They also mention that it is considerably more efficient to capture carbon at the source. The CO2 concentration is about 200 times higher at the plant (10% vs 0

They also mention that it is considerably more efficient to capture carbon at the source. The CO2 concentration is about 200 times higher at the plant (10% vs 0.04%). They state that it costs about 1/10 as much to capture at the source. So extrapolating from that, then the the plant they built in Switzerland, which 900 tonnes/yr directly from the air, could potentially capture 9000 tonnes/yr and would handily manage a coal power plant. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new...