Comparative assessment and region-specific optimisation of GGR
Lead Research Organisation:
Imperial College London
Department Name: Centre for Environmental Policy
Abstract
Meeting the Paris climate change commitments will be extraordinarily challenging, and even if they are met, may require extensive global deployment of greenhouse gas removal (GGR) technologies resulting in net negative emissions.
If certain major emitters do not meet their Paris commitments and/or wider international cooperation is reduced then the trajectory needed to reduce emissions to Paris levels after a delay will be even more severe, potentially leading to the need for even greater reliance on such net negative emissions technologies.
At present, the technical feasibility, economics, implementation mechanisms and wider social and environmental implications of GGR technologies remain relatively poorly understood. It is highly uncertain that GGR technologies can be implemented at the scales likely to be required to avoid dangerous climate change and without causing significant co-disbenefits or unintended consequences.
Our GGR proposal presents a unique combination of a multi-scale assessment of the technical performance of GGR technologies with an analysis of their political economy and social license to operate, with a particular focus on how these elements vary around the world and how such considerations impact region-specific GGR technology portfolios.
Currently, some portray GGR technologies as a panacea and virtually the only way of meeting aggressive climate targets - an essential backstop technology or a 'bridge' to a low-carbon future. One part of our project is to work with the models of the global economy (integrated assessment models) and better reflect these technologies within those models but also to use models at different scales (global, regional, national, laboratory scales) to understand the technologies better. We also seek to better understand how deployment of these technologies interact with the climate system and the carbon cycle and what the implications are for the timings of wide-scale rollout.
By contrast, sceptics have expressed concerns over moral hazard, the idea that pursuing these options may divert public and political attention from options. Some critics have even invoked terms such 'unicorns', or 'magical thinking' to describe the view that many GGR technologies may be illusory. We will seek to understand these divergent framings and explicitly capture what could emerge as important social and political constraints on wide-scale deployment. As with nuclear power, will many environmentalists come to view GGR technologies as an unacceptable option?
Understanding the potential scaling up of GGR technologies requires an understanding of social and political concerns as well as technical and resource constraints and incorporating them in engineering, economic and climate models. This aspect of our proposal necessarily brings together social science, engineering and environmental sciences. What is the biggest challenge to scaling up BECCS for example? Is it the creation of the sustainable biomass supply chain, the deployment of CO2 capture technology or the transport and storage infrastructure that is rate limiting? Or is it more likely the social acceptability of this technology?
Further, we will provide insight into the value of international and inter-regional cooperation in coordinating GGR efforts. For e.g., would it make more sense for the UK to import biomass, convert it to electricity and sequester the CO2, or would it be preferable pay for this to happen elsewhere? Conversely, how might the UK benefit from utilising our relatively well characterised and extensive CO2 storage infrastructure in the North Sea to store CO2 on behalf of both the UK and others? More generally, we will explore how stakeholders in key regions view the suite of GGR technologies.
Finally, we will quantify the option value of GGR - what is the value in early deployment of GGR technologies? How does it provide flexibility in meeting our near term carbon targets?
If certain major emitters do not meet their Paris commitments and/or wider international cooperation is reduced then the trajectory needed to reduce emissions to Paris levels after a delay will be even more severe, potentially leading to the need for even greater reliance on such net negative emissions technologies.
At present, the technical feasibility, economics, implementation mechanisms and wider social and environmental implications of GGR technologies remain relatively poorly understood. It is highly uncertain that GGR technologies can be implemented at the scales likely to be required to avoid dangerous climate change and without causing significant co-disbenefits or unintended consequences.
Our GGR proposal presents a unique combination of a multi-scale assessment of the technical performance of GGR technologies with an analysis of their political economy and social license to operate, with a particular focus on how these elements vary around the world and how such considerations impact region-specific GGR technology portfolios.
Currently, some portray GGR technologies as a panacea and virtually the only way of meeting aggressive climate targets - an essential backstop technology or a 'bridge' to a low-carbon future. One part of our project is to work with the models of the global economy (integrated assessment models) and better reflect these technologies within those models but also to use models at different scales (global, regional, national, laboratory scales) to understand the technologies better. We also seek to better understand how deployment of these technologies interact with the climate system and the carbon cycle and what the implications are for the timings of wide-scale rollout.
By contrast, sceptics have expressed concerns over moral hazard, the idea that pursuing these options may divert public and political attention from options. Some critics have even invoked terms such 'unicorns', or 'magical thinking' to describe the view that many GGR technologies may be illusory. We will seek to understand these divergent framings and explicitly capture what could emerge as important social and political constraints on wide-scale deployment. As with nuclear power, will many environmentalists come to view GGR technologies as an unacceptable option?
Understanding the potential scaling up of GGR technologies requires an understanding of social and political concerns as well as technical and resource constraints and incorporating them in engineering, economic and climate models. This aspect of our proposal necessarily brings together social science, engineering and environmental sciences. What is the biggest challenge to scaling up BECCS for example? Is it the creation of the sustainable biomass supply chain, the deployment of CO2 capture technology or the transport and storage infrastructure that is rate limiting? Or is it more likely the social acceptability of this technology?
Further, we will provide insight into the value of international and inter-regional cooperation in coordinating GGR efforts. For e.g., would it make more sense for the UK to import biomass, convert it to electricity and sequester the CO2, or would it be preferable pay for this to happen elsewhere? Conversely, how might the UK benefit from utilising our relatively well characterised and extensive CO2 storage infrastructure in the North Sea to store CO2 on behalf of both the UK and others? More generally, we will explore how stakeholders in key regions view the suite of GGR technologies.
Finally, we will quantify the option value of GGR - what is the value in early deployment of GGR technologies? How does it provide flexibility in meeting our near term carbon targets?
Planned Impact
Academic impact will be delivered via the publication and presentation of this work in high profile journals and conferences. Importantly, we will publish our core results and conclusions in time to feed into the forthcoming 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Further all models and data sets that are created as a result of this work will be made freely available for download via our website: http://www.imperial.ac.uk/a-z-research/clean-fossil-and-bioenergy
Delivering impact beyond the academic community is a core aim of this research. Alongside the academic community, we recognise that key stakeholders in the policy making community, industry and NGOs in addition to the general public are important stakeholders in terms of meeting our ambitious climate change ambitions. We explicitly recognise that these commitments will not be met if the solutions proposed are not affordable and deployable, coherent with government policy and publically acceptable.
To ensure we engage with these communities, we have assembled a Strategic Advisory Board (SAB) which is composed of key members of the policy making community (BEIS, IPCC), industry (Shell, CCSA), national and international institutes (GCCSI, ETI), NGOs (Bellona) and thought leaders from around the world (CRC, CICERO, MIT, Colorado School of Mines, IIASA, the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change).
One pillar of our engagement strategy rests on interacting with our SAB via biannual meetings. In general, one part of these meetings will be held in "update mode" whilst the other will be held in "plenary mode". We intend to operate the plenary meetings in a manner more akin to a small conference, to which, in addition to our SAB members, we would invite other interested parties, such as the other consortia arising from this Call, other researchers from the UK and beyond and key stakeholders with an interest in the future of GGR technologies such as NGOs. The Institute of Chemical Engineers will host events in central London and help contribute to wider dissemination. We will also contribute to the GCCSI international webinar series and work closely with other SAB members with an aim to wider dissemination. IIASA, MCC (and CICERO as part of our SAB) will help with wider dissemination of our work in Europe and SAB members at MIT, Colorado School of Mines and the University of Twente will serve to internationalise the context and further the disseminate the outputs of this research.
Importantly, we will invite key organisations, such as the CCC and IEA GHG R&D program, onto our SAB once the project commences.
In terms of wider public engagement, one important vehicle for this will be the organisation of a side event at COP25 in 2019. At this meeting, we will present the key conclusions of our work and articulate key questions which must be addressed in follow-on efforts. We will continue to lead on relevant events (e.g., recent 1.5 degrees conference at Oxford) and respond to relevant calls for evidence by parliamentary select committees and work streams of learned societies such as the Royal Society. We will also contribute to the regular prominent outreach activities at each of our participating institutions each of which involves numerous key UK and international stakeholders (e.g., EPRG at Cambridge, UCL Energy Institute, Imperial Energy Futures Lab, Oxford Environmental Change Institute, etc).
Delivering impact beyond the academic community is a core aim of this research. Alongside the academic community, we recognise that key stakeholders in the policy making community, industry and NGOs in addition to the general public are important stakeholders in terms of meeting our ambitious climate change ambitions. We explicitly recognise that these commitments will not be met if the solutions proposed are not affordable and deployable, coherent with government policy and publically acceptable.
To ensure we engage with these communities, we have assembled a Strategic Advisory Board (SAB) which is composed of key members of the policy making community (BEIS, IPCC), industry (Shell, CCSA), national and international institutes (GCCSI, ETI), NGOs (Bellona) and thought leaders from around the world (CRC, CICERO, MIT, Colorado School of Mines, IIASA, the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change).
One pillar of our engagement strategy rests on interacting with our SAB via biannual meetings. In general, one part of these meetings will be held in "update mode" whilst the other will be held in "plenary mode". We intend to operate the plenary meetings in a manner more akin to a small conference, to which, in addition to our SAB members, we would invite other interested parties, such as the other consortia arising from this Call, other researchers from the UK and beyond and key stakeholders with an interest in the future of GGR technologies such as NGOs. The Institute of Chemical Engineers will host events in central London and help contribute to wider dissemination. We will also contribute to the GCCSI international webinar series and work closely with other SAB members with an aim to wider dissemination. IIASA, MCC (and CICERO as part of our SAB) will help with wider dissemination of our work in Europe and SAB members at MIT, Colorado School of Mines and the University of Twente will serve to internationalise the context and further the disseminate the outputs of this research.
Importantly, we will invite key organisations, such as the CCC and IEA GHG R&D program, onto our SAB once the project commences.
In terms of wider public engagement, one important vehicle for this will be the organisation of a side event at COP25 in 2019. At this meeting, we will present the key conclusions of our work and articulate key questions which must be addressed in follow-on efforts. We will continue to lead on relevant events (e.g., recent 1.5 degrees conference at Oxford) and respond to relevant calls for evidence by parliamentary select committees and work streams of learned societies such as the Royal Society. We will also contribute to the regular prominent outreach activities at each of our participating institutions each of which involves numerous key UK and international stakeholders (e.g., EPRG at Cambridge, UCL Energy Institute, Imperial Energy Futures Lab, Oxford Environmental Change Institute, etc).
Organisations
- Imperial College London (Lead Research Organisation)
- Global CCS Institute (Project Partner)
- Carbon180 (Project Partner)
- Bellona Foundation (International) (Project Partner)
- Baringa Partners LLP (Project Partner)
- University of Twente (Project Partner)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Project Partner)
- Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (Project Partner)
- Energy Technologies Institute (Project Partner)
- Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Project Partner)
- Carbon Capture & Storage Association (Project Partner)
- Colorado School of Mines (Project Partner)
- Institution of Chemical Engineers (Project Partner)
- Shell (United Kingdom) (Project Partner)
Publications
Erans M
(2022)
Direct air capture: process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges
in Energy & Environmental Science
Qian Y
(2022)
Large inter-city inequality in consumption-based CO2 emissions for China's pearl river basin cities
in Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Chiquier S
(2022)
CO 2 removal and 1.5 °C: what, when, where, and how?
in Energy Advances
Cheng D
(2022)
Inclusive wealth index measuring sustainable development potentials for Chinese cities
in Global Environmental Change
Chiquier S
(2022)
A comparative analysis of the efficiency, timing, and permanence of CO 2 removal pathways
in Energy & Environmental Science
Sunny N
(2022)
A Pathway Towards Net-Zero Emissions in Oil Refineries
in Frontiers in Chemical Engineering
Xia C
(2022)
The evolution of carbon footprint in the yangtze river delta city cluster during economic transition 2012-2015
in Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Clulow Z
(2022)
Democracy, Economic Development and Low-Carbon Energy: When and Why Does Democratization Promote Energy Transition?
in Sustainability
Fajardy M
(2021)
The economics of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a 1.5 °C or 2 °C world
in Global Environmental Change
Galán-Martín Á
(2021)
Delaying carbon dioxide removal in the European Union puts climate targets at risk.
in Nature communications
Clulow Z
(2021)
Comparing public attitudes towards energy technologies in Australia and the UK: The role of political ideology
in Global Environmental Change
Bui M
(2021)
Editorial: The Role of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies in a Net-Zero Carbon Future
in Frontiers in Energy Research
Zheng H
(2021)
Entropy-based Chinese city-level MRIO table framework
in Economic Systems Research
Li X
(2021)
Does Transfer Payments Promote Low-Carbon Development of Resource-Exhausted Cities in China?
in Earth's Future
Daggash H
(2021)
Delivering low-carbon electricity systems in sub-Saharan Africa: insights from Nigeria
in Energy & Environmental Science
Patrizio P
(2021)
CO2 mitigation or removal: The optimal uses of biomass in energy system decarbonization.
in iScience
Zheng H
(2021)
Chinese provincial multi-regional input-output database for 2012, 2015, and 2017.
in Scientific data
Bui M
(2021)
Delivering carbon negative electricity, heat and hydrogen with BECCS - Comparing the options
in International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
Danaci D
(2021)
En Route to Zero Emissions for Power and Industry with Amine-Based Post-combustion Capture.
in Environmental science & technology
Negri V
(2021)
Life cycle optimization of BECCS supply chains in the European Union
in Applied Energy
Long Y
(2021)
Monthly direct and indirect greenhouse gases emissions from household consumption in the major Japanese cities.
in Scientific data
Bai Y
(2021)
The Consumption-Based Carbon Emissions in the Jing-Jin-Ji Urban Agglomeration Over China's Economic Transition
in Earth's Future
Fuss S
(2021)
The BECCS Implementation Gap-A Swedish Case Study
Lei T
(2021)
Adaptive CO2 emissions mitigation strategies of global oil refineries in all age groups
in One Earth
Fuss S
(2021)
The BECCS Implementation Gap-A Swedish Case Study
in Frontiers in Energy Research
Ayvali T
(2021)
The Position of Ammonia in Decarbonising Maritime Industry: An Overview and Perspectives: Part I Technological advantages and the momentum towards ammonia-propelled shipping
in Johnson Matthey Technology Review
Xiao H
(2021)
CO2 emission accounts of Russia's constituent entities 2005-2019.
in Scientific data
Huo J
(2021)
Drivers of fluctuating embodied carbon emissions in international services trade
in One Earth
Algunaibet I
(2020)
Reply to the 'Comment on "Powering sustainable development within planetary boundaries"' by Y. Yang, Energy Environ. Sci. , 2020, 13 , DOI: 10.1039/C9EE01176E
in Energy & Environmental Science
Zhang D
(2020)
Unlocking the potential of BECCS with indigenous sources of biomass at a national scale
in Sustainable Energy & Fuels
Ou J
(2020)
Role of export industries on ozone pollution and its precursors in China.
in Nature communications
Shan Y
(2020)
China CO2 emission accounts 2016-2017.
in Scientific data
Wang Z
(2020)
Dynamic Driving Forces of India's Emissions From Production and Consumption Perspectives
in Earth's Future
Zakkour P
(2020)
Progressive supply-side policy under the Paris Agreement to enhance geological carbon storage
in Climate Policy
Fajardy M
(2020)
Recognizing the Value of Collaboration in Delivering Carbon Dioxide Removal
in One Earth
Zhang Z
(2020)
Embodied carbon emissions in the supply chains of multinational enterprises
in Nature Climate Change
Rúa J
(2020)
Does CCS reduce power generation flexibility? A dynamic study of combined cycles with post-combustion CO2 capture
in International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Zhang Z
(2020)
City-level water withdrawal in China: Accounting methodology and applications
in Journal of Industrial Ecology
Zheng H
(2020)
Regional determinants of China's consumption-based emissions in the economic transition
in Environmental Research Letters
Shan Y
(2020)
Impacts of COVID-19 and fiscal stimuli on global emissions and the Paris Agreement
in Nature Climate Change
Butnar I
(2020)
The role of bioenergy for global deep decarbonization: CO 2 removal or low-carbon energy?
in GCB Bioenergy
Long Y
(2020)
Japan prefectural emission accounts and socioeconomic data 2007 to 2015.
in Scientific data
Wang H
(2020)
Low-carbon development via greening global value chains: a case study of Belarus
in Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences