open access publication

Article, 2024

A Comprehensive Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal Options for Germany

Earth S Future, ISSN 2328-4277, Volume 12, 5, 10.1029/2023EF003986

Contributors

Borchers M. 0000-0002-6392-1216 (Corresponding author) [1] Forster J. 0000-0003-0174-926X (Corresponding author) [1] Thran D. 0000-0002-6573-6401 [1] [2] Beck S. 0000-0002-4157-0777 [1] Thoni T. 0000-0002-9129-6198 [1] Korte K. 0000-0002-9882-9348 [1] Gawel E. 0000-0003-3634-9717 [1] Markus T. 0000-0003-3050-0711 [1] Schaller R. [1] Rhoden I. 0000-0001-9533-0536 [3] Chi Y. [4] Dahmen N. [4] Dittmeyer R. 0000-0002-3110-6989 [4] Dolch T. 0000-0001-6038-6695 [5] Dold C. 0000-0002-6035-5597 [6] Herbst M. 0000-0003-1371-4208 [3] Hess D. 0000-0001-5441-5867 [4] Kalhori A. 0000-0002-0652-8987 [7] Koop-Jakobsen K. [5] Li Z. 0000-0001-6307-5200 [7] Oschlies A. 0000-0002-8295-4013 [8] Reusch T.B.H. 0000-0002-8961-4337 [8] Sachs T. 0000-0002-9959-4771 [7] Schmidt-Hattenberger C. 0000-0002-3058-7469 [7] Stevenson A. 0000-0001-9487-0047 [8] Wu J. 0000-0002-0084-4866 [8] Yeates C. 0000-0003-1555-1254 [7] Mengis N. 0000-0003-0312-7069 (Corresponding author) [8]

Affiliations

  1. [1] Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ
  2. [NORA names: Germany; Europe, EU; OECD];
  3. [2] Biochemical Conversion Department
  4. [NORA names: Germany; Europe, EU; OECD];
  5. [3] Forschungszentrum Jülich
  6. [NORA names: Germany; Europe, EU; OECD];
  7. [4] Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe
  8. [NORA names: Germany; Europe, EU; OECD];
  9. [5] Alfred Wegener Institute
  10. [NORA names: Germany; Europe, EU; OECD];

Abstract

To reach their net-zero targets, countries will have to compensate hard-to-abate CO emissions through carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Yet, current assessments rarely include socio-cultural or institutional aspects or fail to contextualize CDR options for implementation. Here we present a context-specific feasibility assessment of CDR options for the example of Germany. We assess 14 CDR options, including three chemical carbon capture options, six options for bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and five options that aim to increase ecosystem carbon uptake. The assessment addresses technological, economic, environmental, institutional, social-cultural and systemic considerations using a traffic-light system to evaluate implementation opportunities and hurdles. We find that in Germany CDR options like cover crops or seagrass restoration currently face comparably low implementation hurdles in terms of technological, economic, or environmental feasibility and low institutional or social opposition but show comparably small CO removal potentials. In contrast, some BECCS options that show high CDR potentials face significant techno-economic, societal and institutional hurdles when it comes to the geological storage of CO. While a combination of CDR options is likely required to meet the net-zero target in Germany, the current climate protection law includes a limited set of options. Our analysis aims to provide comprehensive information on CDR hurdles and possibilities for Germany for use in further research on CDR options, climate, and energy scenario development, as well as an effective decision support basis for various actors.

Keywords

bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), climate mitigation, context-specific assessments of carbon dioxide removal, direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), feasibility assessment framework, natural sink enhancement (NSE)

Funders

  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Helmholtz Associations Initiative and Networking Fund

Data Provider: Elsevier