Global opportunities and challenges on net-zero CO2 emissions towards a sustainable future

Author(s):  
Joseph A Nathanael ◽  
Kumaran Kannaiyan ◽  
Aruna K. Kunhiraman ◽  
Seeram Ramakrishna ◽  
Vignesh Kumaravel

In recent years, global warming has been showing its deadliest impact on civilization through natural calamities. Given this situation, the sustainable and economically viable CO2 capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)...

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 655-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filip Johnsson ◽  
Jan Kjärstad ◽  
Mikael Odenberger

The CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology is since more than ten years considered one of the key options for the future climate change mitigation. This paper discusses the implications for the further development of CCS, particularly with respect to climate change policy in an international geopolitics context. The rationale for developing CCS should be the over-abundance of fossil fuel reserves (and resources) in a climate change context. From a geopolitical point, it can be argued that the most important outcome from the successful commercialisation of CCS will be that fossil fuel-dependent economies with large fossil fuel resources will find it easier to comply with stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets (i.e. to attach a price to CO2 emissions). This should be of great importance since, from a geopolitical view, the curbing on GHG emissions cannot be isolated from security of supply and economic competition between regions. Thus, successful application of CCS may moderate geopolitical risks related to regional differences in the possibilities and thereby willingness to comply with large emission cuts. In Europe, application of CCS will enhance security of supply by fuel diversification from continued use of coal, especially domestic lignite. Introduction of CCS will also make possible negative emissions when using biomass as a fuel, i.e. in so called Biomass Energy CCS (BECCS). Yet, the development of BECCS relies on the successful development of fossil fuelled CCS since BECCS in itself is unlikely to be sufficient for establishing a cost efficient CCS infrastructure for transport and storage and because BECCS does not solve the problem with the abundant resources of fossil fuels. Results from research and development of capture, transport and storage of CO2 indicate that the barriers for commercialization of CCS should not be technical. Instead, the main barriers for implementation of CCS seem to be how to reach public acceptance, to reduce cost and to establish a high enough price on CO2 emissions. Failure to implement CCS will require that the global community, including Europe, agrees to almost immediately to start phasing out the use of fossil fuels, an agreement which seems rather unlikely, especially considering the abundant coal reserves in developing economies such as China and India.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amélie Cécile Martin ◽  
François Lacouture ◽  
Philip Llewellyn ◽  
Laurent Mariac

Abstract To curtail the global warming increase to less than 2°C by 2050, the IPCC highlights Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) as a vital approach. TotalEnergies, following its ambition to become a responsible energy major, invests 10% of its R&D budget in CCUS to reduce the global process cost and help decarbonize our activities. TotalEnergies is both working to decarbonize its own assets and developing a transport and storage infrastructure in Europe, with notably Northern Lights an example of note. It is equally of interest how this transport/storage infrastructure can be of use for other sectors and as such how various full CCUS chains may emerge. This explains the interest to develop techno-economic tools to evaluate CO2 capture processes applied to a wide range of industries. CO2 that is an integral part of the manufacturing process, is particularly difficult to abate in any future scenario, and one particular industry, which is facing such a challenge is the cement sector. CCUS has been identified as a potential solution to help with this issue. The present paper outlines the outcomes of a techno-economic study evaluating CO2 capture technologies based on cement factory retrofitting. A literature review aimed at identifying the main characteristics of a typical European cement plant (capacity, process mode, pollutant composition in the flue gas…) was carried out. In this paper, a base case scenario of 90% absorption-based CO2 capture with monoethanolamine (MEA) is compared with four alternative CO2 capture approaches: –An absorption technology based on non-amine solvent.–An adsorption technology based on a Concentration Swing Adsorption process.–An oxyfuel technology derived from the R&D works performed during the CEMCAP project (European CO2 capture project).–A Calcium Looping technology with tail-end process configuration. For each of these approaches, the whole carbon capture chain has been considered: this includes flue gas pretreatment, CO2 conditioning (including compression), steam generation, and utilities. Using process simulations, engineering studies have been carried out and have provided Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as Capital Costs, Operation Costs and Global Warming Potential (primary energy consumption per ton of CO2 avoided). It enabled mapping the technologies with regards to the cost and volume of CO2 avoided, as well as providing for each of the technologies the break-even point for an eventual CO2 tax. Based on these KPIs, several facts have been highlighted: –The need to consider the whole process (including utilities, compression…) and not only the capture unit.–The development of new materials for adsorption and contactor design is already driving down costs.–The availability of waste heat can be a game-changer to implement a CO2 capture technology.–Technology comparisons are location and site-specific and cannot be taken as a basis for concept selection. TotalEnergies approach to CCUS is collaborative. With these full-scale techno-economical assessments, generated via quotations from industrial equipment providers and using Engineering, Procurement and Construction standards, this not only gives a basis for comparison, but also assists our discussions with partners to identify key technological development pathways.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Jenkins ◽  
Michelle Cain ◽  
Pierre Friedlingstein ◽  
Nathan Gillett ◽  
Myles Allen

<p>The IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C concluded that the maximum level of anthropogenic global warming is “determined by cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions up to the time of net zero CO2 emissions and the level of non-CO2 radiative forcing” in the decades prior to the time of peak warming. Here we quantify this statement, using CO2-forcing-equivalent (CO2-fe) emissions to calculate remaining carbon budgets without treating available mitigation scenarios as a representative sample of possible futures.</p><p>CO2-fe emissions are used to calculate an observationally-constrained estimate of the Transient Climate Response to cumulative Emissions (TCRE) using a large ensemble of historical radaitve forcing timeseries. This observationally-constrained TCRE is used to calculate remaining total CO2-fe budgets from 2018 to 1.5°C, which we compare with results discussed in Chapter 2, SR15. We consider contributions to this total remaining budget from CO2 and non-CO2 sources using both historical observations and the available mitigation scenarios in the IAMC scenario database.</p><p>We calculate remaining CO2 budgets for a 33, 50 or 66% chance of limiting peak warming to 1.5°C and use these to assess the extent to which scenarios in the IAMC scenario database are consistent with ambitious mitigation as outlined in the Paris Agreement. We argue that, assuming no change in the definition of observed global warming and no increase in TCRE due to non-linear feedbacks, scenarios currently classified as “lower 2°C-compatible” are consistent with a best-estimate peak warming of 1.5°C.</p>


2013 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 6018-6025 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Yoshioka ◽  
D. Obata ◽  
H. Nanjo ◽  
K. Yokozeki ◽  
T. Torichigai ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Indri Susanti

This paper was aims to review the technologies and materials for CO2 capture. Carbon dioxide is one of the triggers for the greenhouse effect and global warming. Some methods to reduce CO2 are separation technologies include air capture, CO2 Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) and CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. CCS technology have several systems namely post-combution, pre-combustion and oxy-fuel combustion. Post-combution systems can be done in various systems including absorption, adsorption, membrane, and cryogenic. Adsorption proses for CO2 capture applied with porous material such us mesopore silica, zeolite, carbon, MOF dan COF. This review was described the advantages and disadvantages of each technology for CO2 capture. Materials for CO2 adsorption also descibed in this review.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document