CO2 sequestering - A great Win Win!

For each ton of microalgae-based protein produced, 4 ton of CO2. is sequestered. 

For each ton of beef protein replaced 110 tons of CO2. is not emitted into the air. 

​

Water Usage

We use mainly saline water that is recycled. Just a fraction of the volumes needed for open raceway ponds is used. 

​

Land Usage

No arable land will be used for our production. Our objective is to produce as close to consumption as possible in urban areas. 

 

Carbon Capture Utilazation

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Microalgae cultivation offers the best CO2 reduction per dollar invested. Its adaptability to any climate zone and versatility in applications further enhance its attractiveness as a sustainable and cost-effective solution for large-scale CO2 utilization.

Our units can be installed near any carbon capture industry. Since the carbon is captured from combustion fumes, excess waste heat is often available.

The supply of free CO2 and low-priced electricity will further reduce the already low operating expenses (OPEX).

​

Comparison with Other Methods

Carbonate Mineralization
•    Pros - Permanent CO2 sequestration, sustainable building materials.
•    Cons - High energy requirements, significant infrastructure investment.
•    Cost-Effectiveness - High initial costs and energy use may limit cost-effectiveness compared to microalgae cultivation.

E-Fuels
•    Pros - Renewable alternative to fossil fuels, compatible with existing infrastructure.
•    Cons - High production costs, significant energy requirements.
•    Cost-Effectiveness - Currently expensive, making it less cost-effective per dollar spent on CO2 reduction.

Biochar (Soil Amendment)
•    Pros - Enhances soil health, long-term carbon sequestration.
•    Cons - High production costs, potential emissions during production.
•    Cost-Effectiveness - Initial costs and market adoption barriers make it less competitive in CO2 reduction per dollar compared to microalgae.

Deep Storage Under Bedrock
•    Pros - Permanent CO2 sequestration, large capacity.
•    Cons - High costs, potential leakage risks, regulatory and public acceptance issues.
•    Cost-Effectiveness - Significant costs and technical challenges reduce its cost-effectiveness per dollar spent.

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
•    Pros - Economic incentive through increased oil production, proven technology.
•    Cons - Extends fossil fuel use, limited CO2 sequestration focus.
•    Cost-Effectiveness - While economically viable, it primarily supports fossil fuel extraction, limiting its overall CO2 reduction impact.
 

​