Impact of Carbon Removal Technologies

🌍 Climate Tech 101 📘 – Carbon Mineralization: What is it? Why does it matter? Who are the leaders? Who’s funding it? 💡 What is it? Carbon mineralization is a powerful carbon capture and storage method, where CO₂ reacts with minerals to form stable carbonates. While this process occurs naturally over geological timescales, technological advancements now allow us to accelerate it for climate change mitigation. 🔥 Why does it matter? The IPCC underscores that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is critical to limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Carbon mineralization can potentially address a significant portion of the 10 gigatonne annual gap in CDR needed by 2050. 🌟 Who are the leaders? - Carbfix (Iceland): Pioneering rapid CO₂ mineralization in basalt, storing over 100,000 metric tons since 2012. - Heirloom: Captures atmospheric CO₂ with minerals like limestone and integrates it into concrete. - 44.01: Converts CO₂ into rock using Oman’s abundant peridotite formations. - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL): Demonstrating rapid CO₂ mineralization in basalt reservoirs. 🔬 Key Science Minerals involved: - Olivine (Mg₂SiO₄) - Wollastonite (CaSiO₃) - Serpentine (related to olivine) - Basalt Reaction accelerators: - Higher temperature and pressure - Higher pH levels - Larger surface area (e.g., through crushing) 💸 Who’s funding it? - Breakthrough Energy Ventures and Carbon Direct are leading private investors. - The U.S. Department of Energy has allocated $2.6 billion for CDR projects, including $100 million for scaling mineralization pilots. - Corporations like Stripe and Microsoft are purchasing carbon removal credits to support the commercialization of these technologies.

Climate models rely on weak data for durable #CarbonRemoval, yet these same models shape today’s climate policy Most climate policy experts tend to focus on the #NDCs as the fundamental tool for creating political buy-in to scale up durable removals. But what informs the NDCs? The #IPCC reports. What informs the IPCC reports? The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) illustrates the problem well. Of the 121 model runs in AR6 scenarios aligned with “well below 2°C” and “above 1.5°C” pathways: 120 deployed BECCS, 28 (!) deployed DACCS None (!) represented biochar or ERW. Carbon Direct has just published an in-depth analysis of the problem and potential solutions. The narrow scope of novel and durable carbon removals in IAMs also shapes many countries' NDCs and long-term strategies. I'd add that there is another important element - the IPCC guidelines for the national greenhouse gas inventories (the GHG accounting rules for the governments), which have also suffered from the same shortcomings. It's great to learn that Carbon Direct is collaborating with three leading research institutions with well-established IAMs: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Utrecht University, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, to close this gap and represent removals more accurately in climate modelling: updating the latest cost assumptions, learning curves, and growth constraints for existing carbon removal technologies, while adding new representations of DACCS, biochar, and ERW. Have a look at their short blog post laying out the key issues: https://lnkd.in/eEczTaW2 There's a link to a longer white paper at the end of the blog. It's well worth the read!

Rotating Packed Beds Carbon Capture 🟦 I’m always on the lookout for practical innovations in carbon capture, and the recent results from GTI Energy and Carbon Clean caught my attention. Their integrated ROTA‑CAP™ rotating‑packed‑bed system has demonstrated impressive performance, achieving over 95% CO₂ removal and >95% product purity while operating continuously for more than 1,600 hours. With capture costs around $41/tonne, about 10% lower than a comparable Cansolv-based process, and credible scale‑up potential to 4,000 TPD, this technology shows meaningful promise in reducing the footprint and cost of carbon capture. It’s encouraging to see tangible engineering progress pushing us closer to commercially viable decarbonisation pathways. 🟦 Process Description 1. Intensified Contacting Technology The system uses rotating packed beds ROTA-CAP (TM) that spin rapidly, creating very high centrifugal forces. These forces dramatically increase mass‑transfer efficiency, up to 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than conventional vertical towers. 2. Absorption Using a Rotating Packed Bed The solvent enters the rotating chamber from the centre and moves outward through the packing as it rotates. The incoming CO2 rich flue gas enters from the outer region and flows inward, opposite to the solvent flow. This counter‑current contact removes CO₂ from the gas as it passes through two consecutive absorber stages. 3. Gas Conditioning and Treatment The incoming gas is first pressurised to help move it through the system. It is then cooled (in a direct contact cooler (DCC)) to remove heat and excess moisture so the solvent can perform efficiently. After contacting the solvent in two stages, the cleaned gas passes through a polishing section to remove any solvent droplets before being released. 4. Solvent Circulation Through Two Absorption Stages Fresh solvent removes the remaining CO₂ in the second stage of absorption. The partially enriched solvent from this stage is cooled and pumped back to the first absorber stage. After absorbing more CO₂ in the first stage, the now CO₂‑rich solvent is heated before regeneration. 5. Regeneration Using a Rotating Packed Bed The CO₂‑rich solvent enters the regenerator. Hot vapour generated from a reboiler enters from the outside of the rotor. This counter‑flow strips CO₂ from the solvent. 6. Solvent–Vapour Separation and Reuse The regenerated solvent collects at the bottom of the unit, where part of it is boiled to create stripping gas. The vapour returns to the regenerator, while the hot regenerated solvent is cooled using heat recovery and then stored before being pumped back to the absorber. 7. CO₂ Product Handling The distillate vapours leaving the top of the regenerator are cooled. Any condensed liquid is recycled back into the system. The purified CO₂ exits as the final product. Reference: GTI Energy and Carbon Clean Solutions https://lnkd.in/ggFxgcUA This post is for educational purposes only.

Everyone’s pessimistic about the carbon market right now. Prices are down. Headlines are grim. Buyers are supposedly walking away. But look closer, and the picture changes. What’s really happening is the collapse of legacy offsets — and a surge in demand for removals. In particular: Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR) and biomass-based carbon removals. ARR remains the gateway drug to the removals world. It's scalable, relatively low-cost, and fits neatly into corporate climate strategies. Yes, there are risks around permanence, but buyers are managing them with ratings, buffers, and good project selection. But biomass-based carbon removals are gaining serious momentum. Projects turning agricultural or forestry waste into long-term, measurable carbon storage — biochar, bio-oil injection, and others — are clearing at $150 to $250 per tonne, especially when rated. Buyers like that they’re physical, trackable, and durable. And now, we’re seeing big signals from the top. SBTi’s proposed guidance to allow companies to use removals to meet near-term targets is a seismic shift. It reflects what many buyers have already started doing: prioritising real, high quality removals that can be measured and contracted today. This isn’t the end of the market. It’s a turning point. Avoidance credits are fading (despite some being extremely high quality). But high-integrity removals? That’s where the future - and the money - is heading. #carbonremoval #ARR #carbonmarkets #SBTi #carboncredits

🌍 The New EU Regulation on CO₂ Removals, paired with Methane Plasma Pyrolysis, offers a Climate-Friendly Future for the German Glass Industry The German glass industry emitted 4.9 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2015 – a major challenge for a sector heavily reliant on fossil fuels like natural gas. With the increased use of LNG (liquefied natural gas) and rising decarbonization requirements, Methane Plasma Pyrolysis offers an innovative solution. This technology produces low-carbon hydrogen, drastically reduces CO₂ emissions, and creates new economic opportunities under the new EU Regulation on CO₂ Removals (effective Dec. 26, 2024). How Does Methane Plasma Pyrolysis Help the Glass Industry? 1️⃣ Reduction of Direct CO₂ Emissions ✔ The glass industry consumes large amounts of natural gas to achieve production temperatures above 1,000°C. ✔ Methane Plasma Pyrolysis converts natural gas into low-carbon hydrogen and solid carbon. The hydrogen replaces fossil fuels in high-temperature furnaces, completely eliminating direct CO₂ emissions. 2️⃣ CO₂ Sequestration Through Solid Carbon ✔ The solid carbon produced can be embedded in durable glass products, glass coatings, or building materials. ✔ This long-term (>35 years) CO₂ sequestration meets the requirements of the EU Regulation on CO₂ Removals, enabling the issuance of CO₂ removal certificates. 3️⃣ Utilization of High-Temperature Waste Heat ✔ Methane Plasma Pyrolysis generates waste heat of up to 1,000°C, which can be directly reused in glass production, further enhancing energy efficiency. Impressive Figures: The Potential Impact for the German Glass Industry 💡 CO₂ Emission Reductions • Annual CO₂ emissions of the German glass industry (2015): 4.9 million tonnes of CO₂. • With Methane Plasma Pyrolysis, up to 90% of direct CO₂ emissions could be avoided, equivalent to 4.41 million t of CO₂. 💡 Hydrogen Production • The German glass industry consumes approximately 2.4 billion m³ of natural gas annually, which can be converted into 440,000 t of low-carbon hydrogen using Methane Plasma Pyrolysis. 💡 CO₂ Removal Certificates • Produced solid carbon: 1.300,000 tonnes, which can be used in durable applications. • CO₂ equivalent: 4.7 million tonnes of CO₂ removal certificates (at €50/t = € 234 million annually). 💡 Savings in the EU ETS • Current EU ETS price: €90/t CO₂. • Savings: ➡️ 4.41 million tonnes of CO₂ × €90/t CO₂ = €397 million annually. 💡 Total Economic Benefit • Savings in the EU ETS: €397 million. • Revenue from CO₂ certificates: €234 million. ➡️ Total benefit: € 631 million annually. The EU Regulation on CO₂ Removals establishes clear rules for certifying and monetizing CO₂ sequestration. For the German industry, this means: ✔ Transitioning to climate neutrality: Fossil fuels are replaced by low-carbon hydrogen, and carbon is embedded in durable products. ✔ Unlocking new revenue streams: CO₂ removal certificates provide financial incentives and strengthen competitiveness.

Why CO2 removal is not equal and opposite to reducing emissions? The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C. To achieve this, most scenarios rely heavily on negative emissions - removing CO2 from the atmosphere - to compensate for ongoing positive emissions. However, new research suggests this simple 1:1 offsetting may not lead to the expected climate outcome. One ton of CO2 emitted is not equal to one ton of CO2 removed. A recent study published in Nature Climate Change reveals fundamental asymmetries in how the climate system responds to positive versus negative CO2 emissions. The researchers found that a CO2 emission into the atmosphere is more effective at raising atmospheric CO2 concentration than an equivalent CO2 removal is at lowering the CO2 concentration. And this asymmetry gets worse with larger amounts - big removals have disproportionately less impact. One of the reasons for this asymmetry is the non-linear nature of Earth’s climate systems. Land and ocean carbon sinks respond differently to emissions vs. removals. At higher CO2 levels, the ability of plants and oceans to absorb CO2 saturates. Because of this and other non-linear effects, the concentration of CO2 is higher from emissions than from the removals of the same magnitude. However, the asymmetry is smaller for the surface temperature. The implications are profound. Simple 1:1 offsetting of new emissions with negative emissions may not lead to the same climate outcome as avoiding the emissions altogether. More CO2 removal may be needed to compensate for ongoing emissions. The findings highlight the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel emissions to align with Paris goals. With fundamental asymmetries limiting negative emissions, avoiding emissions in the first place remains critical. What are your thoughts on negative emissions and this asymmetry? Source: https://lnkd.in/gCjsiHGB #climatechange #CO2 #emissions #carbon #removal #globalwarming

The more ambitious the climate target, the greater the collision with biodiversity. Scholars assessed land-intensive carbon removal scenarios across five climate models (IAMs), covering nearly 135,000 terrestrial species. Tree planting and bioenergy crops absorb CO2 — but they need land. At the scale required to meet 1.5°C, that means converting grasslands, savannas, and shrublands into monoculture plantations. These natural ecosystems are species-rich. Replacing them with rows of fast-growing trees or energy crops destroys habitat. If current biodiversity hotspots were protected from land-use change, over half the land planned for carbon removal would be unavailable. Carbon removal can reduce warming-related species loss by up to 25%. But the tradeoff is real — and unevenly distributed. By Ruben Prütz, Joeri Rogelj, Gaurav Ganti, Jeff Price, @Rachel Warren, Nicole Forstenhäusler, Yazhen Wu, Andrey Lessa Derci Augustynczik, Michael Wögerer, Tamás Krisztin, Petr Havlik, Florian Kraxner, Stefan Frank, Tomoko Hasegawa, Jonathan Doelman, Vassilis Daioglou, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, and Sabine Fuss.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal: A Physical Science Perspective The American Physical Society (APS) has released a critical report, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR): A Physical Science Perspective," offering a scientific analysis of CDR methods and their limitations. The report provides essential insights for policymakers and researchers involved in addressing climate change. Key Findings: 1️⃣ The report classifies CDR approaches into two categories: cyclic (e.g., direct air capture) and once-through (e.g., enhanced rock weathering). Each category presents distinct energy and material requirements, as well as environmental impacts. 2️⃣ CDR, particularly cyclic processes, requires significant amounts of energy. Scaling up to gigaton levels of CO2 removal necessitates substantial investments in carbon-free energy sources. 3️⃣ Both cyclic and once-through CDR approaches face material limitations. Once-through methods involve processing massive quantities of materials, while cyclic methods require moving vast volumes of air. 4️⃣ Unlike computing technology, CDR capabilities are not expected to experience exponential growth. Physical constraints limit the potential for scaling up carbon removal at a fixed energy or material cost. 5️⃣ Robust measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, as well as clear standards for sequestration, safety, and environmental impact, are crucial for effective CDR deployment. Recommendations: 📚 Research and development on CDR should be pursued selectively and prudently, with a focus on identifying the most effective and scalable approaches. 📚 Large-scale CDR should not compromise efforts to reduce carbon emissions, which remains the most direct way to mitigate climate change. 📚 Ecosystem-based approaches should be pursued when feasible and effective, as long as they do not compromise other priorities like food production. 📚 CDR deployment, particularly for cyclic approaches, requires substantial additional carbon-free power sources. Planning should also consider land and sea area requirements and potential impacts. 📚 Once-through CDR approaches should not be deployed on a large scale until their effectiveness and impact are thoroughly researched. 📚 Reliable MRV systems and robust standards for sequestration, safety, and environmental impact are essential for any CDR program. 📚 Economic and policy frameworks for carbon management should be designed and implemented to balance the costs and benefits of large-scale CDR and emission reduction strategies. #CarbonRemoval #CDR #ClimateChange #ClimateScience #Energy #Sustainability #AmericanPhysicalSociety #APS #Decarbonization #EnergyTransition

Will the VCM become a carbon removals market? To get there, we’ll need stronger demand signals. Carbon Direct’s 2023 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report framed the VCM as “a tale of two markets”: while the carbon avoidance and reduction market is stagnating, the removals market has increased 5x since 2021. The growing interest in carbon removal is good news for the climate. For the carbon market to be an effective tool for reaching planetary net zero, we’ll need to ramp up removal credits. While reduction and avoidance credits can extend our climate runway, smooth the path to net zero, and provide transformative co-benefits, they can’t ultimately get us to planetary net zero. For that, we’ll need to both avoid all emissions possible AND remove all residual emissions. But - and here’s the kicker - removals currently make up only 3% of all credits issued on the voluntary carbon market (15% if you count those from projects that deliver both reduction and removal credits from all time on the VCM). And the removals market is producing <1% of what the IPCC models estimate we'll need to reach net zero by 2050. In other words, it’s a steep climb from here to a meaningfully-sized carbon removals market. Scaling carbon removals to the level needed for net zero will require a massive ramp-up of technological solutions and capacity, alongside a dramatic shift in market dynamics. One of the most effective levers to accelerate this shift is strong demand signals for carbon removals. Commitments like Frontier are at the leading edge here. The US Department of Energy, Fossil Energy and Carbon Management is also making efforts to fill this need, running a #CDR Purchase Pilot Prize with $35M available in offtake agreements. Though the prize money is a small sliver of what will be required to scale carbon removal to the level necessary for planetary net zero, efforts like these catalyze follow-on funding and provide the demand signals project developers need to scale their efforts. #climate #carbonremoval #carbonmarkets