Vivian Scott

What will CCS demonstrations demonstrate

Great hopes and urgency now attach to carbon capture and storage (CCS). The technology faces a phase of large-scale demonstrations, and scrutiny of these will be intense. It is crucial for all concerned to have a good understanding of what we can – and should not – expect, from such demonstrations. This paper sets out an agenda of research for this task. It draws together insights from the examination of technology demonstrations in the interdisciplinary field of Science and Technology Studies – into the complex relations between demonstration, other elements of the system of innovation, and the wider context;

Estimating geological CO2 storage security to deliver on climate mitigation

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can help nations meet their Paris CO2 reduction commitments cost-effectively. However, lack of confidence in geologic CO2 storage security remains a barrier to CCS implementation. Here we present a numerical program that calculates CO2 storage security and leakage to the atmosphere over 10,000 years. This combines quantitative estimates of geological subsurface CO2 retention, and of surface CO2 leakage. We calculate that realistically well-regulated storage in regions with moderate well densities has a 50% probability that leakage remains below 0.0008% per year, with over 98% of the injected CO2 retained in the subsurface over 10,000 years. An unrealistic scenario, where CO2 storage is inadequately regulated, estimates that more than 78% will be retained over 10,000 years. Our modelling results suggest that geological storage of CO2 can be a secure climate change mitigation option, but we note that long-term behaviour of CO2 in the subsurface remains a key uncertainty.Carbon capture and storage can help reduce CO2 emissions but the confidence in geologic CO2 storage security is uncertain. Here the authors present a numerical programme to estimate leakage from wells and find that under appropriate regulation 98% of injected CO2 will be retained over 10,000 years.

Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals

Current mitigation efforts and existing future commitments are inadequate to accomplish the Paris Agreement temperature goals. In light of this, research and debate are intensifying on the possibilities of additionally employing proposed climate geoengineering technologies, either through atmospheric carbon dioxide removal or farther-reaching interventions altering the Earth’s radiative energy budget. Although research indicates that several techniques may eventually have the physical potential to contribute to limiting climate change, all are in early stages of development, involve substantial uncertainties and risks, and raise ethical and governance dilemmas. Based on present knowledge, climate geoengineering techniques cannot be relied on to significantly contribute to meeting the Paris Agreement temperature goals.Research and debate are intensifying on complementing CO2 emissions reductions with hypothetical climate geoengineering techniques. Here, the authors assess their potentials, uncertainties and risks, and show that they cannot yet be relied on to significantly contribute to meeting the Paris Agreement temperature goals.

The Effects of Carbon Dioxide Removal on the Carbon Cycle

Increasing atmospheric CO2 is having detrimental effects on the Earth system. Societies have recognized that anthropogenic CO2 release must be rapidly reduced to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts. Achieving this via emissions reductions alone will be very difficult. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has been suggested to complement and compensate for insufficient emissions reductions, through increasing natural carbon sinks, engineering new carbon sinks, or combining natural uptake with engineered storage. Here, we review the carbon cycle responses to different CDR approaches and highlight the often-overlooked interaction and feedbacks between carbon reservoirs that ultimately determines CDR efficacy. We also identify future research that will be needed if CDR is to play a role in climate change mitigation, these include coordinated studies to better understand (i) the underlying mechanisms of each method, (ii) how they could be explicitly simulated, (iii) how reversible changes in the climate and carbon cycle are, and (iv) how to evaluate and monitor CDR.

Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union

ABSTRACT In principle, many climate policymakers have accepted that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement’s mitigation targets, but they have avoided proposing by whom CDR might be delivered. Given its role in international climate policy, the European Union (EU) might be expected to lead the way. But among EU climate policymakers so far there is little talk on CDR, let alone action. Here we assess how best to ‘target’ CDR to motivate EU policymakers exploring which CDR target strategy may work best to start dealing with CDR on a meaningful scale. A comprehensive CDR approach would focus on delivering the CDR volumes required from the EU by 2100, approximately at least 50 Gigatonnes (Gt) CO2, according to global model simulations aiming to keep warming below 2°C. A limited CDR approach would focus on an intermediate target to deliver the CDR needed to reach ‘net zero emissions’ (i.e. the gross negative emissions needed to offset residual positive emissions that are too expensive or even impossible to mitigate). We argue that a comprehensive CDR approach may be too intimidating for EU policymakers. A limited CDR approach that only addresses the necessary steps to reach the (intermediate) target of ‘net zero emissions’ is arguably more achievable, since it is a better match to the existing policy paradigm and would allow for a pragmatic phase-in of CDR while avoiding outright resistance by environmental NGOs and the broader public. Key policy insights Making CDR an integral part of EU climate policy has the potential to significantly reshape the policy landscape. Burden sharing considerations would probably play a major role, with comprehensive CDR prolonging the disparity and tensions between progressives and laggards. Introducing limited CDR in the context of ‘net zero’ pathways would retain a visible primary focus on decarbonization but acknowledge the need for a significant enhancement of removals via ‘natural’ and/or ‘engineered’ sinks. A decarbonization approach that intends to lead to a low level of ‘residual emissions’ (to be tackled by a pragmatic phase-in of CDR) should be the priority of EU climate policy.

Climate engineering: early reflections on a complex conversation

This is a background account and formal statement prepared by participants in the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies’ Climate Engineering Summer Course, held between 2 and 17 August 2014 in Potsdam, Germany.