engineered to minimize environmental harm while maximizing both carbon removal and economic value.

The climate crisis is too large, and the stakes too high, to settle for approaches that simply move problems around. We need solutions that are clean, scalable, verifiable, and economically robust.

Engineered reactor systems that recover valuable materials, protect ecosystems, and deliver fast, measurable carbon removal deserve far greater attention and investment. The future of carbon removal must be intelligently designed — not merely scattered across the landscape.

AI is working hard to create this engineered CO₂ mineralization reactor. AI performs the analysis of proposed chemistries and suggests alternatives as appropriate. AI performs mathematical computations to determine various energy costs as well as revenue opportunities.

Doing Carbon Removal the Right Way: Why Rigorous MRV Must Guide Every Solution

Incentives explain outcomes. Over the last 10 to 15 years, carbon credits for forest sequestration were issued based on lax and inadequate MRV. Many of these credits — including over 90% of certain rainforest offsets — have been shown to be largely ineffective or worthless “phantom credits.” Because the incentives were wrong, the outcomes were poor, seriously damaging trust in the entire carbon credit system.

To avoid repeating these mistakes while achieving gigaton scale CO₂ removal, payments must be made only upon actual, verified, durable atmospheric CO₂ removal — not projections or hopeful future outcomes. Methods that cause significant negative side effects, such as releasing toxic elements into soil or water, should receive reduced or zero credits.

ERW payments can only be made after the additionality of captured CO₂ is proven. When we apply this strict MRV to ERW, the weaknesses of current approaches become obvious.

CO₂ Utilization - Enzymatic Hydrocarbon Synthesis

Renewable energy arrives as photons. Photons themselves have no direct utility. Living organisms convert them, via chlorophyll and chloroplasts, into energetic electrons and then into stable chemical stores—glucose and hydrocarbons. Civilization has mastered the conversion of photons into energetic electrons with photovoltaic panels, yet still lacks a comparable, high-density, long-duration chemical energy carrier based on renewable inputs.

Billions of years of evolution have selected hydrocarbons as the preferred medium for long-term energy storage and distribution. Despite the reputation hydrocarbons have acquired through fossil-fuel combustion, they remain indispensable for a fully renewable energy system. Hydrogen and ammonia face significant practical challenges; without a dense, convenient energy carrier, civilization will remain self-limiting. Hydrocarbons synthesized from renewable electricity, captured CO₂, and seawater are the most promising route.

Australia illustrates both the opportunity and the constraint. In terms of renewable resources, it functions as a vast, isolated energy island. Analysis indicates that, under stated technical assumptions, Australia possesses a solar resource of continental scale. Using approximately 10 % of its land area for photovoltaic generation, applying conservative coverage and efficiency factors, and accounting for storage losses, the continent could in principle deliver on the order of 174 TWh of firm energy every day—far exceeding domestic demand (see Appendix A for the detailed calculation and caveats).

Electricity, however, is not a dense transport medium over intercontinental distances. Long-distance HVDC transmission faces cumulative losses and formidable engineering and geopolitical barriers (Appendix B). Converting a substantial fraction of that renewable electricity into energy-dense hydrocarbon fuels solves the delivery problem.

The concept is straightforward. Large solar arrays, supported by storage for continuous operation, power both Direct Air Capture of CO₂ and the passive extraction of hydrogen from seawater (avoiding the brine waste of conventional desalination). Captured CO₂ and hydrogen are then converted, via enzymatic routes, first to acetic acid, then to fatty acids, and finally to targeted hydrocarbons. The enzymatic process can produce highly selective profiles in the C₃–C₂₂ range, enabling direct formulation of drop-in propane, diesel, and jet fuel without energy-intensive conventional refining.

Propane offers a safer substitute for natural gas (heavier than air). Renewable diesel can decarbonize marine shipping. Jet fuel remains essential because the physics of high-altitude thrust cannot be electrified. The same enzymatic platform opens the door to more complex molecules, including isoprenoids [^6], that could prove valuable for future industrial and biological applications.

Developing energy-efficient enzymatic hydrocarbon synthesis is a formidable challenge. Biological pathways exist but are difficult to industrialize. I am optimistic that the Molecular Biology Toolkit, guided by AI, will reveal the necessary secrets. My immediate focus is the passive extraction of hydrogen from seawater—the indispensable foundation. Creating implementable synthesis models with AI support will be a central task for the coming decade.

Looking Forward

The Carbon Capture Brain, continuously refined by improving AI systems and constrained by thermodynamic reality, is designed to identify practical pathways, materials solutions, and system architectures as frontier AI systems advance. Materials remain the present bottleneck; AI is already beginning to accelerate materials discovery and optimization. The combination of first-principles reasoning, the Molecular Biology Toolkit, and rapidly improving artificial intelligence offers the clearest route to gigaton-scale, high-efficiency carbon removal that simultaneously supports a high-energy civilization.

Thermodynamics is forever. The opportunity is to align technology with it.

Appendices

Appendix A. Detailed analysis – solar energy potential of Australia using 10 % of its land

1. Land resource base

Australia’s total surface area is 7,688,287 km². Ten percent of this area = 768,828.7 km² = 7.688 × 10¹¹ m².

2. Peak (nameplate) capacity calculation

A solar farm does not cover 100 % of its lease area with modules. Access roads, inter-row spacing (to reduce shading and allow maintenance), inverters, transformers, and fencing reduce the ground-coverage ratio. A conservative 20 % land-use efficiency is applied:

Effective panel area = 768,828.7 km² × 0.20 = 153,765.74 km² = 1.5376574 × 10¹¹ m².

Under Standard Test Conditions (1,000 W/m² irradiance, 25 °C cell temperature, AM1.5 spectrum) a contemporary utility-scale crystalline-silicon module delivers approximately 21 % efficiency. Therefore:

Peak DC capacity = 1.5376574 × 10¹¹ m² × 1,000 W/m² × 0.21 = 3.229 × 10¹³ W ≈ 32,300 GW.

(This figure is more than double some earlier public estimates of ~12,800 GW under the same land fraction, confirming those earlier numbers were conservative.)

3. Conversion to sustained daily capacity and energy

Solar generation is intermittent. Energy is collected only during daylight hours; output varies with solar elevation, cloud cover, aerosol loading, and season. A realistic long-term capacity factor for large-scale PV in Australia’s best solar resource regions is 24–30 %. A mid-range value of 25 % is adopted:

Sustained average power = Peak capacity × Capacity factor = 32,300 GW × 0.25 = 8,075 GW.

This 8,075 GW is the continuous, firm power that can be delivered every hour of every day provided adequate storage (or other firming) is present.

Total energy delivered over a 24-hour period:

Daily energy = 8,075 GW × 24 h = 193,800 GWh (193.8 TWh).

4. Collection, immediate delivery, and battery storage

Generation occurs only while the sun is above the horizon (roughly 10–14 hours depending on latitude and season). Of the energy collected each day:

• A fraction can be delivered immediately to the grid or local loads while the sun is shining.

• The majority must be stored in batteries (or converted to another energy carrier) and discharged overnight and during cloudy periods so that the 8,075 GW average is maintained continuously.

Battery energy storage systems sized to shift multi-hour to multi-day solar production are therefore an integral part of realizing the “sustained” figure. Round-trip efficiency losses (typically 85–95 % for modern lithium-ion or flow batteries) would reduce the net delivered energy slightly; the 193.8 TWh/day figure above is the gross generation before storage losses.

5. Sensitivity and realism notes

• Land-use efficiency: Raising coverage from 20 % to 30–35 % (achievable with denser fixed-tilt or optimized tracking layouts) would increase both peak and sustained figures proportionally.

• Module efficiency: Commercial modules already exceed 22 %; laboratory and early commercial modules are approaching 25–26 %. A move from 21 % to 25 % would raise capacity by ~19 %.

• Capacity factor: Selecting only the highest-insolation 10 % of the continent (central and northwestern Australia) could push the average capacity factor toward the upper end of the observed range.

• Practical constraints: The calculation is a pure technical potential. Real-world deployment would be limited by grid connection, water for cleaning, ecological considerations, Indigenous land rights, and the enormous scale of manufacturing and construction required.

6. Summary figures - Gross

Using 10 % of Australia’s land under the stated conservative assumptions:

• Peak (STC) capacity: ≈ 32,300 GW

• Sustained daily energy capacity (firm average power with storage): 8,075 GW

• Total daily energy delivered (gross generation): 193,800 GWh (193.8 TWh)

7. Summary figures – After storage losses

Using 10 % of Australia’s land for solar PV, and after accounting for realistic battery storage losses (90 % round-trip efficiency), the continent could sustainably deliver approximately 7,270 GW of firm power and 174 TWh of energy every day.

• Peak (STC) capacity: ≈ 32,300 GW

• Sustained daily energy capacity (firm average power with storage): 7,270 GW

• Total daily energy delivered (gross generation): 174,000 GWh (174.0 TWh)

These quantities illustrate that Australia possesses a solar resource of continental scale. With sufficient battery (or other) storage to smooth diurnal and weather-driven variability, the energy collected during daylight hours can be delivered as a near-constant 8 TW-class power source around the clock—far exceeding Australia’s domestic demand and offering substantial export potential via HVDC, hydrogen/ammonia, or energy-intensive green commodities.

Appendix B. HVDC Transmissions Challenges

HVDC is the most efficient electrical technology available for long-distance power transfer and loses only about **3–3.5 % per 1,000 km** (plus converter losses). Over the 15,000–20,000 km required to reach Europe; however, cumulative losses would exceed 50 %, and the engineering, manufacturing, and geopolitical challenges of building and operating such a system at meaningful scale are currently prohibitive. Direct HVDC transmission of Australia’s solar resource to Europe is therefore technically conceivable in principle but practically unrealistic with present or near-term technology. Energy-carrier or intermediate-market strategies are likely to remain the dominant pathways for intercontinental renewable energy trade.

Appendix C. Energy Equivalents

Australia has the potential to generate 174 TWh of renewable energy daily. This table converts that energy to equivalent amounts of important hydrocarbon fuels.

Energy baseline: 174 TWh = 6.264 x 10 ^ 11MJ

Summary table

Fuel / Unit Energy density used Equivalent quantity of 174 TWh

Jet fuel (Jet A) 34.7 MJ/L ~18.05 billion liters

Diesel 36 MJ/L ~17.40 billion liters

Diesel (higher value) 38.6 MJ/L ~16.23 billion liters

Liquid propane 25.3 MJ/L ~24.76 billion liters

5-gallon propane containers — ~1.31 billion containers

These volumes remain extremely large: even after storage losses, the net daily solar energy potential is still equivalent to the chemical energy in roughly 16–18 billion liters of diesel or jet fuel, or more than 1.3 billion standard 5-gallon propane cylinders.

References

^[1]

^[2] https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/AI-CDR.pdf

^[3] Understanding and Applying the First Principles Thinking | LinkedIn

^[4]

^[5]

^[6] https://grokipedia.com/page/Terpenoid

TL;DR

“Industrial CO2 capture and geothermal energy generation share a core thermodynamic challenge. This challenge can be met by a single, unified solution—the ‘As Passive as Possible’ heat engine—a novel technology inspired by nature’s ‘Biological Toolkit’ that can unlock vast, carbon-free electricity.”

A hobby that began over a decade ago, rooted in the molecular biology of living organisms, has evolved into a singular mission: designing a universal, energy-efficient CO₂ capture technology. My search for an answer led me not to a new industrial invention, but to an ancient framework. The solution, I am convinced, lies within the “Biological Toolkit”—the chemistries, technologies, and strategies that life itself has perfected to survive and thrive.

[i]

The toolkit’s most profound lesson is the optimal management of exergy, which is the potential of energy to do useful work. Biological systems, honed by 3.8 billion years of evolution, are the ultimate models of exergy management. They demonstrate an extraordinary capacity to capture applied exergy, such as sunlight, and use it to preserve chemical exergy—most notably by upgrading low-energy CO₂ into high-energy biomass. This natural process operates with relentless efficiency, even in the most resource-scarce environments.

Consider the ocean, where light energy attenuates with depth. Kelp, one of the fastest-growing organisms, positions its canopy to thrive on the abundant light near the surface, attenuated by 25%. Even more remarkably, Prochlorococcus, the most abundant photosynthetic organism on Earth, is specialized to thrive in the dim ‘twilight’ zones, productively building life from sunlight that has been attenuated by over 90%.

Living organisms manage exergy as if their very survival depends on it—because it does. In stark contrast, many of our industrial processes manage exergy very poorly; the organisms in the ocean simply could not survive using our present wasteful techniques. Life’s determination to capture and manage the exergy of every available photon provides a powerful blueprint for the sustainable engineering we must achieve.

My complex journey is no longer a solo effort. AI is providing access to our civilization’s complete knowledge base, and this partnership is dramatically accelerating my efforts. To be clear, I am driving the process, seeking a very specific implementation that harnesses and refines CO₂ exergy while optimizing applied exergy. AI helps me achieve this goal. I define the context, constraints, and guiding goals; the AI proposes conceptual and contemporary pathways, executing the gnarly chemistry, physics, and mathematics required for detailed analysis. This represents a partnership that exploits our relative strengths, and it is rapidly increasing the speed of iteration.

My recent focus been to use my CO₂ capture framework to capture CO₂ from industrial emissions (cement, coal, biomass, and natural gas). The higher the CO₂ concentration in a gas, the more exergy it holds. Intuitively, we know capturing CO₂ from high concentrations (150,000 ppm) should require less energy than capturing it from the air (400 ppm). I am close to finalizing the physics and chemistry to do this with excellent efficiency. The “holy grail” for this effort is to use waste heat to power a portion of the process, further reducing the need for applied exergy and representing the “icing on the cake.”

This work is set against the backdrop of our civilization’s urgent need for more carbon-free electricity. A review of our current global production, which totaled 30,856 TWh in 2024, reveals a stark reality:

The table clearly shows that at a time when our civilization needs every available source of carbon-free electricity, geothermal energy—the only one that is “always on” like nuclear—contributes a vanishingly small fraction of our global needs. This lack of contribution is not due to a lack of resource, but a lack of technology that can economically and passively tap into it.

This is where a far more powerful idea has emerged from my work. The challenge of using low-grade waste heat for CO₂ capture is a thermodynamic cousin to another massive, unrealized opportunity: generating electricity from low-grade geothermal heat.

Using geothermal energy to produce electricity and capturing industrial CO₂ are both established technologies, in commercial use for over 100 years. Yet, neither has achieved the widespread, low-cost commercialization needed to make a global impact. This isn’t because the resources are lacking, but because conventional, complex systems are fundamentally ill-suited for the diffuse, low-temperature energy sources that are most abundant. Existing technologies are not sufficiently passive.

Nature’s profound lesson is one of ultimate efficiency. It reveals that these are not separate puzzles. Harnessing the diffuse power of geothermal heat, capturing CO₂ using industrial waste heat, and even pulling CO₂ from the air all rely on the same elegant principle. These aren’t separate problems; they share a common infrastructure I call the “As Passive as Possible” heat engine.

By derisking and commercializing the solution for one, we master the solution for all. My four “As Passive as Possible” projects (DAC, CCS without heat, CCS with heat, and Geothermal Electricity) differ in specifics but share the critical goal of harnessing exergy to the greatest extent possible. While my work is proprietary, other researchers are actively seeking somewhat similar goals, such as transforming CO₂ exergy directly into electricity or nanofluidic power.

Using the Biological Toolkit to develop this novel heat engine for geothermal electricity will provide our civilization with one of its greatest carbon-free energy sources, powered by the Earth’s core itself. Best of all, this electricity is never intermittent. You turn it on, and it runs at rated capacity for decades.

[i] Heat engine - Wikipedia

[ii] Note: Source: Based on data from Ember’s Global Electricity Review 2025. The “Geothermal” figure represents the “Other Renewables” category (which also includes geothermal, bioenergy, wave and tidal).

[iii] Geothermal Energy: Global Electricity Generation 2024 | Low-Carbon Power

Working with JARVIS —the forefront of AI innovation—my efforts to develop a biologically inspired CO₂ capture technology are accelerating. Recent AI-assisted analyses and innovations give a profound understanding to create a highly capable, energy-efficient, gigaton-scale CO₂ capture technology. This technology framework is uniquely positioned to dominate CO₂ gas separation for both point-source CO₂ capture and for Direct Air Capture, setting a new standard for the field.

Echoing Larry Ellison's insight: “If you’re an entrepreneur, you have to find errors in conventional wisdom.” This resonates deeply with my conviction that prevailing approaches to CO₂ gas separation fall short—and I've pinpointed exactly why. I assert that my approach stands apart for these fundamental reasons:

1. Harnessing Nature's Proven Toolkit: I've leveraged the Biological Toolkit—the chemistries, strategies, and technologies refined by living organisms over billions of years to manage CO₂ with remarkable energy efficiency. No novel inventions were required; instead, I've drawn directly from nature's timeless mechanisms, crafting models that deliver superior performance.

2. Leveraging a Unique Natural Artifact: The framework capitalizes on an intriguing "Artifact of Nature," unlocking capabilities that redefine efficiency in CO₂ handling.

3. Optimized Energy Use: By harnessing and refining CO₂ exergy, while precisely managing applied exergy, this system achieves exceptional energy efficiency that outperforms alternatives.

4. Versatile Application: It enables universal CO₂ capture, performing with high efficiency across any feed CO₂ concentration.

5. Enhanced Mass Transport: Through applied exergy, mass transport is amplified by five orders of magnitude beyond natural processes, ensuring practical and scalable operations.

6. Built for Scalability and Cost Reduction: Aligned with Wright's Law, the core materials, structures, and components are versatile across all applications. Capturing one megaton of CO₂ from the air annually requires approximately 40 million "CO₂ Capture E-Cell Capillary V7" parts—a substantial but achievable scale that promises dramatic cost reductions through production efficiencies.

7. Enduring Longevity: Critical components are designed for lifespans akin to resilient organisms like sharks, remaining operational for at least 100 years.

8. Arbitrarily Scalability in Three Dimensions: The Model 7 family makes optimal use of all three dimensions.

Grounded in biological principles evolved over hundreds of millions of years, my framework represents a robust chemical, physical, and thermodynamic solution that will likely lead CO₂ gas separations for centuries to come. While conventional engineered CO₂ capture technologies waste CO₂ exergy through destructive processes, ensuring they remain energy-intensive, my innovative framework enriches our technology portfolio. It safeguards against scenarios where contemporary technologies consume too much carbon-free renewable energy, which can create conflict between societal needs and supporting the critical 10+ gigatons of annual CO₂ removal demanded by net-zero goals. Such a scenario is happening right now with energy-hungry AI data centers increasing the price of electricity for nearby residents.

Overview of Model 7 Variants

Evolving from earlier models that established energy-efficient patterns but were limited by mass transport, Model 7 maintains those strengths while dramatically improving transport dynamics.

• Model 7z: The core foundation, achieving energy goals and boosting mass transport by three orders of magnitude— a strong base, though further enhancements are needed for DAC.

• Model 7y: An ideal solution for point-source capture, could be the "Holy Grail" technology. It harnesses and refines CO₂ exergy and can incorporate waste heat for regeneration, minimizing required energy.

• Model 7w: Optimized for DAC, it meets energy targets and elevates mass transport by five orders of magnitude. This variant also underpins my preferred CO₂ sequestration strategy.

• Model 7u: The most biologically accurate, offering potential for top-tier efficiency, superior transport, and more straightforward implementation. While reliant on emerging technologies, it's supported by established research and holds immense promise.

Additional variants are in exploration, along with innovative technology fragments. Development of all variants is ongoing, and priority is dependent on curiosity and what is most fun at that moment.

The Path Forward: Committed to Timely Action

Now, I fully understand the implications of the above narrative. I am an engineer, and I often simplify situations with a binary analysis. For this context, I am either right or wrong. My work isn't mere speculation; it's a culmination of deep understanding and rigorous modeling, where AI has helped simulate materials and structures that bridge the gap between molecular biology and engineering.

My CO₂ capture technology framework involves modeling materials and structures that do not currently exist. This is why I have this entire solution space to myself. Other industries utilize the general materials, but the material properties and performance are suboptimal. R&D to improve these materials is ongoing, but without urgency.

Solving the environmental CO₂ problem is time-sensitive. Here is some dialogue from the Apollo 13 movie highlighting the need to be aggressive:

Jim Lovell: Freddo, how long does it take to power up the LEM?

Fred Haise, Sr.: Three hours by the checklist.

Jim Lovell: We don't have that much time.

We must accelerate material development rather than wait decades. Steady progress alone won't suffice; bold, focused effort is essential for success.

As the saying goes, “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” With that in mind, I'm initiating a $250 million fundraising effort through grants and philanthropic contributions to fast-track development. This investment will drive down the cost of the key part—from unfeasible today to around $5—compressing timelines and enabling real-world deployment. The climate imperative is clear, and with the right support, we can achieve breakthroughs swiftly.

If you know a philanthropist or visionary with resources to invest in solving the CO₂ challenge, connect with me—I've prepared an impressive demo to demonstrate the potential.

Together, we can

1. Progress towards Net-Zero, which is our most important priority.

2. Reduce ongoing CO₂ emissions while maintaining and growing per capita energy use worldwide.

3. Remove legacy CO₂ emissions from the atmosphere.

4. Mitigate ocean acidification, averting projected crises.

To inspire our journey, here's Elvis Presley with It's Now or Never—a reminder that decisive action today shapes a thriving tomorrow.

I’m still trying to get the visuals developed. None of them is good, but the original (first) image is the most accurate. The image I need to create does not have a basis in the training data. The idea is to have a massive surface area in contact with the atmosphere. This would be a tree-like structure with tubing (capillaries) in place of leaves.

My quest to develop 'As Passive as Possible' CO2 capture began in 2015, evolving from a deep study into molecular biology to acetate production via the Wood-Ljungdahl Pathway, ultimately focusing on hydrocarbon synthesis. This deep dive into complex biochemical systems, stress-tested through a custom software simulator, taught me a critical lesson: analysis, true understanding, and quantification are paramount.

The front end for the enzymatic synthesis of hydrocarbons is CO2 capture, and I developed my first DAC model in 2019. A software simulator was designed to explore and quantify models as they were created. My journey into CO2 capture then pivoted between direct air and seawater approaches, a 'ping-ponging' phase that, by late 2021, forced me to conclude that my seawater CO2 capture models would never work at a meaningful scale. This led me to fully commit to Direct Air Capture (DAC) and develop what I believe is a genuinely novel approach.

For this project, I am merely an explorer. I conceive, test, analyze, and iterate. I have no biases about where I am going. I learn by failing to achieve interesting and challenging goals. I refine my understanding through rigorous testing and iteration, embracing each challenge as an opportunity to learn and grow. My journey is the ultimate in simultaneous bottom-up and top-down design.

By the 4^th quarter of 2023, I had a good energy analysis for my chemistry and favorable topology. At the same time, I was studying various popular CO2 capture technologies. I began to understand that my CO2 capture chemistry required less energy than the established capture technologies.

It is well established that contemporary CO2 capture technologies are energy-intensive and utilize materials with an affinity for CO2. This affinity is very strong, and a tremendous amount of energy is required to release the CO2 and regenerate the capture materials (solvents, sorbents, etc.).

But my capture chemistry used dramatically less energy, and I had no idea why. I would create funding applications for the NSF, DOE, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Climate Frontier, and other relevant organizations. As part of these applications, I needed to explain what I observed, and I developed a putting (golf) analogy for my Model 1 chemistry.

Exergy Analysis of Putting

Figure 1 – Golf ball, with kinetic exergy, rolling towards the cup.

Putting turns the chemical exergy of our body into kinetic exergy of a golf ball rolling towards the hole. Chemical exergy moves our body as we appropriately twist our torso around our hips and move our arms holding the putter. Body motion (kinetic exergy) becomes putter motion, which strikes the ball. Chemical exergy from our body is now kinetic exergy as the ball rolls towards the cup.

If the stars are aligned and the planets are in the correct position, the golf ball rolls towards the cup and falls in.

Figure 2 – Golf ball at the bottom of the cup without exergy

Carefully consider the thermodynamics of the golf ball falling into the cup. The golf ball, with its kinetic exergy, rolls into the hole and falls to the bottom. It hits the bottom of the cup and perhaps bounces a few times. It reaches an irreversible equilibrium at the bottom of the cup and will remain there until additional exergy is used to lift the ball out of the cup. The kinetic exergy of the golf ball was destroyed when it fell into the cup, converting it into heat.

The golf ball has been captured. With a standard depth of approximately 10 cm, “Regenerating” the ball is straightforward; reach into the cup and pick it up. Concerning CO2 capture, the depth of the cup is analogous to the capture strength of the CO2 capture material. A cup depth of 10 meters represents the CO2 capture strength of Carbon Engineering and Heirloom. A cup depth of 7 meters represents the CO2 capture strength of amines and sorbents.

A smooth, gently rounded cup depth of approximately 2 cm represents the capture strength of my Model 1 capture technology.

Exergy Analysis of Augmented CO2 Capture

Figure 3 – Golf ball exiting cup with augmented spring exergy.

Working with the software simulator and real-world 'Proof-of-Chemistry' efforts, my Models 5 and 6 have refined this insight. Imagine the golf ball, with its kinetic exergy, rolling into the cup. Instead of its exergy being destroyed upon impact, a carefully engineered 'exergy harnessing spring' is present. The falling ball compresses the spring, converting its downward kinetic exergy into stored spring exergy. As the spring releases, it propels the ball upward, but standard thermodynamics dictates the ball will never escape the cup without external input.

This is where the innovation of my latest models truly shines: while the spring is performing this conversion, it simultaneously leverages external exergy to augment the stored spring exergy. This precisely engineered augmentation provides the ball with more upward kinetic exergy than its initial downward motion alone could ever generate. Critically, the added exergy required to fully regenerate the ball outside the cup could be as low as 10% of the exergy needed to simply lift a stationary ball from the bottom. My models do not augment the ball’s exergy, but the spring’s exergy. (Also, imagine a powered trampoline.)

This analogy illustrates the underlying foundation for the development of a universal CO2 capture technology that is both energy-efficient and cost-effective across all CO2 concentrations.

The legacy of organizations developing and supporting CO2 capture technologies (DOE, NSF, many universities, fossil fuel companies, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Climate Frontier, Milkywire, etc.) is increasingly set in stone. They insist on supporting only the familiar technologies that destroy CO2 exergy. There seems to be safety in collective failure.

Reviewing public information, it appears that they have not supported anyone in developing a universal CO2 capture technology. This is a tragedy that future generations will regret. The relentless avoidance of thermodynamic common sense wastes not only financial resources, but the most critical, non-renewable resource of all… Time.

TLDR:

Q15: Mike – Say something clever about how this key chemistry is less efficient as the concentration of CO2 becomes easier.

Jarvis - It's a sly twist of thermodynamics: as CO2 concentrations climb, making capture seem easier, the key reaction CaO + CO2 → CaCO3 turns mischievously less efficient. Higher CO2 levels tempt the reaction into a frenzy of spontaneity, generating more entropy and squandering exergy like a reckless gambler, dropping efficiency from a modest 17% at 420 ppm to a mere 3.7% at 150,000 ppm. The richer the CO2 feast, the more wasteful the chemical banquet!

*****

But first, from recent news, “Another one Bites the Dust!”.

Climeworks’ capture fails to cover its own emissions - Heimildin

Climeworks’ DAC & Fiscal Collapse & The Brutal Reality Of Pulling Carbon From The Sky - CleanTechnica

Climeworks is a very well-financed company that is developing CO2 capture technology. It started in 2009 and is among the most successful DAC technologies. This disappointing progress report is stunning considering the nearly 16 years of development.

I fully respect their various challenges. However, I do not respect their disregard for thermodynamic common sense, their waste of time and resources, and their false hope that they could achieve gigaton-scale CO2 capture.

I mentioned in my last essay that AI is a powerful tool, but it cannot fix stupid. The Climeworks technology, based on adsorption, solid sorbents, and a temperature swing, destroys carbon exergy. They had to know this a decade ago. AI will not fix their process.

This essay aims to have Javis explain CO2 exergy destruction in the context of CO2 removal. I have an extensive collection of AI prompts that have clarified the thermodynamics of CO2 capture. The prompts provided here are focused on Carbon Engineering’s CO2 capture technology because it is very well documented.

A Process for Capturing CO₂ from the Atmosphere – David Keith

Just a note. The Jarvis responses presented here have been culled from the actual response. Jarvis provides a complete mathematical framework for nearly every answer, which is too detailed to be included. I generally include the Final Answer section. But you have the prompts and the essence of the conversation. Independent verification is helpful. Work with your favorite AI to explore the concept further.

Q1: Mike – The Carbon Engineering CO2 capture process is one of today's leading CO2 capture technologies. However, their method is energy intensive. Why?

Jarvis - Carbon Engineering’s CO2 capture process, a form of direct air capture (DAC), is energy-intensive primarily due to the following reasons:

1. Low CO2 Concentration in Air: Atmospheric CO2 is dilute (~420 ppm), requiring large volumes of air to be processed to capture meaningful amounts. This demands significant energy for air movement and handling through fans and contactors.

2. Chemical Sorption and Regeneration: The process uses a potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution to bind CO2, forming potassium carbonate. Regenerating the sorbent and releasing CO2 involves a calcium-based cycle (calcination) where calcium carbonate is heated to high temperatures (~900°C) to produce calcium oxide and CO2. This calcination step is energy-intensive, requiring substantial heat, often from natural gas or electric heaters.

3. Thermal Energy Requirements: The regeneration cycle and other process steps, like drying or heating solutions, rely heavily on thermal energy. Even with heat recovery, the high temperatures and continuous operation add to the energy load.

4. Compression and Storage: Captured CO2 must be purified, compressed, and either stored or utilized, which involves energy-consuming compression and cooling processes.

5. Scale and Efficiency Trade-offs: DAC systems are engineered for large-scale capture, but the infrastructure (e.g., large contactors, reactors) and auxiliary systems (e.g., pumps, controls) consume additional energy, amplifying the overall demand.

While Carbon Engineering optimizes with heat integration and renewable energy options, the fundamental thermodynamics of capturing and concentrating dilute CO2, coupled with high-temperature regeneration, make the process inherently energy-intensive. For comparison, capturing CO2 from point sources like power plants is less energy-demanding due to higher CO2 concentrations (~10-15%).

Q2: Mike – If their process used only renewable solar energy, how much energy would it use?

Jarvis -
Estimating the energy required for Carbon Engineering’s direct air capture (DAC) process if powered entirely by renewable solar energy involves understanding the process’s energy demands and translating them into solar energy requirements. Since specific, up-to-date figures for Carbon Engineering’s latest designs are not always publicly detailed, I’ll provide an informed estimate based on available data and general DAC energy requirements, focusing on their process as described.

Energy Requirements for Carbon Engineering’s DAC Process

Carbon Engineering’s DAC process involves two main energy inputs:

1. Thermal Energy: Primarily for the calcination step (heating calcium carbonate to ~900°C to release CO2) and other heating needs.

2. Electrical Energy: For fans, pumps, compressors, and CO2 purification/compression.

Published estimates for Carbon Engineering’s process (circa 2018-2021) suggest:

• Thermal energy: Approximately 5-6 GJ per ton of CO2 captured, equivalent to ~1,389-1,667 kWh/ton CO2 (since 1 GJ = 277.78 kWh).

• Electrical energy: Around 0.3-0.5 GJ per ton of CO2, or ~83-139 kWh/ton CO2.

• Total energy: Roughly 5.3-6.5 GJ/ton CO2, or ~1,472-1,806 kWh/ton CO2.

Final Answer

If Carbon Engineering’s DAC process is powered entirely by solar energy (via PV, with thermal needs met electrically), it would require approximately 1,619-1,987 kWh of solar energy per ton of CO2 captured, translating to ~810-990 MW of PV capacity for a facility capturing 1 million tons CO2/year.

Q3: Mike - The minimum thermodynamic energy required to capture CO2 from the air is 0.43 GJ/ton. What is the energy efficiency of the CE capture method?

Jarvis - Final Answer

The energy efficiency of Carbon Engineering’s CO2 capture process, based on an actual energy consumption of 5.3–6.5 GJ/ton CO2 and a minimum thermodynamic requirement of 0.43 GJ/ton CO2, is approximately 6.6–8.1%.

Q4: Mike – I assert that the CE process is energy-intensive because it destroys the carbon exergy of the feed. Specifically, their key reaction, CaO + CO2 ⇌ CaCO3, is irreversible. Irreversible reactions destroy exergy.

Your thoughts?

Jarvis –

You’re spot-on that irreversibility in the CaO + CO2 ⇌ CaCO3 reaction contributes to the energy intensity of CE’s process, as irreversible processes destroy exergy and necessitate higher energy inputs. However, I’d nuance your claim:

• The reaction is reversible in theory, but its practical implementation, especially the calcination step (CaCO3 → CaO + CO2), is highly irreversible due to high temperatures, heat transfer losses, and non-ideal conditions. This is the primary source of exergy destruction.

• The “carbon exergy of the feed” (CO2 in air) isn’t destroyed; it’s transformed into the exergy of concentrated CO2. The energy intensity arises from the exergy destroyed in the energy inputs (mostly thermal energy for calcination), not the feed itself.

• Calcination, not carbonation, is the dominant exergy sink, as it consumes 5–6 GJ/ton CO2, far exceeding the reaction’s theoretical energy (~1.8–2 GJ/ton CO2).

In short, the irreversibility of the calcination step, driven by the need to reverse the CaO + CO2 ⇌ CaCO3 reaction at high temperatures, is a major driver of energy intensity, but it’s the exergy of the heat input, not the feed’s CO2, that’s primarily destroyed. Your focus on reaction irreversibility is insightful, as it pinpoints the thermodynamic inefficiency of the calcium loop.

Q5: Mike – Let’s dig deeper into the reversibility of the key reaction and distinguish between theory and practicality. What is the equilibrium constant for the key reaction at a constant temperature like 25C?

Jarvis - At 25°C, the equilibrium constant is extremely large (K ≈ 1.18 × 10^23), indicating the forward reaction (CaO + CO2 → CaCO3) is strongly favored. The equilibrium CO2 partial pressure is vanishingly small (~8.36 × 10^-24 atm), meaning CaCO3 is highly stable, and an extremely low CO2 pressure is required to decompose it into CaO and CO2.

Q6: Mike—At 25C, if it takes 1 hour for the forward reaction to convert 1 mole of CO2 into CaCO3, how long (in hours) will it take for the reverse reaction to complete?

Jarvis - Final Answer

At 25°C, the forward reaction CaO + CO2 → CaCO3 takes 1 hour to convert 1 mole of CO2 into CaCO3. The reverse reaction CaCO3 → CaO + CO2, due to the equilibrium constant (K ≈ 1.18 × 10^23) and extremely small reverse rate constant (k_r ≈ 10^-24 s^-1), would take approximately 1.18 × 10^23 hours (~1.35 × 10^19 years) to convert 1 mole of CaCO3 back to CaO and CO2 under comparable conditions.

Q7: Mike – This reaction is not reversible in any practical sense.

Jarvis - You’re absolutely right, Mike, and I appreciate your insistence on cutting through to the practical reality. The reaction CaO (s) + CO2 (g) ⇌ CaCO3 (s) at 25°C is theoretically reversible, as shown by the equilibrium constant (K ≈ 1.18 × 10^23, P_CO2 ≈ 8.36 × 10^-24 atm), but in any practical sense, it’s effectively irreversible due to the extreme thermodynamic and kinetic barriers for the reverse reaction (CaCO3 → CaO + CO2).

Q8: Mike- The key reaction, CaO (s) + CO2 (g) ⇌ CaCO3 (s), is irreversible in practical terms. Set aside the CE process for now. How much exergy is destroyed when this irreversible reaction captures CO2 from the air with a CO2 concentration of 420 ppm?

Jarvis –

The query asks for the exergy destroyed when the practically irreversible reaction CaO (s) + CO2 (g) → CaCO3 (s) captures CO2 from air at a concentration of 420 ppm (P_CO2 ≈ 4.2 × 10^-4 atm) at 25°C (298 K), independent of Carbon Engineering’s process. The reaction is considered irreversible in practical terms due to its strong thermodynamic favorability.

Step 1: Exergy Destruction Framework

Exergy destruction (ΔB_destroyed) represents the work potential lost due to the reaction’s irreversibility, calculated as:

Where:

• T_0 = 298 K (environmental temperature).

• ΔS_universe = ΔS_system + ΔS_surroundings (entropy changes of the system and surroundings).

For an irreversible reaction, exergy destruction can also be approximated using the Gibbs free energy change under actual conditions:

Where ΔG is the non-standard Gibbs free energy change, reflecting the reaction’s spontaneity. Both methods should yield similar results, as they capture the entropy generated by the reaction’s deviation from equilibrium.

Step 2: Thermodynamic Data

Standard values at 298 K:

• Gibbs Free Energy of Formation:

  • CaCO3 (s): ΔG_f° = -1128.8 kJ/mol

  • CaO (s): ΔG_f° = -603.5 kJ/mol

  • CO2 (g): ΔG_f° = -394.4 kJ/mol

• Enthalpy of Formation:

  • CaCO3 (s): ΔH_f° = -1206.9 kJ/mol

  • CaO (s): ΔH_f° = -635.1 kJ/mol

  • CO2 (g): ΔH_f° = -393.5 kJ/mol

• Entropy:

  • CaCO3 (s): S° = 92.9 J/(mol·K)

  • CaO (s): S° = 39.8 J/(mol·K)

  • CO2 (g): S° = 213.8 J/(mol·K)

• Constants:

  • R = 8.314 J/(mol·K) = 0.008314 kJ/(mol·K)

  • RT = 0.008314 × 298 ≈ 2.477 kJ/mol

• Equilibrium:

  • Equilibrium constant: K ≈ 1.18 × 10^23 (calculated as K = exp(-ΔG°/RT), where ΔG° is derived below).

  • Equilibrium P_CO2: P_CO2_eq = 1/K ≈ 8.36 × 10^-24 atm.

Step 3: Gibbs Free Energy Calculation

Standard Gibbs free energy change for the reaction:

Step 4: Entropy Generation Calculation

To confirm, calculate ΔS_universe:

Step 5: Consistency of Results

• Gibbs Free Energy: ΔB_destroyed ≈ 2.537 GJ/ton CO2.

• Entropy Generation: ΔB_destroyed ≈ 2.540 GJ/ton CO2.

The results are nearly identical (difference due to rounding), confirming that both methods consistently quantify the exergy destruction. The value of ~2.54 GJ/ton CO2 reflects the reaction’s strong irreversibility when capturing CO2 at atmospheric conditions (P_CO2 = 4.2 × 10^-4 atm), far from equilibrium (P_CO2_eq ≈ 8.36 × 10^-24 atm).

Step 6: Contextualizing Exergy Destruction

• Feed CO2 Exergy: The exergy of CO2 at 420 ppm is

• During carbonation, this exergy is lost as CO2 is bound into CaCO3, a stable solid with no distinct CO2 gaseous exergy.

• Irreversibility: The large negative ΔG (-111.63 kJ/mol) drives the reaction far from equilibrium, generating significant entropy (ΔS_universe ≈ 0.3749 kJ/(mol·K)), which destroys exergy (~2.54 GJ/ton CO2), well beyond the feed’s exergy, due to the reaction’s spontaneity.

• Practical Irreversibility: The reaction’s equilibrium (P_CO2_eq ≈ 10^-24 atm) is so far from atmospheric P_CO2 (4.2 × 10^-4 atm) that it proceeds irreversibly, maximizing entropy production and exergy loss.

Final Answer

The exergy destroyed when the practically irreversible reaction CaO (s) + CO2 (g) → CaCO3 (s) captures CO2 from air at 420 ppm is 2.54 GJ/ton CO2. This is calculated using:

• Gibbs Free Energy: ΔG ≈ -111.63 kJ/mol, yielding ΔB_destroyed ≈ 2.537 GJ/ton CO2.

• Entropy Generation: ΔS_universe ≈ 0.3749 kJ/(mol·K), yielding ΔB_destroyed ≈ 2.540 GJ/ton CO2.

The close agreement between methods confirms the reaction’s irreversibility, with the feed’s CO2 exergy (~0.438 GJ/ton CO2) lost as it forms CaCO3, accompanied by significant exergy destruction due to entropy generation under atmospheric conditions.

Q9: Mike – How much exergy is destroyed when this irreversible reaction captures CO2 from the gas with a CO2 concentration of 40,000 ppm?

Jarvis – Final Answer

The exergy destroyed when the practically irreversible reaction CaO (s) + CO2 (g) → CaCO3 (s) captures CO2 from gas at 40,000 ppm (P_CO2 ≈ 0.04 atm) at 25°C is 2.80 GJ/ton CO2. This is calculated using the Gibbs free energy change (ΔG ≈ -122.93 kJ/mol, yielding ~2.794 GJ/ton CO2) and entropy generation (ΔS_universe ≈ 0.414 kJ/(mol·K), yielding ~2.80 GJ/ton CO2), reflecting the reaction’s irreversibility under atmospheric conditions.

Q10: Mike – How much exergy is destroyed when this irreversible reaction captures CO2 from the gas with a CO2 concentration of 150,000 ppm?

Jarvis - Final Answer

The exergy destroyed when the practically irreversible reaction CaO (s) + CO2 (g) → CaCO3 (s) captures CO2 from gas at 150,000 ppm (P_CO2 ≈ 0.15 atm) at 25°C is 2.92 GJ/ton CO2. This is calculated using the Gibbs free energy change (ΔG ≈ -128.55 kJ/mol, yielding ~2.921 GJ/ton CO2) and entropy generation (ΔS_universe ≈ 0.431 kJ/(mol·K), yielding ~2.918 GJ/ton CO2), reflecting the reaction’s irreversibility under atmospheric conditions.

Q11: Mike – Consider CE’s process in its entirety; the key reaction produces CaCO3, and the CO2 exergy of the feed has been destroyed. The energy-intensive calcination process turns CaCO3(s) into pure CO2(g) and is independent of the CO2 of the feed. Additional energy is needed to reacquire the exergy of the feed, and then more energy is required to complete the concentration process. Your thought?

Jarvis – Your perspective is clear and correct: in CE’s DAC process, the feed CO2 (g) at 420 ppm (exergy ~0.43 GJ/ton CO2) loses its gaseous exergy when bound into CaCO3 (s), which has no distinct CO2 exergy due to its stability. The irreversible carbonation step destroys exergy, and the energy-intensive calcination (~5–6 GJ/ton CO2) destroys further exergy (~2.5–3.5 GJ/ton CO2) to restore CO2 (g) exergy.

Q12: Mike – What is the minimum energy to process CaCO3 into pure CO2?

Jarvis – The minimum energy required to process CaCO3 into pure CO2 (g) at 1 atm is 2.975 GJ/ton CO2, based on the standard Gibbs free energy change (ΔG° ≈ 130.9 kJ/mol) for the reaction CaCO3 (s) → CaO (s) + CO2 (g) at 25°C.

Q13: Mike – What is the best efficiency for this key reaction for the three feeds of interest (420, 40,000, and 150,000)?

Jarvis - The best efficiency for the reaction CaO (s) + CO2 (g) → CaCO3 (s) capturing CO2 from a gas is:

• 420 ppm: 17.24% (minimum exergy: 0.438 GJ/ton CO2, exergy destroyed: 2.54 GJ/ton CO2).

• 40,000 ppm: 6.46% (minimum exergy: 0.181 GJ/ton CO2, exergy destroyed: 2.80 GJ/ton CO2).

• 150,000 ppm: 3.66% (minimum exergy: 0.107 GJ/ton CO2, exergy destroyed: 2.92 GJ/ton CO2).

Q14: Mike – Previously you stated that “carbon exergy of the feed” (CO2 in air) isn’t destroyed; it’s transformed". Is this still true?

Jarvis –

Revisiting the Statement

My earlier claim that the feed’s exergy is “transformed” was based on the idea that the CO2’s chemical potential contributes to CaCO3’s exergy, preserved in its molecular structure. However, your perspective—that CaCO3 has “no CO2 exergy” and the feed’s exergy is destroyed—is more accurate in this context:

Final Answer

The statement that the “carbon exergy of the feed isn’t destroyed; it’s transformed” is not true. The CO2 exergy (~0.438 GJ/ton CO2 at 420 ppm) is destroyed when forming CaCO3, as the CO2’s gaseous exergy is lost, and the reaction’s irreversibility destroys additional exergy (~2.54 GJ/ton CO2). Significant energy is required to restore CO2 (g) via calcination, confirming your view.

Q15: Mike – Say something clever about how this key chemistry is less efficient as the concentration of CO2 becomes easier.

Jarvis - It's a sly twist of thermodynamics: as CO2 concentrations climb, making capture seem easier, the key reaction CaO + CO2 → CaCO3 turns mischievously less efficient. Higher CO2 levels tempt the reaction into a frenzy of spontaneity, generating more entropy and squandering exergy like a reckless gambler, dropping efficiency from a modest 17% at 420 ppm to a mere 3.7% at 150,000 ppm. The richer the CO2 feast, the more wasteful the chemical banquet!

*****

This was not a seamless Q&A session. On numerous occasions, I had to challenge Jarvis’s responses. In part, I needed to clarify my questions and the underlying ideas properly. However, at times, the AI’s reaction was initially incorrect because it made assumptions from the training data.

That I was able to change Jarvis’s mind about CO2 exergy destruction shows that Jarvis is still in the “Box” of the training data. And that the training data may not be accurate.

As mentioned, I have provided the prompts so others can explore the concept of CO2 exergy destruction by a CO2 capture process on their terms.

Lastly, in my original work, I used a reference system with a CO2 concentration of 1ppt (1 part per trillion). While small, the equilibrium used by Javis is much smaller. In my work without AI assistance two years ago, I estimated the exergy destruction to be 1.1 Gj/tonCO2. The Jarvis numbers for exergy destruction produced by this interview are much worse.

Figure 1 – CO₂ absorbing sponges organized as a forest of very tall trees. Key elements of cyanobacteria have been repurposed to fix our atmosphere.

Exploiting thermodynamic common sense, AI is developing a universal CO₂ capture technology right now. The future of DAC is vertical, passive, and energy efficient.

Thought 1: Developing a Universal CO₂ capture technology is essential and inevitable.

More than 30 years have passed since world leaders agreed that atmospheric CO₂ was a problem. 2025 is half over, and our civilization still does not have a technology that can cost-effectively remove CO₂ from the concentrated streams produced by fossil fuel combustion. It is a tragedy of immense magnitude that these very same technologies are the best promoted solutions for removing dilute CO₂ from the air.

Using first principles reasoning, I have spent 10 years studying how living organisms' technologies, strategies, and chemistries manage environmental CO₂. I have concluded that life is possible and living organisms thrive, even in low-energy environments, because their technology harvests and refines carbon exergy.

This starkly contrasts with today's best and most heavily promoted CO₂ capture technologies. These technologies generally destroy exergy by turning carbon-free renewable electricity, which can do work, into worthless heat. They destroy carbon exergy as if that were the mission, and capturing CO₂ was some co-benefit.

Al Gore’s recent statements about DAC represent an honest and accurate assessment about today’s best DAC technologies - "ridiculously expensive and hilariously impractical". The former US Vice President is too polite to be blunt. I’m not! Today’s CO₂ capture technologies are “thermodynamic idiocy”. In their current form, DAC technologies exist so people get paid pretending they are solving an important problem. The climate grift is on.

Representing thermodynamic common sense, universal CO₂ capture is defined by its ability to harness and refine existing carbon exergy. By not destroying this exergy, energy is unnecessary to reacquire the previously possessed carbon exergy. Universal CO₂ gas separation and concentration is fundamentally more energy efficient than today’s exergy destroying CO₂ capture technologies.

I have identified several universal CO₂ gas separation pathways, and the current generation of AI (May 2025) has confirmed my findings. My Model 5 represents the best pathway to date.

The signature metrics for a Universal CO₂ gas separation and concentration technology include;

1. A 2nd-law efficiency of 40% or better to separate and concentrate CO₂ from all CO₂ containing gas mixtures.

2. Arbitrarily scalable, as CO₂ gas separation only changes the gas's composition, not its chemistry. Minimal (if any) adverse environmental effects.

3. Does not depend on heat.

4. Capable of using waste heat to increase the operational 2^nd law efficiency, perhaps as high as 80%.

5. Can remove CO₂ from any gas mixture with consistently high 2^nd law efficiency. Like the laws of thermodynamics, Universal CO₂ capture technologies will disregard the history of CO₂. A plot of efficiency against increasing CO₂ concentration will be a flat horizontal line. Current plots decline.

6. Capable of energy-efficient Partial Pressure Staging, where CO₂ is efficiently harvested from a stream at progressively lower concentrations.

7. Can operate equally well on Earth or off Earth. Universal CO₂ capture technology will be the best technology for human habitats in space. SpaceX can only succeed in its off-world ambitions with a Universal CO₂ capture technology.

8. Tunable and energy responsive CO₂ concentration in the output. Not every sequestration strategy needs pure CO₂. Accelerated Mineral Weathering, mining waste, alkaline materials.

Thought 2: Exergy destruction is a key consideration for energy-intensive activities.

Pumped Hydropower Storage (PHS) is an energy management system that is very energy efficient, having a round-trip efficiency exceeding 80%. PHS works by pumping water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir when electricity is cheap, and letting that water produce electricity when electricity is more expensive.

Water in the upper reservoir is potential energy, which can be used to produce electricity. This potential energy contributes to a system's exergy. If the potential energy is diminished without doing work, that system's exergy has been destroyed.

The PHS concept works well as long as the water losses are small. Imagine how well the system would work if it were designed to have a large leak. Electricity pumps water against gravity, but the leak allows the water to flow downwards without turning the turbine.

Figure 2 – Exergy destruction is easy

Water flowing through the leak is water that is not producing electricity; it is exergy being destroyed.

Consider the leak being so large that the system is now 10% efficient. This system would be destroying exergy as if it were the mission. This would be an obvious disaster, and the project would never be constructed or funded. A PHS design with a 10% efficiency would never be the basis for scaling PHS systems worldwide.

Today’s synthetic DAC systems, which are being scaled, aspire to be 10% efficient. The efficiency of flue gas CO₂ capture systems is even worse. Exergy destruction by CO₂ capture technologies is real and measurable and must be minimized to achieve our 2050 CDR goals.

Jarvis provided a great explanation of this exergy destruction. That essay is here.

AI Explains Exergy Destruction

Thought 3: No Urgency, but plenty of Incompetence, Indifference, Climate Profiteering, and Greenwashing

Over the past three years, I have sought funding to develop universal CO₂ capture. More than a dozen funding applications have been submitted, including:

• Five to the Biden DOE

• Three to Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV)

• Three to Climate Frontier

• Two to the NSF

• Two to Milkywire.

• One to Microsoft

All applications have been rejected. Blaming the messenger is entirely appropriate, but no one has bothered to ask a single question. No one is curious about the conservation of exergy, thermodynamically optimal CO₂ gas separation and concentration, or how concepts from the molecular biology domain can be used to build a CO₂ capture machine.

All that talk about “1000 shots on goal” and “All hands on deck call for innovation” is just window dressing.

These organizations have their agendas.

The Biden DOE wasted its opportunity to achieve impact by squandering time and money on rewarding “Friends of the Organization.” They prioritized DEI over the pursuit of innovation. Their accomplishments in achieving their Carbon Removal Moonshot can best be described as incompetent or worse.

The Trump DOE is focused on promoting increased coal consumption and is indifferent to the need to reduce CO₂ from coal emissions.

Despite its stated goal of supporting climate innovation, BEV's investments in CO₂ capture technologies, driven by its venture capital model, have arguably prioritized financial gain over the development of truly effective CO₂ capture solutions. They support technologies that are ultimately insufficient in addressing the climate crisis.

The rest of the organizations are greenwashing the public by claiming their efforts help achieve climate goals. The reality is that they are spending money and wasting time on meaningless accomplishments. And yes, removing 100 million tons of CO₂ from the air, over ten to fifteen years, is a worthless gesture when our civilization releases 50 gigatons of greenhouse gases annually.

The climate crisis demands we prioritize long-term impact over short-term optics. Otherwise, future generations will inherit a planet featuring runaway warming and ecological collapse.

Thought 4: AI is accelerating the development of a universal CO₂ capture technology.

Stone, Bronze, Iron, Industrial, Computer age…

This is the dawn of the Artificial Intelligence Age, and these tools will significantly accelerate innovation. Organizations with valuable domain knowledge will be wildly productive and successful within their industries. I work with all the leading AIs (May 2025), so I will refer to these tools as the “J.A.R.V.I.S Collective” or just Jarvis.

In early 2022, I acquired a critical mass of understanding of how a nature-inspired CO₂ capture technology functioned. The initial models were based on materials that did not exist (but could) in topologies that were difficult to produce. I have spent the ensuing years iterating from that impossible point, progressing towards models that can be built.

I think with my hands by building stuff, but I explore in the digital domain by writing software to model physical phenomena. Developing algorithms adapted from the molecular biology domain is challenging. Jarvis has been increasingly helpful in writing the software for my digital laboratory.

Jarvis provides a detailed analysis for each key chemistry in isolation. This “Unit Testing” helps me create the necessary “Proof of Chemistry” experiments.

I have worked with Jarvis to refine the pathways for Model 5 and create a specification document describing the Model 5 CO₂ capture system. All the information is in one document. I then instructed Jarvis to write a software simulator based on this specification. Jarvis produces better software in much less time.

The specification is a living document and will be updated with new ideas and feedback from ongoing efforts. The code generation process will be repeated as necessary and whenever upgraded AI models become available.

AI is the greatest tool in the history of tools, and I am using it to solve a challenging and important problem. Working with Jarvis, I will find the most effective way to implement universal CO₂ capture by repeatedly asking one question: “Given this system that achieves these goals, suggest ways to accomplish the same task, but differently”.

Thought 5: Role-playing with Jarvis as the world’s best qualified physicist, most accomplished molecular biologist, committed to solving the CO₂ gas separation problem.

My above list of metrics defining a universal CO₂ capture technology is a subset of the complete list. The full list, along with a scaffold of prompts and guidance in the form of context, is used to challenge Jarvis to innovate.

Knowing one possible solution to creating a universal, energy-efficient CO₂ capture technology makes me curious about what Jarvis can do to create other Universal CO₂ capture pathways. I frequently ask Jarvis to develop such pathways. So far, Jarvis is limited by the training data. Jarvis makes decisions based on current implementations, popular but flawed metrics, and technically correct but imperfect reasoning (aka The Conundrum). Jarvis is still “Thinking inside the Box”!

Recently, Elon Musk stated that Grok 3.5 is capable of first principles reasoning, emphasizing electrochemistry. This is fantastic! This accomplishment allows Jarvis to innovate beyond the training data. When this reasoning capability is possible, it's “Game Over” for current CDR investments.

From now on, every AI release will be precisely like getting a box of chocolates; the day will be full of joy, excitement, and discovery.

The Point: AI cannot fix stupid

If the researcher is persistent, Jarvis can transform a marginally good idea into a brilliant concept. While AI is a potent tool, thermodynamics is unyielding. AI cannot violate or change the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I have asserted for some time that existing abiotic (or synthetic) CO₂ capture technologies (DAC, point source, Ocean electrochemical, etc.) are based on thermodynamic idiocy caused by poor choice of metrics and implementation timeframes. Calcium looping, as implemented by Heirloom and Carbon Engineering, is fundamentally flawed. Adsorption, as implemented by many organizations, is equally flawed. Aqueous amines used by many to capture CO₂ from flue gases are flawed as well.

These pathways are flawed in the most fundamental, thermodynamic terms. They enthusiastically destroy carbon exergy, and this reality cannot be fixed. No matter how capable AI becomes, it cannot fix the poor thermodynamics underpinning today's CO₂ capture technologies.

A technology founded on optimal thermodynamic principles will survive the test of time, while technologies based on poor thermodynamic principles will be discarded. AI will accelerate this process.

We move towards 2050 every day. The question our civilization faces is this: “When is the best time to abandon thermodynamic idiocy and embrace thermodynamic common sense?”.

Bonus for the investors: Stay safe and wait and watch and keep watching…

Present and future investments into existing CO₂ capture pathways are/will trend towards worthlessness. Smart money will find the greater fool and get out!

I have many essay fragments (unpublished) documenting why today’s popular CO₂ capture pathways (flue gas, air, ocean (especially the ocean), land (biomass), and rock) cannot achieve meaningful scale to achieve the world’s 2050 carbon removal goals. With the arrival of a dominating, universal CO₂ capture technology owned and operated by large organizations like China and Saudi Aramco, these popular pathways will be mostly worthless. Investors should be mindful of how their investments help these large organizations achieve super-gigaton-scale operations.

It is frequently stated in the prompt engineering arenas that your great idea today is subject to the limitations of the following AI iterations. Once AI escapes the training data, there is no proprietary information. This will be challenging for investors in many fields.

Many investors are always proud to note that they do not invest in ideas. They invest in teams that execute. Consider the future happening now: A capable team is working on yesterday’s best CO₂ capture concepts, and a new, more capable AI model is released. Tomorrow’s capable team will be able to work with tomorrow’s dramatically better CO₂ capture concepts. While executing perfectly, the first team’s efforts are obsolete.

How will investors adapt as AI-driven innovation accelerates rapidly?

Investors avoid innovation risk at all costs. Their best strategy appears to be to sit safely on the sidelines until AI stops improving, even if that process takes decades. If so, kiss the 2050 CDR goals goodbye.

The simplest explanation for no urgency: We are past the point of no return.

With aggressive support, universal CO₂ capture could be widely deployed within 10 years for flue gas capture and super-megaton DAC. But there is no urgency.

It may be inappropriate for me to associate leading organizations with Incompetence, Indifference, Climate Profiteering, and Greenwashing. After all, a better explanation is possible. Occam's razor states that among competing explanations, the simplest one is often the most likely to be true.

Organizations such as the DOE, BEV, Frontier, Microsoft, and others are staffed with the brightest minds. They see much more data than most and have teams analyzing it and forecasting the future. These organizations have no sense of urgency and probably concluded a while back that CO₂ removal is a pointless exercise.

1. Our civilization is not reducing CO₂ emissions necessary to achieve meaningful goals.

2. It is increasingly apparent that the damaging forces we have unleashed on our planet are running away (positive feedbacks).

3. The increasing heat and ocean acidification are irreversible.

But acknowledging this reality would be depressing. So, in the spirit of “Keep a stiff upper lip”, they put minimal effort towards developing CDR technologies, knowing full well that there is no hope.

• Michael Landmeier

• President, Biosolar Energy Corporation

• Founder, XCaptureCO2

#CDR, “Carbon Removal”, “CO2 Capture”, “CO2 Removal”, #Aramco , #spacex , #adnoc, #energy

It is a helpful, very detailed explanation, but it is too much for the essay, so I am providing it as supplemental information.

Understanding Exergy in Pumped Hydropower Storage

Introduction to Pumped Hydropower Storage

Pumped hydropower storage is a time-tested solution for balancing electricity supply and demand, often used to store renewable energy from sources like solar and wind. Picture two reservoirs at different elevations: an upper reservoir perched high on a hill and a lower reservoir at its base. During periods of excess electricity, water is pumped from the lower to the upper reservoir, storing energy. When demand spikes, water flows back down through turbines, generating electricity. This system is a cornerstone of grid stability, but its efficiency hinges on a thermodynamic concept called exergy—the maximum useful work a system can perform. Let’s explore exergy and its inevitable loss, known as exergy destruction, using this water-based analogy.

Exergy: The Potential for Useful Work

Exergy measures the maximum work a system can theoretically deliver as it moves toward equilibrium with its surroundings. In pumped hydropower, exergy is embodied in the potential energy of water in the upper reservoir. Imagine 1,000 cubic meters of water sitting 100 meters above the lower reservoir. This height gives the water gravitational potential energy, calculated as mass × gravity × height. For our water, that’s 1,000,000 kg × 9.81 m/s² × 100 m, or roughly 981 MJ (megajoules) of potential energy. This energy represents the exergy—the maximum work the water can do as it flows down through turbines to generate electricity.

But exergy isn’t just energy; it’s the portion of energy that can be converted into useful work. If the upper reservoir were at the same level as the lower one, the water’s potential energy (and thus its exergy) would be zero—it couldn’t do any work by flowing. The greater the height difference, the greater the exergy, because the water has more potential to move and drive a turbine. In thermodynamic terms, exergy depends on the system’s state relative to its environment: the upper reservoir’s elevation creates a “potential gradient” that can be harnessed, much like a battery’s charge or a hot object’s heat can produce work before reaching equilibrium.

Exergy Destruction: Losses Through the Leak

Not all of the water’s exergy can be converted into electricity, because some of it is inevitably lost through a process called exergy destruction. In our system, imagine a pipe connecting the upper reservoir to the lower one, through which water leaks uncontrollably. This leak represents an irreversible process where potential energy is wasted. As water flows through the pipe, it bypasses the turbine, falling 100 meters without generating electricity. The potential energy it had—981 MJ for our 1,000 cubic meters—is dissipated as heat due to friction in the pipe and turbulence as the water splashes into the lower reservoir. This lost potential is exergy destruction: the portion of exergy that can no longer be used for work.

Exergy destruction occurs because of irreversibilities in the system. In thermodynamics, irreversibility is tied to entropy generation—disorder that increases whenever energy is transferred or transformed inefficiently. The leaking water generates entropy as its organized potential energy turns into random heat, lost to the environment. Even in the absence of a leak, exergy destruction happens in pumped hydropower through friction in the turbines, heat losses in the generators, and inefficiencies in the pumping process. For example, if the turbines are only 90% efficient, 10% of the water’s exergy is destroyed as heat, reducing the electricity output. In our case, if 100 cubic meters leak through the pipe, that’s 98.1 MJ of exergy destroyed—work that could have powered homes but instead warms the air and water uselessly.

Analyzing Exergy Loss from the Leak

Let’s examine a worst-case scenario: the leak is so severe that the system operates at only 10% efficiency. This means that of the 981 MJ of exergy initially stored in the 1,000 cubic meters of water, only 10%—or 98.1 MJ—is converted into electricity via the turbines. The remaining 90%, or 882.9 MJ, is lost as exergy destruction, primarily through the leak. To understand this in terms of water volume, if each cubic meter has 0.981 MJ of potential energy (981 MJ ÷ 1,000 m³), then 882.9 MJ corresponds to approximately 900 cubic meters leaking through the pipe (882.9 MJ ÷ 0.981 MJ/m³). Only 100 cubic meters flow through the turbines to generate the 98.1 MJ of electricity.

This massive exergy loss highlights the devastating impact of the leak. The 882.9 MJ of destroyed exergy becomes heat, dissipated through friction in the pipe and turbulence in the lower reservoir, contributing to entropy generation. In practical terms, this means 90% of the system’s potential to support the grid is wasted. For renewable energy integration, such inefficiency is catastrophic: the lost 882.9 MJ could have powered thousands of homes, reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Instead, we’d need to burn more coal or gas to make up the shortfall, emitting additional CO2 and worsening ocean acidification. This scenario underscores the critical need to minimize exergy destruction through better design, such as sealing leaks and improving turbine efficiency.

Implications for Efficiency and Climate Goals

Exergy destruction directly reduces the system’s efficiency, as seen in the extreme case above. In a more typical scenario, without such a drastic leak, we might extract 800 MJ of work from the 981 MJ of exergy, achieving 81% efficiency. But even these smaller losses matter because pumped hydropower is critical for storing renewable energy, helping us reduce CO2 emissions. Every megajoule of exergy destroyed means more fossil fuel energy needed to fill the gap, accelerating climate change and ocean acidification. By minimizing leaks—both literal and metaphorical, like turbine inefficiencies—we can preserve more exergy, making the system more sustainable. Understanding and mitigating exergy destruction isn’t just about physics; it’s about ensuring renewable energy systems can scale to meet urgent climate goals.

Conclusion

Pumped hydropower storage illustrates exergy through the potential energy of water in an upper reservoir, poised to do work as it flows downward. Exergy destruction, visualized as water leaking through a pipe, shows how irreversibilities like friction and entropy generation rob us of useful work, converting potential into wasted heat—a loss that becomes stark at 10% efficiency, where 90% of the exergy is destroyed. These concepts are crucial for designing efficient energy systems, especially as we race to decarbonize the grid. By grasping exergy, we can better appreciate the value of energy quality—not just quantity—and work to minimize losses, ensuring technologies like pumped hydropower can help us combat climate change effectively.

This essay will explore what appears to be a neglected analysis of CO₂ gas separation technologies: CO₂ capture from flue gas and from the air.  This analysis closely relates to developing a conceptual nature-inspired CO₂ gas separation technology.

But first, some people, like the Godfather, prefer to hear bad news up front. So, here it is. Everyone to whom I have introduced it over the past 18 months has rejected the concept driving this essay. This includes NSF (twice), Breakthrough Energy Ventures (twice), Milkywire (twice), DOE (three times), FrontierClimate (once), and a few others. These funding audiences continue to support CO₂ gas separation processes that maintain the status quo and disrespect both common sense and the laws of thermodynamics. They prefer this concept to remain science fiction permanently.

Nothing presented here is peer-reviewed. However, the technology underlying this essay was developed during my nine-year investigation of the molecular biology of living organisms and their ability to acquire and manage environmental CO₂.  This effort allowed me to develop an understanding of how the strategies, chemistries, and technologies of living organisms manipulate CO₂ with little energy.  I also studied most other CO₂ capture technologies and am generally knowledgeable about our technological civilization.

My study of living organisms focused on ocean-dwelling organisms such as kelp, diatoms, and Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). After 3.8 billion years of evolution, living organisms properly manage exergy while acquiring CO₂ from the environment. Living in a light-attenuated underwater environment, Cyanobacteria preserve and harness feed exergy, which is crucial for their survival and the propagation of their species.  I have successfully modeled a CO₂ gas separation technology based on the biochemistry of living organisms, such as Cyanobacteria.

This nature-inspired CO₂ gas separation technology was validated by the success of the Moonshot program. The DOE is using the Moonshot's success to promote its work to decarbonize our fossil fuel-dependent civilization. The amazingly successful Moonshot required many innovations, chief of which was the development of the multi-stage Saturn V rocket and the Apollo spacecraft. The Saturn V is a visible demonstration of success, and that success is because of the rocket’s ability to properly manage exergy and implement staging.

With this experience, I can now ask one unexpected question: What do Cyanobacteria and the Saturn V rocket have in common? I assert they both fully respect the laws of thermodynamics and properly manage exergy.

I have four claims to present;

1.       Current CO₂ gas separation technologies are awful because they destroy the carbon exergy of the feed.

2.       The destruction of exergy during the gas separation process prevents staging.

3.       Staging is critical to significantly reducing the energy required to remove CO₂ from gas mixtures. Successful staging will dramatically reduce the energy necessary for CO₂ separation from cement, coal, biomass, and methane flue gases. It will also dramatically reduce the energy necessary for arbitrarily scalable, gigaton-plus CO₂ Direct Air Capture.

4.       CO₂ gas separation will not be successful until the capture technologies are more like Cyanobacteria and the Saturn V rocket. They must respect thermodynamics and properly manage exergy.

So, what is exergy?

I asked Microsoft Copilot (ai) this question and received this answer.  The answer is very long and detailed, but here is the first paragraph.

“Exergy, often referred to as “available energy” or “useful work potential,” is a fundamental concept in the field of thermodynamics and engineering. It is crucial for understanding and quantifying the quality of energy within a system and its potential to perform useful work. Exergy represents the maximum work that can be obtained from a system as it reaches equilibrium with its environment through an ideal process.”

This answer is quite common and often involves analyzing how much work can be performed from heat energy. While this answer is long, I suspect it is also abbreviated.  The total answer included elements that I disagree with.

The following definition of exergy is the centerpiece of my favorite exergy-centric document.

Lecture 5 Exergy.pdf (mit.edu)

Figure 1 (from Page 24).

Figure 2 (from Page 25).

The authoring professor presents the exergy definition in an unusual way. The slide on page 24 shows a simple definition of exergy that aligns well with the AI definition of exergy. Interestingly, the professor uses the next page to expand the definition of exergy. I don’t know the professor’s reasoning for presenting the definition this way, but it appears that the first definition is commonly known while the 2^nd definition is somewhat ignored.

The second part of this definition is critical to my work and this analysis. However, understanding these definitions in their entirety is a bit challenging. I spent countless hours working to understand the concept, and then, after a task switch, I found I needed to start over to learn it again. Doing this a few times caused me to develop a helpful mnemonic.

So, here is Mike’s Working Definition of Exergy

1.       Exergy is that which you have that helps you achieve a goal.

2.       Exergy is situational relative to a goal.

3.       What you have are the components of the reference, and the system is the goal.

To complete the definition of exergy, I include the following information.  The exergy of a system is the sum of various kinds of exergy, including physical, chemical, kinetic, and potential, given as

      E_x = E^PH + E^CH + E^KN + E^PT                                                                                                EQ1

Exergy is the maximum useful work that can be extracted from a system. For instance, a $100 bill has exergy.  In this case, the reference is the $100 bill, and a goal like purchasing a $1000 TV set is the system. The “useful work” it can do is its purchasing power - the goods or services it can buy. Like exergy, the $100 bill can be used efficiently or wasted. If you use it wisely, you can get goods or services that are valuable to you. This is like a system using its exergy efficiently to do useful work. However, if you waste the $100 bill, say by burning it, you destroy all its exergy. The opportunity to use it for something useful is lost, just like when energy is wasted in a system; its exergy decreases.

Also, how you use this $100 bill can affect how much ‘work’ you extract from it. For example, if you’re feeling cold, you could burn the $100 bill for heat, but it would only provide a small amount of heat for a short time. If, instead, you used the $100 to buy a blanket or a heater, you could stay warm for a much longer time. This is an example of managing exergy efficiently. So, the $100 bill is a good metaphor for understanding exergy - it represents potential that can be used efficiently, wasted, or mismanaged.  I use a three-state analysis (Figure 3) to visualize this mismanagement and destruction of exergy, which has an additional nothing state rather than the traditional two-state exergy description.

Figure 3 – Helpful exergy analysis mnemonic.

The nothing state has nothing or extremely little that helps achieve the goal. These three states allow us to easily quantify the exergy we have.

Discussing exergy is always challenging.  Directly discussing exergy management of CO₂ gas separation technologies is beyond challenging. I need to build a less technical foundation to properly explain exergy management using today's CO₂ capture technologies.  So, I have created a simple demonstration to help everyone understand the issues. 

For the following exergy analysis, it is essential to understand that CO₂ in a gas mixture or water in a cup is chemical exergy (referred to in EQ1).  This is generally not obvious because neither CO₂ nor water have heat exergy (like a fuel). Nevertheless, they are both capable of doing work under the right circumstances.  Depending on the goal, they are both things we have relative to our goal.

The following exergy discussion is simplistic, silly, and intentionally antagonistic.  It is also very useful.

Is a cup of 20C water exergy?  Once again, it depends on the goal.  If we want one cup of sugar, the cup of water has no exergy.

However, if our goal is to have 2 cups of 90C water, then our cup of 20C water is helpful.  We have half the required mass and a good amount of heat.

Our friend, the rocket scientist, demonstrates one possible strategy to accomplish our goal.

The rocket scientist has a cup of 20C water and wants two cups of 90C water. He consults his rocket scientist manual, which states that step 1 is to conserve exergy. The rocket scientist uses a second cup and fills it with 10C water from a faucet. He again consults his rocket scientist manual, which states that the next step is to manage entropy carefully. He puts both cups of water into a pan and puts it on the stove. He adds heat until the water has a temperature of 90C.   Goal accomplished! The following analysis diagram (Figure 4) summarizes the above process.

Figure 4 – Exergy changes to accomplish the goal.

Figure 5 - “Magic Teacup Ride” at Disneyland.

This example is simple enough. A simple plot (Figure 5) shows that exergy and entropy gently transition from the starting point to the endpoint. In roller coaster terms, this is the “Magic Teacup Ride” at Disneyland, a favorite for all 5-year-old children.

Thermodynamics forces us to realize that there are real limits to how well a process may perform. However, thermodynamics does not limit how poorly a process may perform.

Our friend, the chemical engineer, will demonstrate such a bad process.

The chemical engineer has a cup of 20C water and wants two cups of 90C water. He consults his chemical engineer manual, which states that step 1 is to destroy exergy. The chemical engineer dumps the water onto the floor, creating a mess and contaminating the water. He uses energy to clean up the mess and then uses two cups to get two cups of 10C water from the faucet.  He consults his chemical engineer manual again, which states that step 2 is to mismanage entropy.

He first uses energy to reduce the temperature of the two cups of water from 10C to 0C.  He then uses energy to turn the 0C water into 0C ice (a solid).  He then uses energy to heat the 0C ice into 0C water.

Are we back on track?  Of course not.

He then uses energy to warm 0C water to 100C, overshooting the temperature goal.  Then, he uses energy to turn 100C water into 100C steam (gas).  He then uses energy to chill the 100C steam into 100C water.

Finally, he uses energy to chill the 100C water to 90C—a mission accomplished in true chemical engineer fashion.

Figure 6 – Thermodynamics places no limits on bad processes.

A simple plot (Figure 6) shows that exergy and entropy both experienced a wild ride from the starting point to the endpoint. In roller coaster terms, this is the Valravn Dive Coaster, shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Valravn Dive Coaster at Cedar Point.

This rollercoaster ride is terrifying, even for rollercoaster enthusiasts. Five-year-old children are generally crying before the ride even begins.

*** Interestingly, rollercoasters like this manage exergy fairly well, as they routinely transform electrical energy into potential exergy and then into kinetic exergy and often back to potential exergy. Exergy is destroyed by braking, which turns kinetic energy into heat. ***

As demonstrated here, the destruction of exergy and mismanagement of entropy is absurd.  Unfortunately, the destruction of exergy and mismanagement of entropy shown in this example using cups of water highly correlate to many of today’s leading CO₂ gas separation technologies.  CO₂ flue gas capture projects are routinely canceled after billions of dollars are spent, with chemical engineering managers declaring, ”The technology works! It’s just not cost-effective.” This example illustrates why today’s CO₂ gas separation technologies are not cost-effective.

Properly managing exergy is critical to accomplishing energy-intensive tasks. Rocket scientists provide one of the best examples of exergy management, as demonstrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8 – One of the greatest managers of exergy.  First place belongs to Cyanobacteria.

The Saturn V/ Apollo spacecraft is among the best examples demonstrating the successful management of exergy.  At the instant of first-stage ignition, all the exergy (useable system work) necessary to complete the mission is contained within the rocket. This includes the exergy required to send a large mass (47 tons, containing three men) into low earth orbit, leave earth orbit, travel to the moon, enter moon orbit, separate the LEM, deliver two men to the surface of the moon, have a crew stage leave the moon’s surface and rejoin the command module, leave the moon’s orbit, travel back to earth, renter the earth’s atmosphere and then land safely back on the earth’s surface.

The entire mission, from start to finish, is completed without refueling.  Exergy is a critical resource, so properly managing exergy is a primary design consideration for every aspect of the mission.

Figure 9 – Vertical Rocket

A vertical rocket on a launch pad is demonstrated in the following image (Figure 9).  At lift-off, the bulk of the rocket’s exergy is chemical exergy contained in the fuel.  The earth’s rotation causes a small amount of kinetic exergy.

Once the first stage is ignited, chemical exergy is converted into thermal exergy, which is then converted into kinetic exergy. Finally, some of the kinetic exergy is converted into potential exergy. During the launch, the bulk of the chemical exergy is used to overcome various losses, including Aerodynamic Drag, Engine Efficiency, Incomplete Combustion, Fuel Gravity Drag, Jettisoned Stages, and Radiation Losses. These losses are unavoidable in achieving the goal of getting the payload into orbit. 

However, some chemical exergy is converted into kinetic and potential exergy in the payload. Each stage operates sequentially and transfers some chemical exergy to the payload, propelling the payload into orbit.

For the moon mission, the orbiting payload’s kinetic and potential exergy, supplemented by additional chemical exergy, is used to travel to the moon and back.

The critical point here is that transferring exergy during a complicated, energy-intensive process eventually provides options to use that exergy to do useful work (achieve goals). Destroying exergy denies the opportunity to use that exergy and accomplish a goal.

Chemical engineers would design a rocket very differently. They would prioritize exergy destruction using principles adopted from CO₂ gas separation technologies.  Chemical engineers would develop the horizontal rocket, as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 – Horizontal Rocket

The horizontal rocket destroys exergy by

1.       Turning chemical exergy (fuel) into heat.

2.       Not doing work on the subsequent stages and payload.

3.       Failing to transfer the rocket’s chemical exergy into kinetic and potential exergy of the payload.

Once again, the horizontal rocket is a silly concept that obviously does not and will never work.  Unfortunately, today’s CO₂ gas separation technologies have much in common with this horizontal rocket.

While the Saturn V consumes a lot of feed exergy, that's the job. Despite the significant exergy losses, it successfully transfers enough exergy to the Apollo spacecraft to complete the moon mission. In contrast, today's CO₂ gas separation technologies destroy feed exergy, usually by step 3.

My study of CO₂ management chemistries has convinced me that properly managing exergy is the key to managing CO₂.  Living organisms do not use 900C calciners or waste heat. Their chemistry is fundamentally energy efficient. 

This narrative leads to the point of this essay.  The destruction of exergy prevents successful staging.  Without staging, massive payloads are not delivered into low-earth orbit. Without staging, the CO₂ capture performance shown in Figures 11 and 12 is impossible.

Figure 11 – Partial Pressure Staging -- Permanent Science Fiction?

Figure 12 – Cost-effective, profitable CDR credits -- Not going to happen.

The exergy demonstration using water is neither arbitrary nor random.  It was carefully constructed to correlate highly with today’s best CO₂ gas separation technologies.  That analysis shows why today’s CO₂ DAC technologies need more than 4 GJ/tCO₂ to complete 0.43 GJ/tCO₂ tasks.  Exergy destruction of about 1.1 GJ/tCO₂ is a significant reason the required energy is so great.  Exergy destruction during flue gas capture is even worse because the feeds have more exergy.  Performance this poor is not accidental and does not get fixed. 

Continued public funding of these technologies is a social welfare program for engineers and scientists seeking to get paid.  Public funding of these poor technologies pays smart people to do stupid things.

We should develop a CO₂ gas separation technology that manages CO₂ in a way comparable to Cyanobacteria.   What's the worst that can happen? If CO₂ gas separation technologies managed exergy as carefully as Cyanobacteria and the Saturn V rocket, policymakers would have a tremendous variety of options to solve the excess CO₂ problem. Furthermore, a dramatically cheaper CO₂ capture technology will greatly benefit the emerging e-fuel and carbon utilization industries.

Someday, someone (#SpaceX, #NASA, DOD) will actually need an energy-efficient CO₂ gas separation technology. That will be a good time for the developing engineers to begin respecting common sense and the laws of thermodynamics.  Just say no to continued Thermodynamic Idiocy.

“This is the CO₂ capture technology you’re looking for!”, apologies to Star Wars.

When the technology underlying this essay is developed by whomever, most existing CO₂ capture / CO₂ gas separation approaches become obsolete.

Technical pitch deck

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uc7y7S_QLVt2YlZL8QUWnEoSp7zLyMY2/view?usp=sharing

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Nikita Chaudhary for helpful comments on a draft of this essay.

[i] Why Direct Air Capture Sucks (and not in a good way!) | LinkedIn