Podcast Summary
CCS: A Strategic Approach to Climate Goals: CCS is crucial for climate goals but should be used strategically, not as a crutch for fossil fuels. Categorizing CCS uses can help ensure effective implementation.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) will play a crucial role in achieving our climate goals, but its use should be strategic and not a crutch for extending the life of fossil fuel infrastructure. The IPCC's 6th assessment report suggests capturing and storing around 100 gigatons of CO2 between now and the end of the century. CCS includes various methods, such as direct air capture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and point source carbon capture. While CCS is necessary for addressing hard-to-abate emissions, it's essential not to rely too heavily on it and instead prioritize true decarbonization. The debate around CCS lies in its potential to be a crutch or an accelerator to net zero. To help understand the different use cases of CCS, Emily Grubert, an associate professor of sustainable energy policy at Notre Dame, categorizes it into four categories: industrial emissions, negative emissions, fuel switching, and process heat. By recognizing these categories, we can ensure that CCS is used effectively and not as a means to prolong the use of fossil fuels.
Distinguishing Different Subcategories of Carbon Capture and Storage: CCS includes various technologies for capturing CO2 from different sources, with main uses being fossil fuel emissions mitigation, oil recovery enhancement, industrial processes, and negative emissions for carbon removal. Effective prioritization is crucial to reduce emissions and transition to renewable energy.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is an umbrella term for various technologies used to capture CO2 from different sources. While the tree absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere is not considered CCS, the capture unit installed in power plants or industrial processes is. The conversation highlighted the importance of distinguishing different subcategories of CCS to avoid confusion, especially as more policies and investments are made in this area. The 4 main uses of CCS include mitigating emissions from fossil fuels, enhancing oil recovery, utilization in industrial processes, and negative emissions for carbon removal. While CCS can help extend the life of fossil fuel infrastructure, it's crucial to prioritize its use effectively to reduce emissions and transition to renewable energy sources.
CCS Technologies: Two Main Categories: CCS is crucial for reducing emissions in processes where alternatives are limited, but its implementation depends on the availability of alternatives and societal need.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies can be categorized into two main groups based on the availability of alternatives. The first category includes processes where alternatives exist, such as natural gas power plants with carbon capture. While it may be necessary to extend the life of these plants using CCS, there is ongoing debate about whether this is the best available alternative. The second category includes processes where alternatives are limited, like cement production. In these cases, CCS is crucial for mitigating emissions, as there is no viable alternative to producing cement without significant CO2 emissions. Overall, the decision to implement CCS technologies depends on the specific context, including the availability of alternatives and the societal need for the process in question.
Three main categories of carbon capture: Carbon capture solutions fall into three categories: 1) adding to unnecessary processes, 2) adding to point sources with no alternatives, and 3) removing CO2 from the atmosphere for compensation.
Not all carbon capture solutions are created equal. There are three main categories: 1) adding carbon capture to processes with alternatives where it might not be necessary, 2) adding carbon capture to point sources where alternatives are not yet viable, and 3) removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere as compensation for ongoing emissions. The first two categories focus on mitigation, preventing CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Category 3, however, introduces carbon removal, which involves taking CO2 out of the atmosphere to offset ongoing emissions. This distinction is crucial for understanding net zero and net negative emissions, with the former referring to no change to the atmosphere and the latter to removing more CO2 than is emitted. It's essential to recognize these differences to effectively address climate change.
Understanding Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and CDR Credits: CDR is a method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and credit it against past emissions. The use of CDR credits can apply to both ongoing and legacy emissions, but their application and governance need clarity.
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is a crucial concept in the fight against climate change, but its implementation and the use of CDR credits can be confusing. CDR refers to methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and crediting it against previous emissions. From a global perspective, it's expected that we'll need to go beyond net-zero emissions to deal with existing atmospheric CO2. Currently, CDR is being developed, and the use of credits from these projects can be applied to either ongoing or legacy emissions. However, the distinction of how these credits are used is not well understood. As the CDR industry grows, it's essential to consider the governance and resource allocation implications of this sector. Ultimately, the ability to purchase and apply CDR credits gives buyers the power to decide how and where to allocate these resources.
Understanding the complexities of the Carbon Dioxide Removal market: The governance and structure of the Carbon Dioxide Removal market, particularly the use of carbon credits, is a complex issue. Decisions made now will shape its future development and could create significant liabilities and power structures.
The structure and governance of the Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) market, particularly the use of carbon credits, is a complex issue with significant implications for how we address climate change. The speaker acknowledges the challenges of the emerging market, including its "wild west" nature and the potential for misuse, such as using carbon removals to offset easier-to-mitigate emissions rather than reducing them first. However, they argue that making distinctions between different types of carbon credits, such as those for offsetting versus reducing residual emissions, is important now, even though the physical impact of these distinctions may not be significant for some time. This is because the decisions we make about the governance and structure of the CDR market now will shape its development in the future and could create significant liabilities and power structures that may be difficult to change once established.
Strategic Decision-Making in Carbon Removal and Mitigation: Recognize carbon removal as a depletable resource, prioritize long-term atmospheric applications, and make strategic decisions between compensatory and non-compensatory removal methods for deep decarbonization.
Prioritizing carbon removal and mitigation efforts requires careful consideration of resource constraints and technology generations. The speaker emphasizes the importance of recognizing carbon removal as a depletable resource and the infrastructural intensity of some mitigation efforts. They suggest focusing on technologies that will likely be needed for long-term atmospheric applications, such as mitigating nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and cement production. Additionally, they highlight the distinction between compensatory and non-compensatory carbon removal, with the former potentially having higher priority due to the difficulty of eliminating certain emissions entirely. Overall, the conversation underscores the need for strategic decision-making in the pursuit of deep decarbonization.
Maximizing Use of Less Valuable Carbon Capture Categories for Infrastructure Development: Debate over using less valuable carbon capture categories for infrastructure development exists, as it could help build pipelines and sequestration sites but potentially perpetuate fossil fuel use and inefficient infrastructure placement.
While various Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies aim to reduce CO2 emissions, they all result in a CO2 stream that requires significant infrastructure to manage. This includes pipelines, sequestration sites, and downstream applications. The argument for maximizing the use of less valuable carbon capture categories, like Category 1, to build infrastructure is debatable. While it may help develop CO2 pipelines and wells, it could also perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and their associated emissions. Moreover, designing infrastructure around old fossil plants rather than optimal locations for Carbon Dioxide Removal facilities could lead to inefficient and ineffective long-term buildouts. Linear infrastructure like pipelines last longer than point source infrastructure, so it's crucial to place them in the right locations for maximum benefit. A shift towards CDR-oriented paradigms could lead to more colocated plants and storage resources, optimized transport infrastructure, and less extensive networking.
CCS: Mitigation vs. Removal: In net zero scenarios, mitigation CCS projects' CO2 releases can cause issues, while removal CCS doesn't face the same challenge. Prioritize reducing CCS usage and promoting alternatives to fossil fuels.
The distinction between mitigation Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and removal CCS is significant when it comes to the re-release of CO2. Mitigation CCS projects that accidentally release CO2 can cause a problem in net zero scenarios, necessitating pipeline redundancy and management. In contrast, removal CCS does not face the same issue if pipelines need to be shut down for repairs. Additionally, the utilization of CO2, such as in synthetic jet fuel production, still contributes to atmospheric levels, making it essential to ensure accurate accounting. The priority should be to minimize the amount of CCS needed, whether for mitigation or removal, and incentivize the development of alternatives to fossil fuels.
Prioritizing Carbon Capture and Storage in the Cement Industry: The cement industry should focus on implementing Carbon Capture and Storage technologies to reach net zero emissions and eventually net negative emissions. Addressing infrastructure and energy-intensive aspects is crucial for significant impact.
While waste management is important, the priority in the cement industry should be on implementing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies to reach net zero and eventually net negative emissions. This will require figuring out which emissions cannot be managed any other way and how to effectively implement CCS infrastructure. The faster the industry can transition to drawdown Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), the better. This conversation with Dr. Emily Grubert, an associate professor of sustainable energy policy at Notre Dame's Keogh School of Global Affairs, touched on the complexities of the emerging CCS world and the importance of addressing the infrastructure and energy-intensive aspects of the cement industry to make a significant impact on reducing emissions.
