Louisiana has invested billions of dollars in carbon capture technology in the past few years, and the state’s first direct air capture project has just been announced. Project Cypress, looking to take $603 million in federal funding, was funded through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the investment in CO2 capture systems can bring hundreds of jobs and millions to billions of dollars to Louisiana. It was also encouraged by the Inflation Reduction Act, which increased tax credits for carbon or direct air capture technology. The project has a mission of tackling Louisiana’s carbon emissions, as the state tends to score around the top five states in the country in regards to the most CO2 released. Although it is important to decrease Louisiana’s emissions, some argue that direct air capture is less efficient than is warranted by its costs.

While carbon capture focuses on filtering CO2 from power plant emissions, direct air capture separates CO2 from the atmosphere. Direct air capture works by using large fans to pull ambient air into a filtration system. The air passes through an absorbent that bonds to the CO2, which is then isolated with either heat or a vacuum, then either sequestered or repurposed. While air capture systems use solid absorbents, carbon capture uses liquid solvents comprised of two aspects: one that absorbs CO2, and one that strips it from the solvent and creates a condensed stream of CO2.

Although direct air capture technology seems appealing, it has received some criticism on several fronts. Even though there’s more CO2 in the air than during the Industrial Revolution, carbon capture requires less energy because it filters an area that has a higher concentration of CO2. On top of that, in 2018, Louisiana released between 211-219 million tons of GHGs, and Project Cypress is only expected to sequester one million tons each year. Additionally, most air capture systems have used more energy and captures less carbon than advertised, and the chemicals involved in filtration are toxic.

Despite these shortcomings, though, we are only seeing the beginning of this technology, which can play a huge part in reducing the effects of global warming if the technology advances, which won’t happen if it’s not being invested in. That being said, it is argued that the money spent on carbon capture technology should instead be invested in clean energy, so the carbon won’t be released in the first place.

I’m doing an essay about CATF for English, and I found this article while looking through the website. Although I didn’t include this information in my essay, I thought it was interesting enough to do a Synopsis on, especially since I’d hardly touched on carbon capture in any prior posts.

To access this article, I copy-and-pasted what I could from the post and refreshed the page every time it told me I had to pay to continue. It didn’t say that wasn’t allowed!

Also hooray on Synopsis 50! Pretty crazy I’ve been doing this for so long, and really crazy that I’ll be doing it for like five more… at least. But I don’t really mind; I’ve learned a lot from it and I like that I’ve been making an effort on my own to educate myself. I’m proud of my consistency and excited to see how much I’ll learn!

Anyway, thanks for tuning in again this week! I think I’ll do another edition of Education in Epidemiology next week, so stay tuned to learn with me!

writer, R. S. | S. (2023, August 21). An explainer on direct air capture and carbon capture, and why both are growing in Louisiana. The Advocate. https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/business/an-explainer-on-direct-air-capture-and-carbon-capture-and-why-both-are-growing-in/article_959846ba-3b9b-11ee-a6ea-cb640e445385.html