fuss s 20150709_1730_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_34
TRANSCRIPT
The need for and limits to
negative emissions
Sabine Fuss & Pete Smith On behalf of 30+ collaborators from many institutes and GCP
Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin
&
Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen
Our Common Future under Climate Change Conference, July 7-10 2015, Paris
The need for negative emissions
• IPCC AR5: Achieving 2C is
still possible, but it entails
huge contributions from
bioenergy - in most scenarios
combined with Carbon
Capture & Storage to go
“negative“.
• BECCS need 2-10 Gt
CO2/yr in 2050 5–25% of
2010 CO2 emissions
• Current global mean removal
of CO2 by ocean and land
sinks is 9.2 ± 1.8 Gt CO2 and
10.3 ± 2.9 Gt CO2, resp.
2
Data: CDIAC/GCP/IPCC/Fuss et al 2014
The need for negative emissions cont’d
3
Based on Figure TS.17, IPCC, WG3, AR5, 2014.
How can we go (net) negative?
The technology most widely used in climate stabilization
scenarios of AR5 is Bioenergy combined with CCS (BECCS).
4
Source: Applied Energy Handbook, Wiley.
Other negative emissions options:
• Afforestation (also in AR5, see next slide)
• Increases in soil carbon storage (biochar…)
• Direct air capture (coming up)
• Enhanced weathering (coming up)
Land-use and management changes:
• Saturation of CO2 removal over time
• Sequestration reversible (terrestrial carbon stocks inherently vulnerable to disturbance)
Geo-engineering options:
• Quicker and cheaper to ramp up
• Embody a much larger scale of mostly unknown risks
• Not able to deal with other consequences of increased CO2 concentrations such as ocean acidification
Afforestation / Reforestation (AR)
Humpenöder et al. (2014)
Picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forest_ialoveni.jpg
Summary of
the carbon
cycle impacts
of different
NETs
Smith et al. (2015)
Factors potentially enhancing or limiting the global
capacity for NETs
Smith et al. (2015)
Impact of NETs on
land, water,
nutrients, albedo,
energy and cost –
all expressed on a
per-t-C-eq. basis
Smith et al. (2015)
NETs consistent with 2C target at 3.6 GtC-eq./yr in
2100 or mean (max) implementation
NET Global C
removal
(GtCeq./yr
in 2100)
Mean (max),
land
requirement
(Mha in
2100)
Estimated
energy
requirement
(EJ/yr in
2100)
Mean (max),
water
requirement
(km3/yr in
2100)
Nutrient
impact
(ktN/yr
in 2100)
Albedo
impact in
2100
Investment
needs
(BECCS
for
electricity /
BECCS for
biofuel;
B$/yr in
2050)
BECCS 3.6 310 -170 1910 Variable Variable 138 / 123
DAC 3.6 Very low
(unless solar
PV used for
energy)
170 10-330 None None >> BECCS
EW 0.2 (1.0) 2 (10) 46 0.3 (1.5) None None >BECCS
AR 1.1 (3.3) 320 (970) Very low 370 (1040) 2.2
(16.8)
Negative;
or
reduced
GHG
benefit
where not
negative
<<BECCS
Smith et al. (2015)
Impact / limit summary for NETS
Main limits:
• DAC – cost, energy
• EW – vast areas – logistics
• Afforestation – albedo, water, competition for land
• BE/BECCS – water, competition for land Smith et al. (2015)
Conclusions
• Negative emissions of 3.6 GtC-eq./yr in 2100 are possible with BECCS and DAC
• EW and AR can provide less negative emissions than this in 2100
• All NETs have limits / downsides and none is a magic bullet
• Need more R&D and pilot projects – then to see if technology is scalable Most probably will need to look into other NETs to complement BECCS and AR, e.g. DAC, EW
• Improve governance to ensure sustainable implementation of NETs
• Safe storage needed, in addition to storage from fossil CCS.
• An over-reliance on NETs in the future, if used as a means to allow continued use of fossil fuels in the present, is extremely risky since our ability to stabilise the climate at <2C declines as cumulative emissions increase (Kriegler et al., 2014, Luderer et al., 2012)
• A failure of NETs to deliver expected mitigation in the future, due to any combination of biophysical and economic limits examined here, leaves us with no “Plan B”
• “Plan A” must be to reduce GHG emissions aggressively now
Smith et al. (2015)
Contact
Please also visit http://www.cger.nies.go.jp/gcp/magnet to learn more about GCP‘s research initiative „Managing Global Negative Emissions Technologies“
Sabine Fuss Mercator Research Institute on
Global Commons and Climate Change gGmbH
Torgauer Str. 12–15 | 10829 Berlin | Germany
tel +49 (0) 30 338 55 37 - 101
mail [email protected]
web www.mcc-berlin.net
Pete Smith Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen
23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, UK
tel +44 (0)1224 272702
mail [email protected]
web www.abdn.ac.uk/ibes/
people/profiles/pete.smith
Backup Material
Dienstag, 25. August 2015 13
14
The Extent of BECCS Use in IPCC AR5
Scenarios
• 101 of the 116 430-480ppm scenarios rely on BECCS.
• About 67% of these have a BECCS share in primary energy exceeding 20% in 2100.
• BUT: many uncertainties remain. Can we really bet on BECCS?
Source: Fuss et al. (2014), Nature Climate
Change.