Hacker News

← Back

Launch HN: Heimdal (YC S21) – Carbon neutral cement

54 comments¡3 hours ago

Hi HN, I’m Marcus, I’m the co-founder of Heimdal together with Erik (https://www.heimdalccu.com/). We remove atmospheric carbon dioxide and trap it in materials that are used to make cement. More CO2 is trapped in our process than is re-emitted in cement production.

Concrete is responsible for 8% of global CO2 emissions. Cement is usually made from mined limestone, which is one of the largest natural stores of carbon dioxide. Using that to make cement is a bit like burning oil. The world is addicted to concrete, so this problem is not going away. We make synthetic limestone using atmospheric CO2, such that when it is used to make cement, the process is carbon neutral.

We were both master's students in engineering at Oxford University in the UK. I decided to write my dissertation on direct air capture of CO2. While looking through existing solutions it struck me that none were sufficient. They all operated a circular process that left them with gaseous CO2 that needed to be stored somewhere. A circular process is one that uses a sorbent to trap atmospheric CO2 but then re-releases the trapped CO2 as a pure gas stream to regenerate the sorbent for re-use. We don't have enough high-quality cheap stores of CO2 to justify such an approach. Storage must be permanent and safe. We realized that by taking a linear approach, we both make the process of capturing CO2 profitable and avoid the problem of where to store the CO2. We make sorbents for trapping CO2 in the form of mineral carbonates, these compounds are inert and trap CO2 for millions of years. They can also be commercialized as raw materials for making building materials including glass and concrete. In one step we solve three key problems of carbon capture: 1. How to trap CO2 energy efficiently 2. How to store the CO2 3. How to make money while doing all this.

Specifically, we use renewable electricity to extract dissolved oceanic CO2 as mineral carbonates of calcium and magnesium by contacting seawater with our proprietary alkaline sorbent. These mineral carbonates are important ingredients in cement as well as other building materials. The undersaturated ocean then re-absorbs an amount of atmospheric CO2 equivalent to the amount we removed when reacting with our sorbent. Effectively, the world’s oceans become our air contactor.

There are other companies addressing emissions from concrete production, but they don’t address the unavoidable process emission from the raw materials used in concrete. Start-ups in this space have so far focused on curing concrete with CO2 at the end of the production process. These are great solutions that can create low-carbon cement, however they’ll never get to carbon neutral cement that the world needs. The 70% of emissions from production are not being tackled by anyone on the market today. Until now concrete producers have favoured capturing emissions at the point where they’re released as their “2050-solution”, ie. in the distant future. Point source carbon capture can expensively capture 80-90% of emissions. This solution has the same problem as circular DAC solutions where a method of permanent CO2 storage is needed. There is a trial $3B (!) project in Norway to pump CO2 into empty gas fields at a cost of ~$1000/tCO2. This is expensive and complicated engineering. On the other hand, all we need is renewable electricity and seawater.

We make money from selling synthetic limestone to cement producers and commercializing parallel byproducts including green hydrogen and desalinated water. We also generate carbon credits from our process. We are currently negotiating with concrete producers to decarbonize their limestone supply. Response has so far been very positive with multiple LOIs signed with producers across Europe. We are also working with a construction company to build the world’s first carbon neutral houses this decade. We are currently building a demo plant just outside Oxford. It has the capacity to remove and store 1 tonne of CO2 per year. We will use this plant to make enough product that we can deliver to our commercial partners to confirm compatibility with their manufacturing set-up. Following successful testing, we will scale this up to replace all of global limestone mining; currently >2 billion tonnes of limestone per year.

We're excited to hear any thoughts, insights, questions, encouragement and concerns in the comments below! Erik and I will be monitoring the thread over the course of today to answer any questions. Also feel free to reach out to me by email at Marcus.lima@heimdalccu.com.

a minute ago by skohan

Very cool project!

A couple questions:

1. How does your synthetic limestone compare to natural limestone? Are there any important performance differences in terms of the material properties of the resulting concrete?

2. What are the biggest bottlenecks/obstacles in terms of scaling this to the point it could replace a significant portion of natural limestone used today?

7 minutes ago by brilee

I'm not sure I understand where the carbon savings comes from.

The cement industry specifically needs lime, CaO. Lime is most easily obtained by burning CO2 off of limestone, CaCO3. As you point out, this is effectively "burning off" captured carbon dioxide and is bad.

Where does the carbon savings come from when the ultimate destination is to just burn CO2 off and make the actual desired product, CaO? Is this process ultimately just a better way to make CaO?

2 minutes ago by marcuslima

Yep, exactly! The world needs CaO for cement. We have a carbon neutral process for making it. It's actually overall negative as not all carbonates we extract are usable in cement production. But as far as cement producers are concerned it's carbon neutral.

2 hours ago by matsemann

Curious about the name, my immediate thought (and interest making me click in) was that it sounds Norwegian. Any connection?

I really like the idea. One thing I'm curious about is what's in it for the contractors (edit: cement producers) buying from you instead of others? I get the environmental impact, but my guess is they only care if touches their bottom line. Will it be cheaper, either in raw price or because of green incentives etc?

2 hours ago by marcuslima

Nice catch! I'm orignally from Norway. Heimdal is the norse god of foresight. Something the world needs in buckets when it comes to climate change.

Our experience so far has been that the environmental angle has been sufficient to persuade. Cement companies are in a bit of a bind given the attention to their sustainability efforts. However we're pitching ourselves as a cost competitive solution. Depending on geography we'll be able to positively affect their bottom line through the carbon credits system. Under the European ETS for example, they reward companies that reduce emissions (https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/...)

4 minutes ago by jedberg

> Nice catch! I'm orignally from Norway. Heimdal is the norse god of foresight.

I figured you guys just like Marvel movies. :)

a minute ago by marcuslima

They're pretty good too ;)

2 hours ago by matsemann

Cool. Yeah, maybe the old way of making cement will be too expensive in the future compared to a greener way. Good luck with your first mover attempt!

Another curious question: Do you make an "actual" limestone, or what is the final output? A rock, chalk, mudlike or something?

2 hours ago by marcuslima

Thanks! Yeah, we think it will be. But more importantly, the old way isn't a viable option. It's effectively off the table. Sweden has already banned mining of limestone (https://www.ribaj.com/products/cementa-limestone-mine-suspen...) The product comes out as a really finely ground powder

37 minutes ago by bernulli

I think it's a bit late for foresight, maybe Cassandra (is there a Norse equivalent?) is a more apt description of the situation we are in ;-)

Good luck, great idea, hope it works out!

19 minutes ago by _joel

I thought it was something Kerberos related initially, but that's only due to the fairly mundane circles I move in :)

31 minutes ago by Aachen

Did I correctly understand the idea if I summarise the product as similar to Climeworks, capturing atmospheric CO2 (indirectly through the ocean, same thing in the end), but with the difference that you can sell the resulting product as cement ingredients (plus some byproducts) rather than it being just stored away like Climeworks does?

If this is (roughly) correct, what price point per ton of removed CO2 are you at today, assuming the cement ingredients can be sold at an optimistic price point? I'm currently with Climeworks but it's prohibitively expensive to remove all unavoidable emissions that I cause by living a normal life today, so my subscription doesn't cover all emissions yet and I would love to.

Finally, I don't see a way to buy anything on your site, or even a waiting list. Is there some call to action, like if I were a cement producer could I buy your product today? Any plans to offer CO2 removal to consumers? Or anything else people or businesses can buy at the moment?

4 minutes ago by marcuslima

Yeah, that's the core of it. Climeworks absorbs CO2 on their amine solid sorbent surface before releasing it by heating up the sorbent to prepare it for a new round of CO2. That CO2 then needs to be stored somewhere. I'm not familiar with the inner workings of Climeworks, but if I were there that would be what concerned me the most. I know they're testing a mineralization solutipn with Carbfix in Iceland that could be promising, but expensive. We're not at sufficient scale to offer credits to consumers. but this could be on the agenda in a few months. As for cost per tonne this depends a lot on the commercial arrangements we have in place. More meaningful is the energy consumption per tonne which is <4 MWh/ tonne. This will be reduced to 3MWh/tonne. Based on current commercial conversations we're expecting a CO2 price below $50/t for our first plant

2 hours ago by rout39574

How many orders of magnitude separate your current cost per ton of limestone from the popular status quo methods?

You're talking about ancillary products and regulatory credits, which is a fine business model; but I'm asking about the core industrial process. Trying to get a sense of how much more efficient your scale-up needs to be, before your process is in the black.

2 hours ago by marcuslima

Our current cost per tonne is in the same order of magnitude when including the carbon value from the European ETS. The key success criteria for making large plants profitable will be connecting to cheap electricity at <$50/MWh we're in the black

37 minutes ago by rout39574

What electricity sources have you identified as acceptable for this? Proximity of e.g. hydro to an ocean seems like a small set of sites. :) A naive glance suggests that solar capacity factor of 25% is going to put that particular source out of your budget.

2 hours ago by go_elmo

How "flexible" is the production? I mean during peak-sunny hours the price of electricity is well below that mark in some regions of europe? And would it e.g. make sense to scale up in a very sunny region & produce your own power? Last question: Do you need electrical power or heat? If latter, would a more efficient thermo-solar power plant make sense? Best of Luck! :)

6 minutes ago by f6v

> And would it e.g. make sense to scale up in a very sunny region & produce your own power?

It’s an interesting point. The most sunny region might be not the target market. Then you need to factor in the CO2 emissions arising from the transport to consumers.

2 hours ago by nobodyknowsyoda

What is the current price of carbon credits in the ETS? I am from the USA / am dumb, so don’t know how to find it

Also good read for everyone: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Introducing-the-Green-Prem...

37 minutes ago by lifekaizen

The World Bank has a great resource here which lists out pricing for emissions trading systems (ETS) and carbon tax by country.[0] (Map & Data > Price > Type of Instrument). Highest carbon taxes are $100+ / ton (Sweden, Switzerland, Lichenstein), high initial value for trade is about $50 (EU, Switzerland).

We are a bit behind in the US in credits or taxes, we are now treating the social cost at $51, but not using that for tax or trade policy.[1]

There's one more number that is useful to get a numerical sense of the costs: $258 / ton, an estimate of the actual cost to society. [2]

[0] https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/map_data [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-of-carbon-po... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w

2 hours ago by marcuslima

Haha gotcha, European ETS is on a bit of a tear at the minute. Has risen to ~$70/tonne CO2

an hour ago by pmat

Very cool! It sounds like your sorbent requires calcium to precipitate calcium carbonate from sea water. What would be the source of this calcium? Hopefully it won't come from reducing lime!

an hour ago by marcuslima

The calcium all comes from dissolved calcium bicarbonate - we trigger precipitation by shifting bicarbonate to carbonate ions, which are insoluble. Essentially we acceelrate the oceanic carbonate cycle

an hour ago by autopoiesis

What are the inputs and byproducts of the manufacturing process for your proprietary sorbent, and what are their environmental impacts, if any?

2 hours ago by reilly3000

This is great to see and I hope it’s a very successful enterprise! Since this is a novel enterprise and I think there is some appeal among architects and consumers, it may be worth carving out some marketing moat with a registered trademark and perhaps an icon. While they aren’t your customer, the whole supply chain would be pleased to use your materials in their projects- so anything you can do to help them brag ultimately helps you.

2 hours ago by marcuslima

Absolutely! We're in the early stages of developing an idea like this. We're working with a californian construction start-up to reduce embodied carbon in their building materials.

We've also thought about working with some big name companies like Apple, Amazon, big name hotels etc. to build a carbon neutral office/store/hotel. Haven't been able to reach the right people here yet though. Any intros/suggestions are appreciated!

an hour ago by lifekaizen

I can see the appeal but would recommend against pursuing large name brand companies at this point. If your solution does what you say, that’s already incredibly novel and interesting to the right buyers; people are seeking these solutions out. The real question will be: what’s the cost? So scaling and cost reduction is where I’d focus. It’s likely non-trivial to go from 1 ton, to 1000, to 1 M.

If you’re looking for a novel way to generate excitement, how about the X-Prize?[0] You’re doing a demo of “1 tonne of CO2 per year“, that’s enough to enter, and entering is enough to tell investors. Doing well could provide dilution free capital, technical validation, in addition to free publicity.

[0]: https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk

an hour ago by marcuslima

Great thoughts! Our strategy so far has mainly been focused on targeting large producers of cement and glass. We're in the process of signing LOIs here. Agreed that getting scaling right will be the big challenge

X Prize is on our radar, only a shame we mised the cement specific one. Though the dollar value on this one is certainly better

Daily digest email

Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.