Carbon Dioxide Removal

Banner Image Source: Climeworks

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) refers to technologies and approaches that remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR does not refer to point source carbon capture from the power or industrial sector.

Investments in CDR have soared since 2021. A few of these advancements include:

The launch of the $925 million Frontier Fund to purchase permanent carbon removals over the next eight years,
Climeworks raising $650 million from investors,
$3.5 billion appropriated in the bipartisan infrastructure law for direct air capture (DAC) hubs, and
The announcement of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Carbon Negative Shot.

It’s safe to say CDR has caught the attention of both the public and private sectors. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report called for a buildout of global CDR capacity to capture CO₂ emissions already in our atmosphere and offset difficult-to-decarbonize sectors such as heavy industry. With companies all around the world rushing to make net-zero commitments and pouring investments into CDR solutions, supply will need to meet surging demand. That’s why we need to accelerate the deployment of this important technology.

Though plants have been absorbing CO₂ for millions of years and this is where carbon removal efforts have been focused in the past, the CDR space has evolved beyond simple tree planting. Solutions now range from completely natural pathways to solutions that include varying degrees of technological intervention. These technological solutions are sometimes referred to as hybrid carbon removal, engineered carbon removal, or active carbon management¹. Despite increased funding causing a flurry of new carbon removal providers to emerge, many of these novel solutions that branch out from natural solutions are still in their nascent stages of development — therefore the supply of engineered carbon removal is currently low. In their most recent report, the IPCC notes that CDR technologies are necessary to avoid the worst effects from changes in our climate, and WRI estimates that for the U.S., this equates to capturing 2 gigatons (Gt) annually by 2050²,³. In modeling performed by the International Energy Agency (IEA), DAC alone would need to capture more than 85 million metric tons of CO₂ by 2030 and around 980 million metric tons by 2050, a steep scale-up from the 10,000 metric ton capture capacity of DAC today.⁴ Furthermore, estimates show that total global CDR capacity needs to reach 10 gigatons of CO₂ annually by mid-century.⁵ Researching, developing, demonstrating, and bringing to market new CDR technologies is going to take time. Therefore, in order to efficiently meet CDR needs, federal and private sector dollars are necessary to accelerate the commercialization of a broad portfolio of CDR solutions.

1. A Diverse & Pragmatic Set of Solutions

How?

1. Continuous Research, Development, & Demonstration (RD&D)
Various DOE offices, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and carbon removal companies have been actively exploring carbon removal technologies to deploy at scale. Beyond DAC, novel, innovative carbon removal technologies are increasing in their technology readiness level for demonstration and deployment.

2. Develop Inclusive Incentives
The federal government has already opened the door for direct air capture companies to benefit from removing and storing CO₂ through the 45Q tax credit. Modification of the credit to be technology-neutral would ensure that diverse carbon removal solutions can benefit from this tax incentive and drive down the cost of these novel solutions.

Source: Adapted from ITIF Active Carbon Management: Critical Tools in the Climate Toolbox

Background

Historically, DOE has invested in carbon removal technologies on smaller scales and typically for purposes such as fuel creation through biomass utilization. Broadening R&D focus areas and increasing the scale of research projects will allow for the maturation of a diverse set of scalable, efficient, and economic carbon removal solutions.

In the last two years, carbon removal projects have received a significant amount of funding. However, much of the funding was targeted at DAC technology specifically instead of broad CDR solutions. Deployment of a pragmatic suite of solutions requires supporting a diverse set of carbon removal pilot and demonstration projects. Additionally, carbon removal solutions range from technologies that are still in their early testing stages to technologies that are closer to demonstration and deployment. As these alternative CDR solutions are being researched, we may find technological, economic, or regulatory traits that allow an alternative approach to deploy faster. A good example is the fast pyrolysis of biomass residue, which not only maintains forest and soil health from areas where the residual biomass is collected, but also ensures the carbon locked away in biomass residue is not returned to the atmosphere. The biomass can then be converted into bio-oil or other value-added products such as hydrogen which can then supply clean energy needs or be geologically sequestered in wells with simpler permitting requirements due to the more stable nature of bio-oil. For this reason, it is crucial to pilot and demonstrate alternative solutions.

Fellow Voices

2. A Coordinated Effort

How?

1. Interagency and Interoffice Coordination
There are various offices across DOE and agencies, such as the USDA, Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with valuable expertise and research projects in CDR. Due to its cross-cutting nature, CDR exists in various different forms, from terrestrial to aquatic CDR. Therefore collaboration and information sharing between agencies such as NOAA, which specializes in marine activities, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), which has researched cutting-edge ocean-based carbon removal projects, would foster a unified effort and avoid redundancy. Better coordination can ensure clear, effective, and streamlined RD&D and deployment of CDR technologies.

2. Public & Private Carbon Removal Advanced Market Commitments
Thoughtful public sector purchasing of carbon offsets would drive down the cost of best-in-class CDR technologies that are far too expensive to go to the commercial market in their current form. Many tech companies have started making their own purchases and investments, but even for large companies like Microsoft, CDR technologies are too expensive to heavily invest in a meaningful way that would drive down cost. The federal government could reduce this risk by serving as the customer to the diverse carbon removal technologies that purchasers are seeking but are not currently cost-effective or widely available. Ultimately, the CDR technologies would mature to commercialization and open up to a wide range of consumers as a result of these public investments.

Background

Carbon removal solutions ready for purchase today vary in their level of quality. The majority of available offsets are natural solutions, which tend to have a shorter durability timespan and a reduced level of carbon removal certainty (a.k.a. measurability). Despite this, natural solutions are a necessary approach to rely on while we ramp up more engineered solutions with higher levels of certainty and durability. Though hybrid and engineered solutions such as DAC and mineralization are at earlier technology readiness levels and require further R&D and testing, a few breakthrough innovative solutions are ready for prime time and are becoming available as private sector investments begin to unlock the testing and deployment of these solutions. As such, each solution will require a different form of support depending on the stage it is in to either improve confidence in a solution or bring it closer to market commercialization. In order for these solutions to deploy successfully, they will require significant collaboration within and between the private and public sectors⁶.

There is significant untapped opportunity for the federal government to improve its own CDR investment efforts by accelerating a portfolio of carbon removal solutions. Currently, the federal government is investing in one solution, DAC, through structures such as the Pre-Commercial and Commercial DAC Prize competitions and the 45Q incentive. DAC is a high-potential and high-impact solution. However, if public investment is constrained to only a handful of recognized opportunities, then the most cost-effective and competitive CDR technologies may never be realized.

Source: Adapted from the The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(NASEM) report on Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration A Research Agenda

Fellow Voices

3. Bolster CDR Solutions

How?

1. Support newer CDR solutions coming to market
Currently, there is a small set of solutions that are performing well in the market today with the potential for full market commercialization. Solutions including Charm Industrial’s biomass to bio-oil solution and Occidental’s partnership with Carbon Engineering to build the largest DAC facility in the world would both permanently sequester significant tons of carbon dioxide. However, both of these solutions have one thing in common: they are currently too expensive to be impactful on a per ton basis. Therefore, supporting these technologies through tax incentives, loan programs, competitive grants, and advanced market commitments is important.

2. Strengthen confidence in natural carbon removal solutions
Natural solutions have often taken a backseat due to the lack of certainty in sequestration capacity. Even so, natural solutions are the readiest category of CDR because they are already in use today at a large scale. A 2017 study estimates that, assuming global CO₂ emissions continue on a business-as-usual pathway, cost-effective natural solutions can deliver 37% of CO₂ reductions needed to align with the Paris Agreement by 2030.⁷ Therefore in order to strengthen confidence and certainty in this pathway the following solutions are recommended:

Resolving a lack of measurability in the amount of CO₂ absorbed by plants by generating consensus on the method of calculating plant carbon sequestration or transparency of calculation methods used.
Improving monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) by using satellite imagery, incorporating percentage buffers into sequestration calculations to factor in lost removal potential due to unexpected disturbances, and cataloging offsets or credits through a clearinghouse or database to avoid double counting.
Improving additionality, which dictates whether the CO2 removal achieved by a project is above “business as usual” by cataloging offsets or credits through a clearinghouse or database to avoid double counting and deprioritizing or eliminating avoided conversion projects, as they are not inherently additional.

Background

Lack of measurability, MRV, and additionality have all been used as reasons not to support natural solutions. However, the science and methodology are evolving, showing that while we cannot be 100% certain of the impact of natural solutions, we can at least try to get close to certainty. There are now various ways to measure plants’ CO₂ uptake depending on their size, lifespan, and CO₂ needs for photosynthesis. The U.S. Forest Service has a tree carbon calculator and the Carbon OnLine Estimate (COLE) which provide data on CO₂ sequestration estimates for a particular forest, region, or state. Some universities even have their own CO₂ sequestration calculator through their respective forestry programs.⁸,⁹ MRV protocols are also important to ensure natural solutions adhere to the contracts and certificates they are tied to and are able to accurately estimate how long they are able to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere, avoid double counting, and build buffers to account for disruptions due to deforestation, forest damage due to increasing wildfires, and general rot or decay. Building more certainty in additionality of natural solutions by eliminating ambiguous pathways such as “avoided conversion,” which prevents the loss of forest by protecting or conserving it despite not removing any new CO₂, would increase confidence in the removal potential of natural solutions.

Cumulative Industry-Wide Engineered Carbon Removal Tonnage Delivered

Source: Charm

Though increasing confidence in natural solutions should be a priority, natural-based carbon removal is not a one-stop solution. Even if all recommendations are implemented, there are limits to how much CO₂ can be absorbed by plants due to surface area restrictions and long growth periods out of seedling stages, where plants begin to build mass and take in more CO₂ for photosynthesis.¹⁰ Thankfully, solutions like Charm’s biomass to bio-oil or DAC don’t face these challenges. Instead, Charm only needs waste biomass, which are in large supply in farming states, and DAC, which requires fewer water and land resources and only needs a power switch to start removing significant tons of CO₂ from our atmosphere.⁹ A diverse portfolio of innovative CDR solutions requires support, not only to avoid the valley of death, but provide first-of-a-kind scalable solutions to market as soon as possible.

Carbon Dioxide Removal

1. A Diverse & Pragmatic Set of Solutions

How?

Background

Fellow Voices

2. A Coordinated Effort

How?

Background

Fellow Voices

3. Bolster CDR Solutions

How?

Background

Fellow Voices

Sources

ClearPath

Carbon Dioxide Removal

How to Reform Carbon Removal Policy

Other Resources

1. A Diverse & Pragmatic Set of Solutions

How?

Background

Fellow Voices

2. A Coordinated Effort

How?

Background

Fellow Voices

3. Bolster CDR Solutions

How?

Background

Fellow Voices

Sources