top of page
Search

Nuclear-Powered Direct Air Capture Fuels: Closing the Carbon Loop for Hard-to-Decarbonize Sectors

  • Writer: Eric Anders
    Eric Anders
  • Apr 12
  • 19 min read

Updated: Apr 17

The world’s race to net-zero emissions has made one thing clear: no single solution will decarbonize everything. Instead, a multi-pronged approach is emerging – one that combines direct electrification, clean hydrogen, and carbon-neutral synthetic fuels – to tackle different pieces of the energy puzzle. Each of these vectors addresses specific sectors of the economy, and together they form a comprehensive framework for deep decarbonization (Electrification or hydrogen? Both have distinct roles in the European energy transition | ScienceDaily) (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear). This essay focuses on the third and most ambitious pillar: nuclear-powered direct air capture and synthetic fuels (NDACSF) – essentially, making carbon-neutral liquid fuels by pulling carbon out of thin air and using abundant clean energy. The tone in which we explore this is both journalistic and policy-oriented, translating technical analysis into an accessible story about climate solutions and what’s at stake.


The Three Pillars of Deep Decarbonization

To understand where NDACSF fits, it’s important to see the broader clean-energy strategy. In simplified terms, decarbonization rests on three pillars, each suited to different needs:


Fuel from Thin Air: How NDACSF Works and Why Hydrogen Matters

Nuclear-powered direct air capture and synthetic fuel production might sound like science fiction, but the components of NDACSF are based on known technologies:


  • Direct Air Capture (DAC): First, CO₂ is pulled from ambient air. This can be done with chemical filters or sorbents that capture the extremely dilute (~0.04%) carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s energy-intensive, but it provides the carbon feedstock needed to make fuel without relying on fossil sources. Using CO₂ from the air (or from industrial emissions) is essential to ensure the resulting fuel is carbon-neutral. If we tried to make synthetic fuel without carbon capture – for instance, by using fossil CO₂ – we’d simply be emitting new carbon when the fuel is burned. Capturing the carbon in the first place is what closes the loop (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf).


  • Clean Hydrogen Production: Second, we need hydrogen (H₂), because hydrocarbons are combinations of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrogen is obtained by splitting water (H₂O) into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis – a process that consumes a lot of electricity. For NDACSF to be climate-friendly, this electricity must be carbon-free (renewables or nuclear). The role of hydrogen is central: it provides the chemical energy that will later be released when the synthetic fuel is used. In essence, hydrogen is the energy carrier that we are transforming into a liquid fuel form. This means NDACSF is tightly coupled with the hydrogen economy – a large, consistent supply of cheap clean hydrogen is a prerequisite to make synthetic fuels viable at scale.


  • Fuel Synthesis (Power-to-Liquid): The captured CO₂ and the hydrogen are then reacted (often using the Fischer-Tropsch process or similar chemistry) to produce liquid hydrocarbons like diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel ( The Air Force partners with Twelve, proves it’s possible to make jet fuel out of thin air > Air Force > Article Display ) (Why cars running on e-fuel can’t replace EVs | The Verge). Fischer-Tropsch synthesis itself is a century-old technology, historically used to turn coal into fuel; when applied to CO₂ and H₂, it yields a synthetic fuel that, molecule-for-molecule, can mirror conventional fuels. The key difference is carbon source: rather than pulling carbon out of the ground as oil, we pull it from the air. The resulting synthetic fuel, when burned in an engine, emits CO₂ – but this CO₂ was originally taken from the atmosphere, so net emissions can be near zero (accounting for process energy emissions) (What’s the Deal With Synthetic Fuels? | The Truth About Cars). In short, we’re running an industrialized carbon cycle in reverse – using clean energy to convert water and CO₂ into fuel, which can substitute for fossil fuels in sectors that have no easy electric alternative.


If this sounds like an elaborate way to power an airplane or a ship, it absolutely is. Turning electricity into fuel and then back into energy is inherently inefficient. At each step – splitting water, capturing CO₂, synthesizing fuel, and finally combustion – energy is lost. By rough estimates, only about 10–15% of the original electricity input might end up doing useful work when a synthetic fuel is burned in an engine. Compare that to ~80% efficiency when electricity is used to directly charge an EV’s battery and run a motor. This huge efficiency penalty is why experts insist that direct electrification should be used wherever possible before resorting to making synthetic fuels (E-fuels won’t save the internal combustion engine - International Council on Clean Transportation) (Electrification or hydrogen? Both have distinct roles in the European energy transition | ScienceDaily). However, in the scenarios where we need liquid fuels (like a transoceanic flight), the point is not to beat batteries in efficiency – it’s to achieve carbon-neutrality in a domain batteries can’t reach. And that reframes the notion of “efficiency”: if the energy is coming from a clean, abundant source, wasting some of it in conversion is acceptable so long as the end result is zero emissions and a viable use-case. The goal is climate efficiency, not energy efficiency per se. In other words, using eight units of clean energy to do the work of one unit of fossil energy is “worth it” if those eight units are carbon-free and the alternative is continuing to burn fossil fuel in that application (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf).


This is where nuclear power enters the equation. Nuclear reactors can provide the vast amounts of continuous, carbon-free energy needed to run DAC machines and electrolyzers around the clock. Unlike solar or wind, they don’t stop when the sun sets or the wind calms – meaning a nuclear-powered DACSF facility could operate 24/7, maximizing throughput. Given the thermodynamic losses inherent in synthetic fuel production, having a steady, high-density energy source makes the process far more practical. (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) In fact, the entire NDACSF concept essentially proposes to harness nuclear fission’s enormous energy output to manufacture fuels for planes, ships, and other vehicles. It’s an ambitious way of extending nuclear energy’s reach: rather than only making electricity for the grid, advanced reactors would directly produce fuels to displace oil in sectors beyond the electric grid (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear).


The Energy Challenge: Scale, Efficiency, and the Case for Nuclear

If NDACSF sounds energy-intensive, that’s because it is. To appreciate the scale of the challenge, consider a back-of-the-envelope example from Canada’s energy use. Canada consumes on the order of 13.5 exajoules of energy per year (including all fuels) (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf) – a huge amount. A current state-of-the-art direct air capture pilot plant, like the one operated by Carbon Engineering (CE) in British Columbia, uses about 25 megawatts of power and could produce roughly 1,100 terajoules of synthetic fuel energy per year under optimistic assumptions (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf). It would take on the order of 23.5 billion such units to match Canada’s annual energy needs (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf). In other words, trying to scale up today’s boutique DAC plants to cover an entire nation’s fuel consumption is utterly infeasible.


The only realistic path forward is to dramatically scale up the size and power of each installation. Instead of millions of small DAC machines, one would build far fewer but “mega-scale” NDACSF facilities, each powered by a massive energy source like nuclear (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf). For instance, rather than 23.5 billion mini-plants, one could imagine 1,000 huge plants – but to deliver the same output, each of those would need to be 23,500 times more productive than today’s Carbon Engineering facility (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf). That gives a sense of the order of magnitude we’re dealing with. Even if we assume future technological advances make DAC and fuel synthesis 1,000 times more efficient or higher-capacity than now, Canada would still require on the order of 23.5 million such “super-plants” to fully replace fossil fuels with synfuels (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf). The implication is stark: NDACSF can only make a dent if each facility is vastly larger and more powerful than anything currently in existence.


This points directly to nuclear fission as a linchpin. High-energy density sources are needed to run these fuel factories. Advanced nuclear reactors (including small modular reactors and, one day, possibly fusion reactors) could supply gigawatts of thermal and electrical power on-site to drive the CO₂ capture and water-splitting processes (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf). With enough reactors, one could create a veritable synthetic fuel refinery that continuously sucks in air and water and spits out liquid fuel. How many reactors, exactly? Using Canada again as an example: providing on the order of 10⁷ to 10⁸ megawatts of constant power (the kind of power needed for nationwide fuel synthesis) would equate to hundreds or thousands of large (1 GW) reactors dedicated solely to synfuel production, depending on process efficiency. This may sound like a fantastical number, but it underlines the point – the energy requirements are enormous, on par with the entire output of a country’s power sector. The only ways to meet such demand are either building vast fields of renewables with massive energy storage, or deploying a fleet of nuclear reactors. In practice, it will likely be a combination, but nuclear’s round-the-clock reliability is a huge asset for this application.


Policymakers and energy planners are starting to grapple with this reality. The need for “megascale” deployment of DAC and synthetic fuel means we must think in terms of big infrastructure, not just modular gadgets. Instead of scattering thousands of small DAC units at various factories, NDACSF envisions concentrated hubs of fuel production integrated with power plants. This will require not just technology development but also grid and infrastructure transformation. For example, providing gigawatts of electricity (or heat) to a synfuel plant might mean extending high-voltage transmission or even co-locating reactors and fuel plants together. It also means massive capital investment – these would be mega-projects combining power generation, chemical processing, and carbon management (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf). In short, the NDACSF concept forces us to imagine a new kind of energy-industrial complex, one that blends the power sector with the liquid fuels industry. It’s a moonshot vision of climate technology. And given the climate stakes, it may be a necessary one – but it will not happen without coordinated, large-scale effort.


Niche, Not All-Purpose: Targeting Aviation, Shipping and Military Uses

With such daunting economics and energy requirements, one might wonder: is NDACSF really worth it? The answer lies in its target applications – the niches where other solutions fall short. Synthetic fuels are not going to power the average commuter car or suburban home; direct electrification can do that more cheaply and efficiently. Instead, NDACSF is best understood as a strategic reserve for the most challenging sectors:



In all these cases – planes, ships, and defense – the value of NDACSF is not that it’s “better” than using electricity or hydrogen directly, but that it’s possible where those alternatives are not. Synthetic fuels occupy a crucial but narrow slice of the future energy mix. They are the enabler for decarbonizing the “last 20%” of emissions that are otherwise nearly insurmountable. As one analysis bluntly concluded, using CO₂ from capture is the only realistic path to sustainable synthetic fuels for these sectors. It’s a complement to, not a replacement for, widespread electrification.


However, this niche role does not make NDACSF any less essential. In climate math, we need to zero out all major sources of emissions by mid-century to have a shot at stabilizing global temperatures. That means finding solutions for airplanes at 35,000 feet and ships in the middle of the ocean – not just for Teslas and home heat pumps. If synthetic fuels made from DAC and clean hydrogen are what it takes, then that investment is part of the cost of winning the climate war. And as discussed, it may have other paybacks in terms of energy security and technological leadership.


Building a Carbon-Neutral Fuel Future: Policy and Technological Imperatives

What will it take to turn NDACSF from a concept into a tangible contributor to our climate goals? Given the enormous hurdles – technological, financial, temporal – this is as much a policy challenge as an engineering one. Clear-eyed, long-term policy support will be crucial to make nuclear-powered synthetic fuels a reality.


Firstly, major investment in R&D and early deployment is needed. Today’s direct air capture plants are in their infancy, capturing maybe a few thousand tons of CO₂ per year; fuel synthesis facilities using CO₂ are likewise at pilot scale. Costs are very high – synthetic e-fuels today can cost on the order of $5–10+ per gallon, several times the price of petroleum-based fuels (What’s the Deal With Synthetic Fuels? | The Truth About Cars). Government and industry must collaborate on driving down these costs through innovation and economies of scale. This includes funding demonstration projects that integrate DAC with electrolyzers and small modular reactors, for example, to prove out the NDACSF concept end-to-end. Encouragingly, some steps are being taken: the U.S. has launched programs to develop DAC “hubs” and the Pentagon’s research agencies are prototyping field-deployable fuel-from-air units ( The Air Force partners with Twelve, proves it’s possible to make jet fuel out of thin air > Air Force > Article Display ) ( The Air Force partners with Twelve, proves it’s possible to make jet fuel out of thin air > Air Force > Article Display ). But these efforts need to ramp up dramatically to bring timelines forward. We likely have only 10–15 years to commercialize these solutions if they are to help meet 2050 climate targets, given the long turnover of aircraft and ships.


Secondly, policy frameworks must recognize and value the unique role of synthetic fuels. This could mean incorporating e-fuels into clean fuel standards or creating mandates for aviation and maritime fuel blending. For instance, the European Union is discussing mandates that airlines use a minimum percentage of SAF (some of which could be e-fuels) by 2030 and beyond. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard already provides credits for the carbon intensity reduction from such fuels. These mechanisms send a market signal that there will be demand for NDACSF output, which in turn can justify the upfront investment. On the flip side, simply pricing carbon broadly (while important) may not be enough in the near term – the gap in cost per ton between synthetic fuels and fossil fuels is currently too large for a modest carbon price to bridge. Targeted subsidies or tax credits might be needed for early synthetic fuel production, similar to how renewable power was fostered in its early days.


Crucially, the policy strategy must integrate the power sector with the fuels sector. As noted, NDACSF straddles both: it relies on clean power to make fuel. This means planning for enough clean electricity generation (or nuclear heat) to supply these processes. If, say, a country intends to produce 10% of its aviation fuel as synthetic by 2035, it must also ensure the equivalent addition of zero-carbon power capacity to electrolyze water and capture CO₂ for that fuel. Energy planners might have to treat synthetic fuel production as a new category of large electricity demand – much like the rise of electric vehicles or electrolysis for hydrogen. In effect, we’ll be shifting some of the decarbonization burden back onto the electric grid, which underscores the need for rapid expansion of renewables and nuclear. Every synthetic gallon of jet fuel represents many kilowatt-hours of clean power used behind the scenes. Policies that streamline the deployment of nuclear reactors (especially the advanced, possibly modular kind suitable for co-locating with DAC facilities) will thus directly impact NDACSF viability. Nations that succeed in licensing and building new nuclear plants in a timely manner – or that have abundant firm renewables with storage – will be the ones best positioned to produce synthetic fuels at scale.


From a climate perspective, the stakes are high. Hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and shipping might together account for roughly 5–10% of global CO₂ emissions by 2050 even if other sectors aggressively cut their output (World shipping industry agrees to halve carbon emissions by 2050) (Airplane Emissions - Center for Biological Diversity). If we fail to address these emissions, the world could fall short of the “net-zero” aspiration, potentially pushing warming beyond internationally agreed limits. In contrast, if NDACSF and related technologies are successfully scaled, they could neutralize a large portion of those residual emissions. It’s a game of subtraction: every commercial flight running on synthetic kerosene made with captured CO₂ is a flight that effectively emits net zero carbon. Multiply that across global fleets and shipping routes, and the impact is profound.


Finally, it’s worth noting the geopolitical and ethical dimension of pursuing NDACSF. Relying on direct air capture for carbon feedstock, as opposed to biofuels, avoids large land-use impacts – which often hit food security and biodiversity in developing countries. It is inherently more scalable and globally equitable to draw carbon from the air (which is everywhere and doesn’t compete with crops) than to divert agricultural output for fuel. Also, by leveraging nuclear energy, countries with advanced nuclear technology or abundant uranium resources could reduce dependence on oil-producing nations, potentially shifting energy geopolitics. Of course, that comes with its own proliferation and safety considerations – but it also offers a vision of democratizing fuel production, where any nation can potentially manufacture the fuel it needs if it has air, water and the technology. Policies will need to navigate these broader implications, ensuring that the move to synthetic fuels is done safely and with international cooperation (for example, agreeing on sustainability criteria, sharing best practices, and preventing any one country from monopolizing the new supply chains).


In conclusion, NDACSF is not a silver bullet, but it is a necessary piece of the net-zero puzzle. It reinforces the idea that climate action will be “multi-vector” – with green electrons powering what they can, green molecules (hydrogen, ammonia, synfuels) covering what electrons cannot, and all of it underpinned by clean energy sources. Direct electrification will do the heavy lifting in many sectors; hydrogen will fill in critical gaps; and for the remainder, synthetic fuels produced by capturing carbon and deploying nuclear energy can provide the final push to zero (Electrification or hydrogen? Both have distinct roles in the European energy transition | ScienceDaily). Embracing this comprehensive strategy is a policy choice as much as a technical one. It means investing across multiple fronts and resisting one-size-fits-all thinking. It also means communicating clearly to the public why we need approaches like NDACSF that at first glance sound inefficient – because in the realm of climate solutions, effectiveness and scalability trump pure efficiency when the energy source is clean.


The coming decade will test whether we can translate this vision into reality. If we succeed, the payoff is a world where even the most stubborn emissions sources are finally tamed – a jet flying on carbon-neutral fuel, a ship crossing the ocean without adding carbon to the air, and perhaps a future where what was once seen as waste (CO₂) is instead the feedstock for keeping our modern world running sustainably. It’s a future where we truly bend the emissions curve to zero, not by sacrificing mobility or security, but by innovating our way to new fuels and new systems. The journey to get there demands urgency, honesty about the challenges, and above

all a commitment to “power the transition” – in the Earth Rise Initiatives spirit – with both truth and atoms, science and policy together (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear). The carbon loop can be closed; now it’s up to us to build the loop and scale it up in time.


[Note: “NDACSF” stands for nuclear-powered direct air capture and synthetic fuels.] (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (NCDACSF efficiency.pdf)

 
 
 

Comments

Contact us

© 2025 Earthrise Accord

bottom of page