Climate change, negative emissions and the DESARC-MARESANUS project - Stefano Caserini
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DESARC - MARESANUS
DEcreasing Seawater Acidification Removing Carbon
Climate change, negative emissions
and the DESARC-MARESANUS project
Stefano Caserini
Politecnico di Milano, DICA sez. Ambientale
stefano.caserini@polimi.it
@Caserinik
Outline • Introduction – state of the climate • Climate neutrality and negative emissions • The Desarc-Maresanus project
INTRODUCTION
average
2011-2019:
2,4 ppm CO2/y
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
Source: Hansen et al., 2020, Global Temperature in 2019
Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well
below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit
the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels,
recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and
impacts of climate change (Paris Agreement, art. 2)
Source: IPCC Special report on 1.5°C of global warming
Trend: - 3 m2 of sea ice per ton of CO2
Source: Notz and Stroeve, Science, 2016
On a 100 years timescale 43% of emissions remain in the atmosphere,
with the rest taken up roughly equally (28,5% each) between the land
and ocean
100
+43
+28,5 +28,5
Fonte: Mackey B. et al. (2013) Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate
change mitigation policy. Nature Climate Change, 3, 552-557
Source: Tyrler et al.. (2006) Reviewing the Impact of Increased Atmospheric CO2 on Oceanic pH and the Marine Ecosystem.
In: Schellnhuber (ed) Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press
…Ocean pH has decreased by 0.1 pH units since the pre-industrial
period, a shift that is unprecedented in the last 65 Ma (high confidence)
or even 300 Ma of Earth’s history (medium confidence)
(IPCC SR 1.5°C, 3.3.10)
On a > 1000 years timescale, about 20% of the emitted CO2 stays in the
atmosphere, 60% is taken up by the ocean and 20% by land
100
+20
+20
+60“To limit the impact of ice-sheet response and thus sea-level rise, imminent CO2 reduction is needed to below 350 ppm. To even hope to achieve this goal, we need to change our ways immediately and start extracting a lot more carbon than we emit. We have had our part, emitted the carbon, and enjoyed the benefits. Now it’s time to clean up our mess.”
CLIMATE NEUTRALITY AND NEGATIVE EMISSIONS
Meeting the Paris Agreement goals require bending the global curve of
CO2 emissions by 2020 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
90% CO2 emission reduction
in 3 decades (halving
emissions every decade!)
CO2 removal from atmosphere
Stop deforestation
Source: Rockstrom et al., 2017, A roadmap for rapid
decarbonization. Science, vol. 355, issue 6331, 1269-1271The need of «negative emissions» of CO2 – IPCC narrative
“All pathways that limit
global warming to 1.5°C
with limited or no overshoot
project the use of carbon
dioxide removal (CDR) on
the order of 100–1000
GtCO2 over the 21st
century.”
IPCC SR 1.5 °C, SPM, C3
The achievement of the
“well below 2°” target is
fundamentally dependent
on our ability to remove
carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere at a very large
scale, and store it
somewhere
Source: IPCC Special Report on Global
Warming of 1.5 °C, Fig. 3a 600-700 Gt CO2What is meant by “to stay below +1.5 °C”?
Global temperature temporarily
exceed 1.5 °C around mid-
Global temperature century, remain above 1.5 °C
stabilize at or below for a maximum duration of a
1.5 °C above pre- few decades, and return to
industrial levels. below 1.5 °C before 2100.The need of «negative emissions» of CO2 – new narrative
Cumulative CO2 emissions until
net-zero defines the amount of
warming at the peak
The length of the transition to
net-zero CO2 emissions broadly
determines the timing of peak
warming
The amount of net CO2 emissions in the long term, which can be
zero or net-negative determines long term temperature trend
(whether temperatures stabilise at the peak, or decline).
Source: Rogelj et al. (2019) How to avoid ‘unfair and risky’ climate change scenarios.
www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-to-avoid-unfair-and-risky-climate-change-scenariosA first sound conclusion:
IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT TO REDUCE
CO2 EMISSIONS AND
OTHER GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
QUICKLY AND
DRASTICALLYPer essere sicuri che sia chiaro lo scrivo anche in italiano
È DAVVERO
IMPORTANTE RIDURRE
IN MODO RAPIDO E
DRASTICO LE EMISSIONI
DI CO2 E DEGLI ALTRI
GAS SERRANEGATIVE EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES
also known as carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies
• Afforestation and reforestation
• Agricultural practices / Soil Carbon Sequestration
• Biochar «Nature-based
• Building with biomass solutions»
• Macroalgal cultivation for sequestration
• Wetland, peatland and coastal habitat restoration
• Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
• Direct Air Capture of CO2 from air – and storage (DACCS)
• Ocean alkalinization (ocean liming)
• Enhanced terrestrial weathering
• Enhanced ocean productivity (ocean fertilization)
• Enhancing cement carbonationRenforth and Wilcox (2019) Specialty Grand Challenge: Negative Emission Technologies. Frontiers in Climate.
Costs and potentials (2050) of Carbon Dioxide Removal technologies Minx, J.C. et al., 2018: Negative emissions: Part 1 - research landscape and synthesis. Fuss, S. et al., 2018: Negative emissions - Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Nemet, G.F. et al., 2018: Negative emissions - Part 3: Innovation and upscaling. Source: IPCC Special Report Environmental Research Letters on Global Warming of 1.5°C
Evidence on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) abatement costs,
2050 deployment potentials, and key side effects
Soil Carbon Sequestration
Ocean alkalinization
Enhanced weathering
Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage
Biochar
Bionergy and carbon capture and storage
Afforestation
Source: IPCC Special
Report on Global
Warming of 1.5°C,
fig. 4.2
“CDR deployment of several hundreds of GtCO2 is subject to multiple
feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence).”
IPCC SR 1.5 °C, SPMIs CO2 removal a form of “climate geoengineering”?
“This report does not use the term ‘geo-engineering’ because of
inconsistencies in the literature, which uses this term to cover SRM,
CDR or both, whereas this report explicitly differentiates between
CDR and SRM” (IPCC-SR1.5°C, 1.4.1).
SRM
Solar Radiation Modification or
Solar Radiation Management
• Stratospheric aerosol injection
• Marine cloud brightening
• Cirrus cloud thinning
• Ground-based albedo modification
Solar radiation modification refers to the intentional modification of the
Earth's shortwave radiative budget with the aim of reducing warming.
IPCC, SR1.5 °C, GlossaryIPCC SR 1.5 °C, Tab. 4.7
Solar geoengineering reduces temperatures without
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
CO2 concentrations increase ocean acidification increases
Temperatures are lowered the risks of reaching and passing tipping
points is reducedGeoengineering is not a well-defined concept • geoengineering: something novel, weird, exotic, unfamiliar, untested, potentially dangerous; • is really something «special» what we call geoengineering? What is climate geoengineering? • discharging 40 billion tons of CO2/year in the atmosphere? • discharging 100 Mt /year of biochar on the soils? • discharging 100 Mt/year of nitrogen fertilizers on the soils? • discharging 100 Mt /year of slaked lime on the oceans? • the human-caused dissolution of 15 GtCO2/year in seawater? • 1 billion hectares of new forests?
Glossary IPCC AR5 and SR1.5°C Mitigation A human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) Carbon Dioxide Removal methods refer to processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere by either increasing biological sinks of CO2 or using chemical processes to directly bind CO2. CDR is classified as a special type of mitigation. Adaptation refers to the actions taken to manage the impacts of climate change Remedial measures aim to temporarily reduce or offset warming Solar Radiation Modification is a remedial measure
ETHICAL ASPECTS «Climate emergency” justification for CDR and SRM Governance: who has the right to decide the large scale use of CDR or SRM Mitigation deterrence Moral hazard
If there is a climate emergency, then we are allowed to take steps that would not be otherwise be justified? How do we know when we are experiencing a climate emergency? Who has the right to declare a global «climate emergency»?
Mitigation deterrence: the prospect of reduced or delayed
emissions cuts resulting from the introduction or consideration of
another climate intervention.
There are different ways in which CDR could fail to meet the
objective of lowering CO2 concentrations:
• Failure: CDR formally substitutes for emissions reductions, and
then fails to materially deliver
• Rebounds: if side effects or rebounds from CDR generate
increased emissions.
• Imagined offsets: the imagined future availability of CDR
encourages or enables the avoidance or delay of emissions
reductions without any planned or formal substitution mechanism
Source: adapted from McLaren D., Jarvis A. (2018) Quantifying the potential scale of mitigation
deterrence from greenhouse gas removal techniques. AMDEG Working Paper 2Moral hazard: “lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g. by insurance.” The dream of costless solution to the climate crisis: a moral hazard with respect to GHG emission reductions. • CDR distracts from strong mitigation • SRM distracts from strong mitigation • Adaptation activities distract from mitigation • Municipal waste incinerators distract from waste prevention or separate collection • Electric cars distract from sustainable mobility • Photovoltaic panels distract from energy savings • Morning after pill distracts from contraceptive use
Corriere della Sera, 3/12/2019
Negative emissions: summary • It is really important to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions quickly and drastically • CDR is essential for 1,5°C-2°C target: we need to remove hundreds of gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere • A portfolio of CDR options with no single portfolio manager • Different targets for emission reductions and carbon removal could be useful to avoid mitigation deterrence • Every option should be evaluated in terms of risks, merits and co- benefits (and costs..) • It’s time to stop arguing about what is optimal and instead focus on doing what is good • New ideas are welcomed «So, in the race to find and develop high capacity, cost-effective, socially acceptable CDR, the contest not only needs to test and evaluate current frontrunners, but must also encourage additional, worthy contenders». Rau G. (2019) The race to remove CO2 needs more contestants. Nature Climate Change, 9, 256.
DESARC – MARESANUS PROJECT
DEcreasing Seawater Acidification Removing Carbon
www.desarc-maresanus.net
Partners
• POLITECNICO DI MILANO (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile ed
Ambientale)
• EURO-MEDITERRANEAN CENTER ON CLIMATE CHANGE
FOUNDATION - (ODA Unit)
• CO2 APPS
• AMUNDI
Activities
1. Environmental and cost analysis of alternative feedstocks for CO2-negative slaked lime
production
2. Mass balance and emissions measurement at a gasification-calcination plant
3. Advanced modeling of lime-water mixing in the near-field region of a ship’s wake
4. Scenarios of ocean liming at a global scale with an Earth System Model
5. Laboratory and field experiment on the dissolution of slaked lime in seawater
6. Ecological implications of ocean liming
7. Alternative methods for CO2 capture and storage
8. Optimization of glass composition for glass-ceramics containersA new negative CO2 process through hydrogen from
biomass, ocean liming and CO2 storage
- combination of existing technologies
- CO2 removal at a competitive costs
- Counteracting ocean acidificationFirst layout of the process
(Brevetto: G. Cappello & D. Ross Morrey)
CO2
Hot Syngas
Gasification
Biomass H2O
Atmospheric Carbon
Calcination Slaking
CaCO3 CaO
Fossil
Carbon WGSR
Cogeneration
Compression Separation
H2
CO2
Glass H2O Ca(OH)2
Export
CO2 Avoided
Filling
CO2
Launching
CCS SCSSimplified layout of the process
CO2
Hot Syngas
FUEL Gasification
CaO
CaCO3 Calcination slaking
CO2 Ca(OH)2
Storage Separation
H2
Internal use
CO2
CO2 avoided ExportAdvanced layout of the process
Energy balance of the process (ref. use of 1 t of biomass, 2% H2O)
Francesco Campo (Politecnico di Milano)
Analisi del ciclo di vita di un processo per
ottenere emissioni negative
CO2
Hot Syngas
FUEL Gasification
CaO
CaCO3 Calcination slaking
CO2
Storage
Ca(OH)2
Separation
H2
Internal use
CO2
CO2 avoided ExportDario Pagano (Politecnico di Milano)
Ocean liming in pratica: scenari di
spargimento di Ca(OH)2 dalle navi
CO2
Hot Syngas
FUEL Gasification
CaO
CaCO3 Calcination slaking
CO2
Storage
Ca(OH)2
Separation
H2
Internal use
CO2
CO2 avoided ExportAntonella Abbà (Politecnico di Milano)
Modellizzazione fluidodinamica dello
spargimento di Ca(OH)2 nella scia di una nave
CO2
Hot Syngas
FUEL Gasification
CaO
CaCO3 Calcination slaking
CO2
Storage
Ca(OH)2
Separation
H2
Internal use
CO2 avoided ExportDennis Ross Morrey (CO2APPS)
Negative Emissions in shallow coastal upwelling
waters by preventing microalgae bloom
CO2
Hot Syngas
FUEL Gasification
CaO
CaCO3 Calcination slaking
CO2
Storage
Ca(OH)2
Separation
H2
Internal use
CO2
CO2 avoided ExportMomme Butenschön (Fondazione CMCC)
Simulazione di scenari di alcalinizzazione del
Mediterraneo
CO2
Hot Syngas
FUEL Gasification
CaO
CaCO3 Calcination slaking
CO2
Storage
Ca(OH)2
Separation
H2
Internal use
CO2
CO2 avoided ExportGiovanni Cappello (CO2APPS)
Sistemi alternativi di stoccaggio CO2
CO2
Hot Syngas
FUEL Gasification
CaO
CaCO3 Calcination slaking
CO2
Storage
Ca(OH)2
Separation
H2
Internal use
CO2
CO2 avoided ExportMassimiliano Cremonesi (Politecnico di Milano)
Analisi strutturale di capsule in vetro per lo
stoccaggio sottomarino di CO2
CO2
Hot Syngas
FUEL Gasification
CaO
CaCO3 Calcination slaking
CO2
Storage
Ca(OH)2
Separation
H2
Internal use
CO2
CO2 avoided ExportCaterina Lanfredi / Arianna Azzelino
(Politecnico di Milano)
Benefici e impatti per l'ambiente marino dalla
CO2 variazione del pH
Hot Syngas
FUEL Gasification
CaO
CaCO3 Calcination slaking
CO2
Storage
Ca(OH)2
Separation
H2
Internal use
CO2
CO2 avoided ExportSome results Direct carbon benefit: 2,2 tCO2/t biomass; 1,1 tCO2/t coal Total carbon benefit: 2,5 tCO2/t biomass; 2,4 tCO2/t coal Totake carbon benefit with LCA approach ( see F. Campo, later): 2,2 tCO2/t biomass; 0,9 tCO2/t coal
Some results
Direct CO2 removal cost
Fuel: biomass 80-100 €/tCO2, coal 200-220 €/tCO2
Net CO2 removal cost (with revenue from H2):
Fuel: biomass 50-70 €/t CO2, coal 20-40 €/tCO2
CO2 European
Emission 25 €/t
Allowances price
5 €/tFurther researches • Optimization and validation of the process • Mass balance and emission measurement at a gasification-calcination plant • Environmental and cost analysis of alternative feedstocks for CO2-negative slaked lime production • Logistics of slaked lime management in the harbours along Mediterranean coasts • Preliminary design and cost analysis of retrofit of existing vessels for slaked lime spreading • Laboratory and field experiment on the dissolution of slaked lime in seawater • Advanced modeling of lime-water mixing in the near-field region of a ship’s wake • Scenarios of ocean liming at a global scale with an Earth System Model • Ocean liming in the Mediterranean Sea in a very low-emission scenario • CO2 storage: further researches on SCS, BIBR and CWI • Ecological implications of ocean liming • Regulatory and legal aspects;
Trento, 23-25 ottobre 2019
Milano, 4-5 febbraio 2020
San Diego,
16-21 febbraio 2020
Goteborg, 13-15 maggio 2020DESARC - MARESANUS
DEcreasing Seawater Acidification Removing Carbon
I cambiamenti climatici, le emissioni negative e il progetto
Desarc-Maresanus
Stefano Caserini
Politecnico di Milano, DICA sez. Ambientale
stefano.caserini@polimi.it
@CaserinikYou can also read
