Posted on

Framework for a global carbon budget

Over the past decade, numerous studies have shown that global warming is roughly proportional to the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. In this way one can estimate our remaining carbon budget. This is the total amount of man-made carbon dioxide that can still be released into the atmosphere before reaching a set global temperature limit. The nations of the world agreed on this limit in the 2015 Paris Agreement. It should not exceed 1.5°C, and in any case be well below 2.0°C. However, diverging estimates have been made for the remaining carbon budget, which has a negative impact on policy-making. Now, an international research group of renown climate experts has published a framework for the calculation of the global CO2 budget in Nature. The researchers suggest that the application of this framework should help to overcome the differences when estimating the carbon budget, which will help to reduce uncertainties in research and policy.

Since the fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the concept of a carbon budget has become more important as an instrument for guiding climate policy. Over the past decade, a series of studies  has clarified why the increase in the global average temperature is roughly proportional to the total amount of CO2 emissions caused by human activity since the Industrial Revolution. In the framework, the research group cites numerous published documents that provide evidence for the linearity of this correlation. This literature has allowed scientists to define the linear relationship between warming and CO2 emissions as a transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE). The linearity is an appealing concept because of the complexity of the Earth’s response to our CO2 emissions. Additional processes that affect future warming have been included in recent models, among them, for example, the thawing of the Arctic permafrost. These additional processes increase the uncertainty of current climate  models. In addition, global warming is not just caused by CO2 emissions. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, fluorinated gases or nitrous oxide, as well as aerosols and their precursors affect global temperatures. This further complicates the relationship between future CO2.

In the case of global warming caused by CO2, every tonne contributes to warming, whether that ton is emitted in future, now or in the last century. This means that global CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero, and then remain zero. This also means that the more we emit in the next years, the faster we have to reduce our emissions later. At zero emissions, warming would stabilize, but not disappear. It may also reverse. An overdraft of the carbon budget would have to be compensated by removing the CO2 later. One way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere would be a technology called direct air capture, which we reported earlier. Ultimately, this will probably be the only way left, as carbon neutral renewable energy source sources only make up 5% of our energy mix. Establishing a global carbon budget will further highlights the urgency of our clean energy transition. Unfortunately, there is a large divergence when it comes the amount of the CO2 remaining in our carbon budget. In their framework, the researchers cite numerous studies on carbon budgets to maintain our 1.5°C target. Starting 2018, these range from 0 tonnes of CO2 to 1,000 gigatons. For the 2.0°C target, our carbon budget ranges from around 700 gigatons to nearly 2,000 gigatons of remaining CO2 emissions. The aim of the researchers is to limit this uncertainty by establishing a budget framework. The central element is the equation for calculating the remaining carbon budget:

Blim = (TlimThistTnonCO2Thist) / TCRE − EEsfb

The budget of the remaining CO2 emissions (Blim) for the specific temperature limit (Tlim) is a function of five terms that represent aspects of the geophysical and human-environment systems: the historical man-made warming (Thist), the non-CO2 contribution to the future temperature increase (TnonCO2), the zero emission commitment (TZEC), the TCRE, and an adaptation for sources from possible unrepresented Earth system feedback (EEsfb).

 

Term Key choices or uncertainties Type Level of understanding
Temperature limit Tlim Choice of temperature metrics that allow global warming, the choice of pre-industrial reference and consistency with global climate targets Choice Medium to high
Historical man-made warming Thist Incomplete data and methods for estimating the man-made component; see also Tlim Choice and uncertainty Medium to high
Non-CO2 contribution to future global warming TnonCO2 The level of non-CO2 contributions coinciding with global net zero CO2 emissions; depends on policy choices, but also on the uncertainty of their implementation Choice and uncertainty Medium
Non-CO2 contribution to future global warming TnonCO2 Climate reaction to non-CO2 forcers, such as aerosols and methane Uncertainty Low to medium
Zero-emissions commitment TZEC The extent of the decadal zero emission commitment and near-zero annual carbon emissions Uncertainty Low
Transient climate response to cumulative emissions of CO2 TCRE TCRE uncertainty, linearity and cumulative CO2 emissions that affect temperature metrics of the TCRE estimate Uncertainty Low to medium
Transient climate response to cumulative emissions of CO2 TCRE Uncertainty of the TCRE linearity, value and distribution beyond peak heating which is affected by cumulative CO2 emissions reduction
Uncertainty Low
Unrepresented Earth system feedback mechanisms EEsfb Impact of permafrost thawing and duration as well as methane release from wetlands on geomodels and feedback Uncertainty Very low

In the CO2 budget, the unrepresented Earth system feedback (EEsfb) is arguably the greatest uncertainty. These feedback processes are typically associated with the thawing of permafrost and the associated long-term release of CO2 and CH4. However, other sources of feedback have been identified as well. This include, for example, the variations of CO2 uptake by the vegetation and the associated nitrogen availability. Further feedback processes involve changes in surface albedo, cloud cover, or fire conditions.

It remains a challenge to adequately characterize the uncertainties surrounding the estimates of our carbon budget. In some cases, the reason of these uncertainties is inaccurate knowledge of the underlying processes or inaccurate measurements. In other cases the terminology is used inconsistently. For better comparability and flexibility, the researchers propose to routinely measure global surface air temperature values. This method gives robust data for models and model runs over selected time periods. More detailed comparisons between published estimates of the carbon budget are currently difficult because the original data used for publication often are missing. The researchers therefore propose to provide these in the future along with publications.

Breaking down the carbon budget into its individual factors makes it possible to identify a number of promising pathways for future research. One area of ​​research that might advance this field is to look more closely at the TCRE. Future research is expected to narrow down the range of TCRE uncertainties. Another promising area of ​​research is the study of the correlation between individual factors and their associated uncertainties, for example, between uncertainties in Thist and TnonCO2. This could be achieved by developing methods that allow a more reliable estimate of historical human-induced warming. It is also clear that less complex climate models are useful to further reduce the uncertainties of climate models, and hence the carbon budget. Currently, each factor of the framework presented by yhr researchers has its own uncertainties, and there is no method to formally combine them.

At Frontis Energy, too, we think that progress in these areas would improve our understanding of the estimates of our carbon budget. A systematic understanding of the carbon budget and is crucial for effectively addressing global warming challenges.

Posted on

Fresh CO2 − Now Even Cheaper!

Hurry up while stocks last, you may want to add. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a waste product from the combustion of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal. It is almost worthless because it finds little use. However, technologies such as power-to-gas or electrosynthesis of methanol are able to convert CO2 directly into a valuable, albeit cheap, product. This increases the commercial interest in CO2 and ultimately the filtering from the air becomes economically interesting. That is, filtering CO2 from the air is now more than just an expensive strategy to fight global warming. Recently, a detailed economic analysis has been published in the journal Joule, which suggests that this filter technology could soon become a viable reality.

The study was published by the engineers of the Canadian company Carbon Engineering in Calgary, Canada. Since 2015, the company has been operating a pilot plant for CO2 extraction in British Columbia. This plant − based on a concept called Direct Air Capture (DAC) − formed the foundation for the presented economic analysis. It includes the costs from suppliers of all major components. According to the study, the cost of extracting a ton of CO2 from the air ranges from $94 to $232, depending on a variety of design options. The latest comprehensive analysis of DAC estimated $600 per tonne and was published by the American Physical Society in 2011.

In addition to Carbon Engineering, the Swiss company Climeworks also works on DAC in Zurich. There, the company has launched a commercial pilot that can absorb 900 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year for use in greenhouses. Climeworks has also opened a second plant in Iceland that can capture 50 tonnes of CO2 per year and bury it in subterranean basalt formations. According to Daniel Egger of Climeworks, capturing a ton of CO2 at their Swiss site costs about $600. He expect the number to fall below $100 per ton over the next five to ten years.

Technically, CO2 is dissolved in an alkaline solution of potassium hydroxide which reacts with CO2 to form potassium carbonate. After further processing, this becomes a solid residue of calcium carbonate, which releases the CO2 when heated. The CO2 could then be disposed of underground or used to make synthetic, CO2-neutral fuels. To accomplish this, Carbon Engineering has reduced the cost of its filtration plant to $94 per ton of CO2.

CO2-neutral fuel, from carbon dioxide captured from the air and electrolytic hydrogen.

Assuming, however, that CO2 is sequestered in rock, a price of $100 per ton would translate into 0.2 cent per liter gasoline. Ultimately, the economics of CO2 extraction depend on factors that vary by location, including the price of energy and whether or not a company can access government subsidies or a carbon trading market. But the cost per ton of DAC-CO2 is likely to remain above the real market price of CO2 in the near future. For example, emission certificates in the European Union’s trading system are around €16 per tonne of CO2. If CO2 extraction technology were to gain a foothold in markets where carbon can be sold at DAC price, then DAC would of course become economical. Conversion into useful products product such as plastic or fuel could help to include the DAC premium. Alberta seems a great location because its oil is of low quality and comes at high production costs. Moreover, the size of the DAC plant suggests this is done best in Canada, given the size of the country. Albertans may want to reconsider their business model.

At Frontis Energy, we are excited about this prospect. CO2 is accessible everywhere and DAC is helping us convert it into methane gas. Power-to-gas is perfect for this. However, there would still have something to happen. $100 per ton is already good (compared to $600), but to be able to economically place a product like methane on the market it should be more like $10 per tonne:

CO2 economy of power-to-gas with electrolytic hydrogen. Cal, California, EOR, enhanced oil recovery.

Sure, we always complain, but we still cannot wait to see how the price of DAC continues to fall and wish Carbon Engineering to Climeworks all the best. Keep it up!

(Photos: Carbon Engineering)