science 2014 1431 benson negative emissions insurance

2
27 JUNE 2014 • VOL 344 Issue 6191  1431 SCIENCE sciencemag.org I n its April 2014 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognized that reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 70% by mid-century will require more than  just implementing emission-free solutions. Many scenarios for stabilizing GHG concentrations that  were evaluated by the panel included removing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from the atmosphere: so-called “negative emissions” or carbon dioxide removal (CDR).  Among the most promising CDR methods are refores- tation, afforestation (planting new forests), and bioen- ergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). How- ever, for BECCS strategies to succeed, major hurdles must be overcome.  All BECCS approaches rely on removal of CO 2  from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis. In nature, as a plant decays, it releases CO 2   back into the atmosphere. But  with BECCS, CO 2  is captured and permanently stored under- ground, resulting in a net nega- tive reduction in atmospheric carbon. At least three BECCS technologies are being investi- gated today. CO 2 released dur- ing the microbial fermentation of plant sugars to ethanol can  be captured. CO 2  can also be captured during the gasifica- tion of biomass to synthetic gas for conversion to transportation fuels, chemicals, or electricity generation. And CO 2  from the combustion of biomass, either  with or without coal, can be captured. Since 2009, a consortium supported by the U.S. De- partment of Energy has successfully operated a BECCS test facility in Illinois. CO 2  emitted during the fermen- tation of corn is captured and stored in a sandstone formation about 7000 feet underground. The project removes 300,000 metric tons of CO 2  per year from the atmosphere—the equivalent of removing about 70,000 cars from the road annually. But that’s just a fraction of the amount of CO 2  that will have to be removed to c urb global warming, and of the estimated 2 to 10 gigatons (Gt) of CO 2  per year that could be removed from the atmosphere with BECCS by 2050.* For either conventional CCS or BECCS, the cost must come down. Right now, CCS costs range from about $30 to $140 per ton of CO 2 , depending on the source from which it is captured, the capture technology, and the form of storage.  Improving energy-conversion effi- ciency would address the cost hurdles, but this requires further research and development. Increased confi- dence in long-term geological storage security is also needed to better understand the risks of BECCS strategies. Capturing and storing 1 Gt of CO 2  from the atmosphere using BECCS  would require about 0.5 to 1 Gt of biomass (equivalent to 10 to 20 exajoules of primary en- ergy). Concerns about whether this much biomass could be practically and sustainably har-  vested, dried, and collected at this scale without interfering  with food production or nega- tively affecting other ecosystem services must be examined. Combined with sustainably managed reforestation and af- forestation, the potential co-  benefits of habitat creation, carbon mitigation, and renew- able energy make BECCS an attractive choice. Rigorous re- search and development are needed so that the potential of BECCS is clear to scientists, policy-makers, and the public. Negative-emissions technologies such as BECCS can be thought of as part of an insurance policy for climate change mitigation. This approach still leaves unanswered questions, but to not consider it carefully  would be too risky.   Neg ative-emissi ons insur ance  Sally M. Benson is director of the  Precourt Institute  for Energy and the Global Climate and Energy  Project, and a  professor in the department of  Energy Resources  Engineering, at Stanford University,  Stanford, CA. E-mail: smbenson@ stanford.edu EDITORIAL – Sally M. Benson 10.1126/science.1257423 *http:/ /r eport.mitigation201 4.org/ drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc _wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_techni- cal-summary.pdf. †https:/ /www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_chapter8.pdf and http:/ /decarboni.se/ sites/ default/files/ publications/24202/c osts-ccs-and-other-low -carbon-technologies.pdf. “This approach still leaves unanswered questions, but to not consider it carefully would be too risky.” Ethanol refinery     P     H     O     T     O    :          R     I     G     H     T          S     T     A     N     F     O     R     D     U     N     I     V     E     R     S     I     T     Y    ;          I     N     S     E     T          T     A     D     P     H     O     T     O     /     I     S     T     O     C     K     P     H     O     T     O  .     C     O     M Published by AAAS    o   n    O   c    t   o    b   e   r    8  ,    2    0    1    4   w   w   w  .   s   c    i   e   n   c   e   m   a   g  .   o   r   g    D   o   w   n    l   o   a    d   e    d    f   r   o   m  

Upload: pablocolindres

Post on 02-Jun-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Science 2014 1431 Benson Negative Emissions Insurance

27 JUNE 2014 bull VOL 344 Issue 6191 1431SCIENCE sciencemagorg

In its April 2014 report the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognized that

reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40

to 70 by mid-century will require more than

just implementing emission-free solutions Many

scenarios for stabilizing GHG concentrations that

were evaluated by the panel included removing

carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere so-called

ldquonegative emissionsrdquo or carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

Among the most promising CDR methods are refores-

tation afforestation (planting new forests) and bioen-

ergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) How-

ever for BECCS strategies to

succeed major hurdles must be

overcome

All BECCS approaches rely

on removal of CO2 from the

atmosphere by plants during

photosynthesis In nature as

a plant decays it releases CO2

back into the atmosphere But

with BECCS CO2 is captured

and permanently stored under-

ground resulting in a net nega-

tive reduction in atmospheric

carbon At least three BECCS

technologies are being investi-

gated today CO2

released dur-

ing the microbial fermentation

of plant sugars to ethanol can

be captured CO2 can also be

captured during the gasifica-

tion of biomass to synthetic gas

for conversion to transportation

fuels chemicals or electricity

generation And CO2 from the

combustion of biomass either

with or without coal can be

captured

Since 2009 a consortium supported by the US De-

partment of Energy has successfully operated a BECCS

test facility in Illinois CO2 emitted during the fermen-

tation of corn is captured and stored in a sandstone

formation about 7000 feet underground The project

removes 300000 metric tons of CO2 per year from the

atmospheremdashthe equivalent of removing about 70000

cars from the road annually But thatrsquos just a fraction of

the amount of CO2 that will have to be removed to curb

global warming and of the estimated 2 to 10 gigatons

(Gt) of CO2 per year that could be removed from the

atmosphere with BECCS by 2050

For either conventional CCS or BECCS the cost must

come down Right now CCS costs range from about

$30 to $140 per ton of CO2 depending on the source

from which it is captured the capture technology and

the form of storagedagger Improving energy-conversion effi-

ciency would address the cost hurdles but this requires

further research and development Increased confi-

dence in long-term geological

storage security is also needed

to better understand the risks

of BECCS strategies Capturing

and storing 1 Gt of CO2 from

the atmosphere using BECCS

would require about 05 to 1

Gt of biomass (equivalent to 10

to 20 exajoules of primary en-

ergy) Concerns about whether

this much biomass could be

practically and sustainably har-

vested dried and collected at

this scale without interfering

with food production or nega-

tively affecting other ecosystem

services must be examined

Combined with sustainably

managed reforestation and af-

forestation the potential co-

benefits of habitat creation

carbon mitigation and renew-

able energy make BECCS an

attractive choice Rigorous re-

search and development are

needed so that the potential

of BECCS is clear to scientists

policy-makers and the public

Negative-emissions technologies such as BECCS

can be thought of as part of an insurance policy for

climate change mitigation This approach still leaves

unanswered questions but to not consider it carefully

would be too risky

Negative-emissions insurance

Sally M Benson

is director of the

Precourt Institute

for Energy and

the Global Climate

and Energy

Project and a

professor in the

department of

Energy Resources

Engineering

at Stanford

University

Stanford

CA E-mail

smbenson

stanfordedu

EDITORIAL

ndash Sally M Benson

101126science1257423

httpreportmitigation2014orgdraftsfinal-draft-postplenaryipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_techni-cal-summarypdf daggerhttpswwwipccchpdfspecial-reportssrccssrccs_chapter8pdf and httpdecarbonisesitesdefaultfilespublications24202costs-ccs-and-other-low-carbon-technologiespdf

ldquoThis approach still leavesunanswered questions butto not consider it carefully

would be too riskyrdquo

Ethanol refinery

P H O T O 983080 R I G H T 983081 S T A N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y 983080 I N S E T 983081 T A D P H O T O I S T O C K P H O T O

C O M

Published by AAAS

o n O c t o b e r 8

2 0 1 4

w w w s c i e n c e m a g o r g

D o w n l o a d e d f r o m

Page 2: Science 2014 1431 Benson Negative Emissions Insurance