Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects

Reiner, David

doi:10.1038/nenergy.2015.11

Cited by 200 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, reduced CO 2 emissions through forest protection and expansion might be counteracted by cropland expansion in non-forest areas . BECCS includes substantial economic costs in its CCS component and is currently far from being deployable at the commercial scale (Peters et al, 2017;Reiner, 2016). It will also require sufficient safe geologic C storage capacities (Scott et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Land management for carbon storage is discussed as being indispensable for climate change mitigation because of its large potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and to avoid further emissions from deforestation. However, the acceptance and feasibility of land-based mitigation projects depends on potential side effects on other important ecosystem functions and their services. Here, we use projections of future land use and land cover for different land-based mitigation options from two land-use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) and evaluate their effects with a global dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS). In the landuse models, carbon removal was achieved either via growth of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage, via avoided deforestation and afforestation, or via a combination of both. We compare these scenarios to a reference scenario without land-based mitigation and analyse the LPJ-GUESS simulations with the aim of assessing synergies and trade-offs across a range of ecosystem service indicators: carbon storage, surface albedo, evapotranspiration, water runoff, crop production, nitrogen loss, and emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds.In our mitigation simulations cumulative carbon storage by year 2099 ranged between 55 and 89 GtC. Other ecosystem service indicators were influenced heterogeneously both positively and negatively, with large variability across regions and land-use scenarios. Avoided deforestation and afforestation led to an increase in evapotranspiration and enhanced emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, and to a decrease in albedo, runoff, and nitrogen loss. Crop production could also decrease in the afforestation scenarios as a result of reduced crop area, especially for MAgPIE land-use patterns, if assumed increases in crop yields cannot be realized. Bioenergy-based climate change mitigation was projected to affect less area globally than in the forest expansion scenarios, and resulted in less pronounced changes in most ecosystem service indicators than forest-based mitigation, but included a possible decrease in nitrogen loss, crop production, and biogenic volatile organic compounds emissions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of technological learning studies to date attribute deployment and innovation as isolated policies to expand and plan for future cost reductions [8][9][10] . However, we also know there are synergies between deployment and innovation where we can capitalize and strategically target public spending to benefit society 11 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy storage deployment and innovation for the clean energy transition

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The clean energy transition requires a co-evolution of innovation, investment, and deployment strategies for emerging energy storage technologies. A deeply decarbonized energy system research platform needs materials science advances in battery technology to overcome the intermittency challenges of wind and solar electricity. Simultaneously, policies designed to build market growth and innovation in battery storage may complement cost reductions across a suite of clean energy technologies. Further integration of R&D and deployment of new storage technologies paves a clear route toward cost-e ective low-carbon electricity. Here we analyse deployment and innovation using a two-factor model that integrates the value of investment in materials innovation and technology deployment over time from an empirical dataset covering battery storage technology. Complementary advances in battery storage are of utmost importance to decarbonization alongside improvements in renewable electricity sources. We find and chart a viable path to dispatchable US$1 W −1 solar with US$100 kWh −1 battery storage that enables combinations of solar, wind, and storage to compete directly with fossil-based electricity options.

show abstract

“…[16] First-versus Second-Generation Upgrading We believe the time hasc ome to introduce the term "secondgeneration upgrading" as an alternative to the existing "firstgeneration upgrading". CO 2 could also be used for energy storage by combining it with hydrogen from electrolysis, driven by renewable electricity from wind or solar power.Unfortunately,chemical scrubbing is quite energy intensive and there is no need to use ap ure CO 2 stream to convert it into synthetic hydrocarbon (HC) during the upgrading of biogas.…”

Section: Biogasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[16] Maturity of Second-Generation Upgrading Technology CO 2 present in the biogas is directly convertedi nto hydrocarbon-containing molecules, thus, enabling abetter overall energye fficiency.…”

Section: Carbon Dioxide Utilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%