Knowledge Tree
carbon dioxide removal
Also known as: carbon dioxide removal strategies, CO2 removal
Facts (95)
Sources
Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep ... - Nature nature.com Jun 17, 2021 94 facts
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies include Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), afforestation/reforestation, ocean fertilization, enhanced weathering of minerals, and biochar.
claimIncluding dispatchable or firm low-carbon generation in the energy choice set lowers the cost of power sector decarbonization, regardless of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options create net negative emissions flows that offset the expensive final tons of abatement in the electric sector, allowing a positive emissions component to remain while enabling zero-CO2 emissions targets to become net zero.
claimThe study 'Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization' highlights that uncertainties in technological cost, performance, supporting policies, and public acceptance are key considerations for the role of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.
claimCDR technologies lower the costs of achieving CO2 targets by establishing a ceiling on marginal abatement costs.
claimCDR technologies flatten the marginal abatement cost curve by providing a backstop mitigation option, causing the costs of emissions reductions beyond 100% to increase linearly.
claimAdding Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies to a mix of low-carbon generation technologies lowers the total costs of achieving CO2 reduction goals in the electric sector.
perspectiveAnalysts should conduct a wide range of sensitivities regarding Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies to understand how cost, performance, and other parameters influence decision-making due to large uncertainties associated with these technologies.
claimLonger-duration storage, including electrolyzers, hydrogen storage, and hydrogen turbines, is limited when carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is available, but otherwise shows a nonlinear increase with higher decarbonization.
procedureThe study tests how the spatial allocation of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies changes based on CO2 storage potential by conducting sensitivity analyses that restrict pipeline development and equate CO2 storage costs across regions.
claimCarbon dioxide removal strategies are valuable for neutralizing residual emissions and drawing down cumulative CO2 from historical activity, particularly for stringent climate targets.
referenceThe REGEN model includes endogenous capacity planning and dispatch with joint investment decisions in generation, energy storage, transmission, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) capacity.
claimAdding carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies to a mix of low-carbon generation technologies lowers the costs of achieving CO2 reduction goals in the electric sector, according to the study 'Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization'.
claimIncluding Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies in the technology choice set lowers the cost of electric sector decarbonization and complements conventional mitigation strategies.
measurementAn electric sector with Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) deployment can achieve almost 20% more CO2 reductions relative to 2005 levels compared to an all-renewable system for the same expenditure, according to the study 'Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization strategies'.
claimThe study conducts sensitivity analyses on CO2 storage infrastructure by restricting pipeline development and equating CO2 storage costs across regions to test how the spatial allocation of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies changes based on storage potential.
claimBECCS is the preferred CDR technology up to a 100% CO2 reduction target, but increasing biomass feedstock costs eventually make DAC more economically attractive at the margin for high-CDR-demand scenarios.
perspectiveThe authors recommend that modeling teams and resource planners incorporate Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), and other Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options into their technology choice sets.
claimCarbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies provide cost-effective abatement to balance residual emissions from hard-to-decarbonize nonelectric sectors, such as industry and heavy transport.
claimThe availability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies has a larger impact on marginal cost savings, measured by the CO2 allowance price, than on total costs, and leads to a linear increase of total costs in abatement effort rather than the nonlinear increase observed without CDR.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability generates cost savings by allowing Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) to replace low-capacity-factor assets with higher-utilization assets.
claimThe authors' analysis excludes several Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) issues, including RD&D strategy, financing first-of-a-kind units, policy design, lifecycle emissions of biomass production, and geological characterization of CO2 storage and site selection.
claimThe analysis in the Nature article 'Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization' illustrates that Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options can enable gas turbines to serve as cost-effective substitutes for long-duration energy storage technologies for low-capacity-factor firm capacity.
claimModeling teams and resource planners should incorporate Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), and other Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options into their technology choice sets when modeling deep decarbonization and net-zero targets.
measurementAn electric sector utilizing CDR deployment can achieve almost 20% more CO2 reductions relative to 2005 levels compared to an all-renewable system with the same expenditure.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) demand for scenarios exceeding 100% CO2 reductions leads to higher electricity demand but only modest shifts in generation shares.
procedureThe REGEN electric sector model scenarios are run under three carbon dioxide removal (CDR) availability conditions: no CDR, direct air capture (DAC) only, and DAC plus bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
claimCarbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies can lower the costs of achieving CO2 targets by placing a ceiling on marginal abatement costs.
claimAnalysts should conduct a wide range of sensitivity analyses regarding Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies to understand how cost, performance, and other parameters influence decisions, due to large uncertainties associated with these technologies.
referenceSanchez et al. (2018) published 'Federal research, development, and demonstration priorities for carbon dioxide removal in the United States' in Environmental Research Letters, which outlines priorities for federal R&D and demonstration of carbon dioxide removal technologies in the U.S.
claimThe spatial distribution of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies depends on factors with considerable regional variation, specifically biomass availability, suitable geologic CO2 storage sites, and technological cost and availability.
claimSiting decisions for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies are influenced by factors not accounted for in the study, including public acceptance, potential for CO2 utilization, state-level policies and incentives outside the power sector (such as low-carbon fuel standard eligibility), heat costs, and CO2 capture and storage outside of the power sector.
perspectiveThe authors of the study suggest that power sector integration issues regarding Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) deployment are manageable for the stringencies examined in their analysis, despite existing economic and regulatory issues.
measurementCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies are only deployed in the model for achieving electric sector CO2 reductions of 90% or higher relative to 2005 levels.
measurementIn the 140% emissions reduction scenario, 1050 Mt-CO2/year of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is utilized, with 79.6 Mt-CO2/year of removal compensating for fossil generation in the system and the remainder offsetting emissions in other sectors.
claimCarbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies lower investments in capacity with high marginal abatement costs by providing emissions headroom for gas units that can provide services at lower costs.
claimThe cost of power sector decarbonization is lowered by including dispatchable or firm low-carbon generation in the choice set, regardless of the availability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability lowers mitigation costs by substituting lower utilization resources, such as long-duration energy storage, with higher capacity factor CDR options.
claimLonger-duration storage deployment, including electrolyzers, hydrogen storage, and hydrogen turbines, is limited when CDR is available, but otherwise increases nonlinearly with higher decarbonization.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) deployment increases with more stringent CO2 policies, but these technologies are only deployed for achieving electric sector reductions of 90% or higher relative to 2005 levels.
claimThe availability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) makes least-cost capacity and generation portfolios less sensitive to the specific abatement target.
measurementIn the study 'Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization strategies', Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) deployment saturates at 110% CO2 reductions (-243 Mt-CO2/year) due to increasing marginal biomass feedstock costs, at which point Direct Air Capture (DAC) becomes the least-cost Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technology.
claimBECCS and DAC are the only Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options currently being pursued at demonstration scale.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options enable gas turbines to serve as cost-effective substitutes for long-duration energy storage technologies for low-capacity-factor firm capacity.
claimHigher deployment of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies impacts power sector planning.
claimCosts of emissions reductions beyond 100% increase linearly in abatement because Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies flatten the marginal abatement cost curve by providing a backstop mitigation option.
claimBattery storage deployment is high under all scenarios but depends more on policy and technological cost assumptions than on the availability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies help achieve greater emissions reductions with equivalent expenditures or reach the same emissions levels with lower costs by providing a backstop mitigation option that flattens the marginal abatement cost curve.
claimNonlinear cost increases near 100% decarbonization occur without Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), even when significant cost reductions for renewables and battery storage are achieved.
measurementBECCS deployment saturates at 110% CO2 reductions (-243 Mt-CO2/year) due to increasing marginal biomass feedstock costs, after which DAC becomes the least-cost CDR technology for further emissions reductions.
measurementIn a 100% CO2 reduction cap scenario, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) lowers advanced nuclear capacity from 117 GW to 47 GW when using Direct Air Capture (DAC) plus Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), or to 73 GW when using DAC only.
claimThe availability of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) provides optionality for electric sector least-cost decarbonization portfolios by limiting the rate of deployment if other nascent technologies face unforeseen technological hurdles or public acceptance issues.
claimThe 100% CO2 cap case without Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) results in net energy storage losses that are over an order of magnitude higher than the electricity use of Direct Air Capture (DAC) in the 100% DAC Only case, because gas turbines are replaced with hydrogen and electrolysis, which have low roundtrip efficiencies.
claimTotal electric sector cost savings from the availability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies increase as policy ambition increases.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability impacts power sector decarbonization pathways and helps lower costs associated with CO2 emissions reductions, particularly for higher mitigation levels.
referenceThe analysis evaluates scenarios under three Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability conditions: no CDR, Direct Air Capture (DAC) Only, and DAC + BECCS.
claimThe study titled 'Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization' investigates the role of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies on power sector outcomes under deep decarbonization scenarios for the United States.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) has a greater likelihood of additionality compared to traditional offsets as countries, subnational jurisdictions, and companies pursue net-zero goals.
referenceThe Regional Economy, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy (REGEN) model optimizes decisions regarding new generation investments, energy storage and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) capacities, hourly system dispatch, CO2 transport and storage, transmission capacity, and trade under a given set of assumptions about policies, technologies, and markets.
claimA carbon dioxide removal (CDR) portfolio could include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), afforestation/reforestation, ocean fertilization, enhanced weathering of minerals, and biochar.
claimThe 140% CO2 reduction cap is selected to approximate the carbon dioxide removal levels needed to offset difficult-to-decarbonize economy-wide CO2 emissions sources, such as iron/steel, cement, aviation, and shipping.
claimDirect Air Capture (DAC) deployment increases as biomass supply costs rise in scenarios with higher demand for carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
claimIn scenarios without carbon dioxide removal (CDR), the capacity of advanced nuclear, renewables, and long-duration energy storage increases for CO2 reduction targets greater than 80%.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies provide economic and environmental value in the context of sectoral, national, and global decarbonization targets.
claimWhile Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability lowers costs, utilizing both Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) provides only slightly lower costs than using Direct Air Capture (DAC) alone.
claimThe analysis focuses specifically on BECCS and DAC because they are the only Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options currently being pursued at demonstration scale.
claimThe spatial allocation of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) deployment is determined by regional variations in costs and value, although the value of carbon removal for Direct Air Capture (DAC) is assumed to be uniform across regions due to the scenario assumption of a national CO2 cap.
measurementThe crossover point where Direct Air Capture (DAC) becomes the least-cost Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technology is reached at 105% reductions (-121 Mt-CO2/year) with low biomass resource availability, and at 90% reductions (+243 Mt-CO2/year) with low Direct Air Capture costs.
claimElectric sector abatement costs increase sharply beyond 90% CO2 reductions without the use of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies, even when accounting for significant cost reductions for renewables and energy storage.
referenceThe Regional Economy, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy (REGEN) model, a state-of-the-art model of power sector investments and operations, is used in the Nature article 'Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization' to investigate the role of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on power sector outcomes under deep decarbonization scenarios for the USA.
claimCarbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, including bioenergy with carbon capture and direct air capture, are considered valuable for achieving stringent climate targets.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies are important for offsetting residual emissions from difficult-to-decarbonize sectors such as high-temperature industrial processes, aviation, shipping, and non-energetic emissions.
claimSpatial variability is highest for CO2 storage costs and electricity prices in the context of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) deployment modeling.
measurementWhen Direct Air Capture (DAC) is the only available Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) option, deployment is 91 Mt-CO2/year for the 100% CO2 reduction scenario at reference costs.
claimThe availability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies decreases the generation and capacity from advanced nuclear, renewables, and long-duration energy storage, as these technologies are used to replace gas turbine capacity, especially under more stringent policy scenarios.
measurementDirect Air Capture (DAC) consumes 24.8 TWh/year in the 100% CO2 cap case (with 81.1 Mt-CO2/year net removals) and 322 TWh/year in the 140% CO2 cap case (with 1050 Mt-CO2/year net removals), representing 0.42% and 5.39% of projected end-use electricity demand, respectively.
claimAs policy ambition increases, the impact of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies becomes more significant, reducing the dependence on technologies such as advanced nuclear and long-duration energy storage.
claimThe availability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies impacts the size and composition of energy storage deployment, which is used to integrate renewables and decarbonize the power sector by lowering natural gas consumption.
claimThe 70% CO2 reduction cap is the first level with a binding CO2 constraint in the model under reference assumptions, while the 140% cap is selected to approximate Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) levels that offset difficult-to-decarbonize economy-wide CO2 emissions categories.
claimAdding Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies to a mix of low-carbon generation technologies lowers the costs of achieving CO2 reduction goals in the electric sector.
claimThe deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies increases the generation and capacity of natural-gas-fired units, particularly gas turbines which provide inexpensive capacity and operate at very low-capacity factors.
claimThe study uses bookend scenarios to test how CO2 storage potential influences the spatial allocation of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies.
claimCDR availability impacts the size and composition of energy storage deployment.
claimA 140% emissions reduction cap is used to approximate the Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) levels required to offset difficult-to-decarbonize economy-wide CO2 emissions categories.
claimCDR does not play a role in scenarios where the 100% CO2 cap is met through renewables only.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) provides flexibility in meeting net-zero targets, reduces dependence on costly abatement options, and avoids overdependence on any single emerging technology.
claimNonlinear cost increases occur near 100% decarbonization without Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), even when significant cost reductions for renewables and battery storage are assumed.
claimBattery storage deployment remains high across all scenarios and depends more on policy and technological cost assumptions than on CDR availability.
measurementThe cost premium of a renewables-only decarbonization strategy is $33.5 billion per year (44.9%) higher than a technology-neutral decarbonization strategy without carbon dioxide removal (CDR), or $14.3 billion per year (45.7%) higher under breakthrough assumptions.
claimWithout carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, the capacity of advanced nuclear, renewables, and long-duration energy storage increases for CO2 reductions greater than 80%.
claimCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies could be part of a least-cost decarbonization strategy under a range of deep decarbonization scenarios, though the specific mix of technologies deployed is sensitive to cost assumptions and biomass resource availability.
measurementNet energy storage losses in the 100% CO2 cap case without Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) are 548 TWh/year.
claimAs policy ambition for decarbonization increases, the impact of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies becomes more significant, reducing the electric sector's dependence on technologies like advanced nuclear power and long-duration energy storage.
perspectiveThe authors suggest that their analysis of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) deployment should be supplemented by qualitative and quantitative analyses of economy-wide decarbonization scenarios due to modeling scope limitations.
Sustainable Energy Transition for Renewable and Low Carbon Grid ... frontiersin.org Mar 23, 2022 1 fact
referenceMing et al. (2014) identify two main strategies for geoengineering to stabilize the global climate: shortwave (0.3–3 μm) reflection and the use of carbon dioxide removal technologies.