A pilot plant, Carbon Engineering, may be operational by next summer

David Keith’s pilot plant, Carbon Engineering, may be operational by next summer.

A rendering of David Keith’s proposed modular carbon-capture plant; he says such plants will not solve the carbon emissions problem.

A rendering of David Keith’s proposed modular carbon-capture plant; he says such plants will not solve the carbon emissions problem. | Rendering courtesy of Carbon Engineering Ltd.

David Keith founded a company, Carbon Engineering, in 2009, while he held the Canada Research Chair in energy and the environment at the University of Calgary, to capture carbon and use it to develop low-carbon fuels, among other projects. (He launched it with $3.5 million from a group of angel investors that included Bill Gates.) The pilot plant, which he expects to be operational by next summer, should capture a modest 1,000 tons of carbon per year, roughly the amount generated by the activities of 50 average Americans in 12 months. Eventually the company expects to sell the CO2 it captures for applications such as enhanced oil recovery (oil companies would use the gas to force oil out of the ground) and the production of algae-based biofuels. A commercial-scale plant built with this technology might capture up to 100,000 tons of CO2 a year, but Keith stresses that his is a small company with a new technology. “Anyone who knows anything about carbon and energy knows that there isn’t any one magic bullet,” he says. “We’re not trying to solve the world’s climate problems.”

He is careful to separate his efforts on behalf of his company from his academic work. Not only does he see carbon capture and solar geoengineering as technologies with very different risks and costs, he’s also conscious of critics who have suggested that he aims to profit from his aerosol-reflector research. In fact, he has lobbied in Washington to outlaw patents on sun-blocking technologies. Because such global-scale climate solutions can have a dramatic effect on the planet, Keith says, “I think this is a bit like nuclear weapons, and there should be no for-profit work.”

Related topics

You might also like

When Government Funding Dropped, Harvard Found Partners

The University is expanding industry ties and investing its own funds to support research, but neither will replace lost federal dollars.

To Promote Healthy Habits in Patients, Start With the Doctors

Why Harvard Medical School is training physicians to think more like coaches

Harvard Couple Aim to Cure Prion Diseases

The stakes are high for this husband and wife: one of them will die if they don’t find a cure.

Most popular

How Philosophy at Harvard Saved Itself

As humanities shrink across higher education, one department is flourishing. Is its success a fluke, or a roadmap?

Three Harvard Alumni and a Former Postdoc Named MacArthur Fellows

A labor economist, an organic chemist, a physicist, and a memory researcher were honored with 2026 “genius” grants.

Harvard Stabilizes Finances With Strong Endowment Returns, Philanthropy

Small operating surplus is dwarfed by reduced federal research support and endowment tax liabilities.

Explore More From Current Issue

Illuminated hanging sculptures resembling organic forms, casting warm light in a dim space.

Artists Enzo Camacho and Ami Lien turn a colonial symbol from Cambodia inside out.

Two fans celebrate in front of a TV showing a football game.

Researchers at Harvard Kennedy School say yes.

A man with a long beard and formal attire stands next to a chalkboard with an equation.

Two tales of University greats—and an encounter with a Tiger