Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies

Lomax, Guy; Workman, Mark; Lenton, Timothy M.; Shah, Nilay

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.002

Cited by 78 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, authors argue that SRM and NETs are both subject to potentially severe moral hazard (Preston 2013). More recently, there has been growing skepticism with such an approach due to the danger of subsuming two very different technology clusters under one heading (Lomax et al 2015b, Boucher et al 2014, IPCC 2011, National Research Council 2015. Above all, while NETs address the high atmospheric carbon concentrations that cause the climate problem, SRM schemes do not.…”

Section: Ar5: Wg13mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others, like DACCS and BECCS, have been subject to a structured scientific discourse only rather recently. Our focus is on CO 2 removal only, but we note the existence of technologies that remove other non-CO 2 greenhouse gases from the atmosphere , Stolaroff et al 2012, Lomax et al 2015b, Boucher et al 2014. Figure 2 provides a taxonomy for NETs.…”

Section: A Taxonomy For Negative Emissions Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis

Minx

Lamb

Callaghan

et al. 2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

622

488

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ar5: Wg13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Taxonomy For Negative Emissions Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis

Minx

Lamb

Callaghan

et al. 2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

622

488

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Achieving this goal will require the deployment of a substantial amount of negative emissions technology such that CO 2 is being removed from the atmosphere at a rate of 2 -10 Gt CO2 /yr by 2050 [1]. In this context, bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is regarded as a key technology to achieving this goal, as early indications are that it is a relatively cost-effective and deployable technology [2]. Encouragingly, there is good reason to believe that 100 -300 EJ/yr of primary energy equivalent of biomass could be deployed by 2050, with 500 EJ/yr considered an upper bound of what might be available [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the potential for BECCS efficiency improvement through heat recovery from both post-combustion and oxy-combustion facilities

Dowell

Fajardy

2016

Faraday Discuss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to mitigate climate change to no more than 2 °C, it is well understood that it will be necessary to directly remove significant quantities of CO2, with bioenergy CCS (BECCS) regarded as a promising technology. However, BECCS will likely be more costly and less efficient at power generation than conventional CCS. Thus, approaches to improve BECCS performance and reduce costs are of importance to facilitate the deployment of this key technology. In this study, the impact of biomass co-firing rate and biomass moisture content on BECCS efficiency with both post- and oxy-combustion CO2 capture technologies was evaluated. It was found that post-combustion capture BECCS (PCC-BECCS) facilities will be appreciably less efficient than oxy-combustion capture BECCS (OCC-BECCS) facilities. Consequently, PCC-BECCS have the potential to be more carbon negative than OCC-BECCS per unit electricity generated. It was further observed that the biomass moisture content plays an important role in determining the BECCS facilities’ efficiency. This will in turn affect the enthalpic content of the BECCS plant exhaust and implies that exhaust gas heat recovery may be an attractive option at higher rates of co-firing. It was found that there is the potential for the recovery of approximately 2.5 GJheat per tCO2 at a temperature of 100 °C from both PCC-BECCS and OCC-BECCS. On- and off-site applications for this recovered heat are discussed, considering boiler feedwater pre-heating, solvent regeneration and district heating cases.

show abstract

“…Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is functionally a subset of greenhouse gas removal (GGR), the latter of which includes methane, nitrous oxide and a number of fluorinated gases [4]. Assigned amount units (AAUs) are defined by the Kyoto Agreement, but are not particular to CO 2 -instead including other GHGs, according to their Global Warming Potential (GWP) [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon dioxide removal and tradeable put options at scale

Lockley

Coffman

2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Options are derivative contracts that give the purchaser the right to buy (call options) or sell (put options) a given underlying asset at a particular price at a future date. The purchaser of a put option may exercise the right to sell the asset to the issuer at any point in the future before the expiration of the contract. These rights may be contracted directly between two parties (i.e. over-the-counter), or may be sold publicly on formal exchanges, such as the Chicago Board Options Exchange. If the latter, they are called tradeable put options (TPOs) because they can be bought and sold by third-parties via a secondary market. The World Bank has a Pilot Auction Facility for methane and carbon mediation which uses TPOs in carbon-relevant markets, giving producers (of e.g. forest restoration) a floor price for their product [1]. This enables long-term producer planning.We discuss the potentially broader use of these options contracts in carbon dioxide removal (CDR) markets generally and at scale. We conclude that they can, if priced correctly, encourage rapid investment both in CDR technology and in operational capacity. TPOs could do this without creating the same type of systemic risk associated with other instruments (e.g. long-dated futures). Nevertheless, the widespread use of such instruments potentially creates novel risks. These include the political risk of premature closure [2] (conventionally rendered as 'counting your chickens before they are hatched'); and the economic risk of overpaying for carbon removal services. These instruments require careful structuring, and do not inoculate the CDR market against regulatory disruption, or political pressure. Accordingly, we note the potential for the development of TPO markets in CDR, but we urge caution in respect of identified risks.

show abstract

Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies

Cited by 78 publications

References 45 publications

Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis

Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis

On the potential for BECCS efficiency improvement through heat recovery from both post-combustion and oxy-combustion facilities

Carbon dioxide removal and tradeable put options at scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About