Direct air capture is infamous for its power appetite, but DACLab claims that it can suck carbon dioxide out of the sky using less electricity than many of its rivals — and at lower-temperature heat. The company says stripping kilowatt-hours from each ton of CO2 will open the door to cheaper, more scalable removal in locations where clean electricity is hard to find or expensive.
The pitch comes at a time when energy usage is the bottleneck for carbon removal. Industry-standard values range from about 1.5–2.0 MWh of electricity per tonne of CO2 for contactors and compression, plus an additional one or two megawatt-hours of low‑grade heat to complete regeneration (varying by process). When those numbers drop, costs usually do, too.
Inside DACLab’s divided-structure LTSR system design
Most solid-sorbent systems adsorb CO2 and then desorb in a common module to minimize capital expense. DACLab takes an alternative approach: it decouples the air contactor from the regeneration unit. That division — it was picked up from point-source capture technology used in the industrial world — enables the company to optimize each stage and deliver lower-grade heat, around 70°C, to the desorption portion of its system, Smith said.
The design heritage stems from TU Wien in Austria, where a point-source system, developed with partner Shell, is said to have run at full power for almost three years. DACLab ported that know-how to ambient air, where CO2 is just 420 parts per million and the humidity, dust, and temperature swings — unlike in flue gas — all differently fatigue sorbents.
Two 100‑ton‑per‑year units have been constructed, and the company is developing 1,000‑ and 5,000‑ton versions. The smaller commercial unit costs less than $500,000; the next‑scale model is destined for Washington State, and the 5,000‑ton system is intended to be built in Kenya. The sites suggest the company’s strategy: couple flexible thermal needs with clean heat or power where that is available.
Why we care more than ever how much electricity you use
To support all that equipment, electricity is typically the most expensive line item in DAC operations. Blowers need to force large amounts of air through contactors, and compressing to CO2 pressures that are pipeline-ready can require a lot of energy. Both the International Energy Agency and U.S. Department of Energy observe that parasitic loads from fans, pumps, and compression will be the primary cost driver if heat is obtained cheaply.
DACLab’s bifurcated system tackles these OPEX drivers on two fronts. The contactor, separated from the regeneration module, can reduce pressure drop in the air path, reducing blower electricity. Second, regeneration occurs at ~70°C, so the heat supply can be industrial waste heat, solar thermal, district heating, and high‑coefficient‑of‑performance heat pumps. So long as you are getting your heat from somewhere outside the box, the burden of electricity on location can be reduced while the total energy (electric plus thermal) is still in a similar ballpark.
The company’s goal is to use less than 1,000 kWh of electricity per ton of CO2 and have the rest in low‑grade heat. For reference, industry figures today are roughly 1–2 MWh of electricity and a few MWh of heat at 80–120°C per ton, with considerable variation depending on design, ambient conditions, and integration choices; these ranges come from public disclosures and estimates. Reducing the electrical fraction also enhances siting flexibility and may attenuate grid impacts as the sector grows.
Cost curve, customers and competitors for DACLab’s tech
DACLab estimates that pushing electricity down below a megawatt‑hour and using cheap low-temperature heat could get capture costs down to about $250 per ton when the system is scaled. That’s still above the U.S. 45Q storage credit for DAC but much lower than many durable-removal transactions in the market today; some recent corporate and consortia deals have cleared between $600 and $1,200 per ton, according to market trackers.
Target customers are oil and gas operators looking to procure an injection volume, carbon project developers assembling a sequestration portfolio, and e‑fuel producers in search of a reliable and verifiable CO2 stream. There are complementary use cases elsewhere, too: the Kenya project could connect with geothermal heat from the Rift Valley, for instance; Washington’s hydro-heavy grid provides comparatively low‑carbon electricity to power compressors and pumps.
Competition is intense. Climeworks has scaled modular solid-sorbent plants with heat-driven regeneration; that of Carbon Engineering uses a high-temperature calciner with substantial thermal input and lower electricity use. Global Thermostat also tried a split approach before its assets were auctioned off. The implication from the field is simple: smart thermodynamics needs to be complemented by robust sorbents, low pressure drop, and high uptime if it is going to land on achievable costs.
Validation will rely on independent energy audits
To distinguish promise from proof, buyers and policymakers will demand third‑party measures of energy use in joules per net ton delivered to storage, sorbent life across thousands of cycles, and capacity factors over full seasons. Verification frameworks in forums such as the IEA, ISO bodies, and established carbon registries can offer the accounting rigour markets are now calling for.
DACLab’s statement that it won’t market $100‑per‑ton capture “today” is a breath of fresh air in a field that has oversold in the past. The next installations, in Washington State and Kenya, should signal whether its low‑temperature, split‑system design can routinely deliver lower electricity use at commercial scale — and if that equates to the step-change costs and siting flexibility that the DAC market desperately requires.