Carbon Takeback Obligation: interesting idea, but...
In this article I will address some of the more common questions and concerns about the Carbon Takeback Obligation (CTBO).
For those of you who don’t know what a CTBO is please refer to the information provided in these links:
In short: a CTBO makes producers (and/or suppliers) of fossil fuels in a country responsible for making sure that an increasing percentage of the carbon they take out of the ground is returned to permanent storage. ?In the aspired Net Zero year that storage or takeback percentage reaches 100. It assumes that renewables will continue their impressive growth and that governments will continue incentivizing the transition to more sustainable energy sources (and efficiency and behavioural changes) and that that will lead to a significant reduction in demand for fossil fuels. It also recognises that this is a huge challenge with many uncertainties and that in the meantime quite a lot of fossil fuels will still be used.
The aim of the CTBO is to make the net carbon footprint of this remaining fossil fuel use as low as possible, and to ensure it is net zero in the aspired Net Zero year (for the world as a whole assumed to be in 2050).
The trigger for writing this article is and interesting blog written by Martin Lukas recently:
Some of the issues he raises are questions we get more often, so I thought it would be handy for future reference to write and publish a response to some of the key issues he raises.
Let’s start with a disclaimer: although we have looked at the policy in quite a bit of detail in the two NL studies we have to acknowledge that it is early days, and therefore a lot will still depend on the more detailed choices that have to be made when implementing a policy. So what you get in this article is my expert opinion on how some of the issues raised by Martin and others could be addressed. Preferences on how to do this in reality may vary from country to country. The implementation of any new policy with an impact will require compromises with different stakeholder groups and possibly supplementary policies to minimise or compensate for negative impacts. These compromises will be different in different countries. As long as the ultimate goals are still reached (1. no more additional global warming from fossil carbon use in the net zero year and 2. all costs of cleaning up are paid for by the revenues generated by fossil fuel production and use) these different options should all be open for discussion.
Below please find a list of all the questions/comments/concerns that I will discuss in this article. Feel free to scroll down to the one you are interested in. Also, please let me know if you have any comments or questions, or if there are any additional questions or concerns that you would like me to respond to.
1.??????Which carbon storage methods will qualify for CTBO storage credits?
2.??????Is a CTBO Carbon Storage Credit the same or interchangeable with Negative Emissions (or Carbon Removal) credits?
3.??????Will a CTBO completely obviate the need for CCS subsidies?
4.??????What is the impact of a CTBO on Direct Air Capture technologies?
5.??????What could be the impact on energy prices?
6.??????Why is all responsibility for emissions placed on the producer?
7.??????From a consumer perspective is a CTBO not the same as a carbon tax? And therefore resisted?
8.??????Will a CTBO not lead to energy shortages when there are insufficient carbon storage credits?
9.??????Will a CBAM be needed to avoid leakage (companies moving to countries without CTBO)?
10.??How will this policy impact poorer people both in wealthier countries and in developing countries?
11.??Should the price of carbon not be determined by the so-called Social Cost of Carbon (instead of indirectly basing it on carbon storage costs)?
12.??For EU: won’t this all eventually happen anyways with the ETS?
13.??What about methane emissions?
14.??Who does this policy appeal to? And why? Who won’t like this policy and why?
15.??What about the health and fence-line impacts on communities? A CTBO only addresses carbon and climate impact.?
16.??CCS/CDR is too insignificant or too big/large
17.??Is it not better to put all our money in renewable energy instead of ‘false’ solutions like CCS?
18.??Carbon/CO2 from which origin is eligible for CSUs (Carbon storage units/credits)?
19.??Will this not lead to more fossil energy use? Lock-in of fossil energy use?
1.??????Which carbon storage methods will qualify for CTBO storage credits?
The objective of a CTBO is to reach ‘Geological Net Zero’ (GNZ) in the NZ year. This means that as much carbon is permanently stored in the geosphere as is still being produced. Managing and balancing the flows in and out of permanent storage will indirectly lead to meeting the goal of Net Zero emissions (from remaining fossil fuel use). With permanent storage we mean storage that lasts?hundreds to thousands of years (at least as long as CO2 emitted to the atmosphere remains there). The carbon needs to be kept away from the short carbon cycle (atmosphere, biosphere) as there is too much carbon going around there already due to historic fossil fuel emissions. Examples of technologies that could qualify: CCS (carbon capture and storaget), DACS (Direct Air Capture and Storage), BiCRS (biomass carbon removal and storage), mineralisation, pyrolysis and other processes that produce stable carbon (which can be safely and permanently stored/used). Some durable building industry products (wood, concrete) may also qualify.
2.??????Is a CTBO Carbon Storage Credit the same or interchangeable with Negative Emissions (or Carbon Removal) credits?
Theoretically a storage credit has ‘nothing’ to do with emission credits and accounting. It’s only role is to keep track of how much carbon flows back into the geosphere (permanent storage). Companies that want to take carbon out of the geosphere need these credits to demonstrate their compliance with a CTBO and their progress towards GNZ. Importantly these credits cannot be deducted from emissions to lower net emissions.
Negative emissions or carbon removal credits typically require CO2 to have been removed from the atmosphere (step 1) and to be stored away from the atmosphere (step 2). Both storage in the biosphere (trees, soil) and in the geosphere are allowed. Carbon removal credits can be used to lower net emissions (so-called offsetting).
A CTBO can best be compared to other ‘flexible regulations’ that introduce and use ‘compliance credits’ for an industry or sector to make progress toward an agreed goal in the most efficient way. For example Renewable Energy Obligations.
3.??????Will a CTBO completely obviate the need for CCS subsidies?
Most countries that are planning to scale up CCS projects and infrastructure are looking at using ‘carrots’ (subsidies, contract for difference, tax credits, infrastructure investments) to get the ball rolling. That is probably the quickest way to get started. However, this is in fact a further subsidy for fossil fuel use and most countries have made commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. Also, there is very little societal support for subsidising an industry that is not short of cash (understatement) and seen as the cause of the climate problem. The study done by CE Delft for the Netherlands shows that introduction of a CTBO effectively takes over the role of the SDE++ subsidy (contract for difference) thereby obviating the need for continued subsidies.
4.??????What is the impact of a CTBO on Direct Air Capture technologies?
A CTBO requires accurate tracking of how much carbon is taken out and put back into permanent storage. Taking carbon out of storage is made conditional on sufficient carbon being permanently stored. This makes access to low-cost large scale carbon storage a critical success factor for all fossil carbon producers (coal, oil, gas, limestone). They will first go after the larger high concentration point sources, eg ethanol or hydrogen production (preferably in countries with carbon pricing on emissions). But they will anticipate that at some point these will run out and they will need air capture (industrial or via biomass) and storage for their remaining production. It is therefore expected that the introduction of a CTBO will immediately increase fossil energy companies' interest and investments in DAC technologies and pilot plants so that 10 to 20 years from now this technology can be deployed at scale if and where needed. An example of a sector where this is likely to be needed for a while still is aviation. Fossil energy use with emissions offset by DAC and fossil carbon produced (for kerosine) offset by CO2 (from DAC) permanently stored, is likely to be the lowest cost option for many years, and even longer if a sustainable biomass technology is used to remove the CO2 from the air for permanent storage.
5.??????What could be the impact on energy prices?
Energy prices (very simplified) depend on the following factors:
1) basic production cost, including compliance costs for any regulations (eg for emissions)
2) taxes, royalties, etc
3) market impacts due to supply/demand imbalances, uncertainties, wars, etc.
At the moment prices are high and volatile because of ‘3’: not enough supply and a lot of uncertainty.
A Carbon Takeback Obligation means that producers have to make sure enough carbon is stored also. That will cost money, and these compliance costs (1) will increase prices. Initially that increase will be very small; for example, the costs of a 10% takeback obligation can be recovered with a very small price increase on all products sold (1 or 2 pennies/cents per m3 gas or litre gasoline). However, as the required takeback % increases this price increase will become more substantial. The maximum price increase will probably be determined by the cost of Direct Air Capture and storage (DACS) at a 100% takeback requirement (somewhere between 2040 and 2050). For a m3 of natural gas that could add +/- 50 euro cents. This seemed like a lot in 2021 but is in fact much less than the recent price increases due to market problems (3).
Research has shown that people are far less opposed to paying extra for a product with reduced climate impact than for a product with the same climate impact but made more expensive by additional taxes. Taxes are almost always seen as a political risk.
As with all policies governments should carefully consider the impact on different groups and consider compensating measures where necessary. Governments could use some of the substantial revenues they get from fossil fuels production and use to compensate vulnerable groups. (2)
But maybe the strongest price impact of a CTBO will be the result of reduced uncertainty (3). Regulations that make it clear under which conditions fossil energy can still be produced and used will provide certainty to markets and make it possible for companies to invest in fossil energy production and in carbon storage. This will help avoid increasing dependence on OPEC+ countries with the associated risks of high and volatile prices. Effectively this means that instead of transferring a lot of money to OPEC+ countries the revenues from price increases will be spent on reducing the carbon footprint of remaining fossil energy use.
6.??????Why is all responsibility for emissions placed on the producer?
We support shared responsibility for emissions by both producer and emitter. Ideally emissions will be priced (tax, ETS) and a Carbon Takeback Obligation is added to make sure the producer also has a business interest to help put more and more carbon back into permanent storage. ?Because of the rapid emission reductions that are required it is important to push on both sides of the value chain. Where this is the case the CTBO will act as a Contract for Difference. The producer may also decide to keep the CO2 and sell electricity or hydrogen instead (of fossil fuels). But especially for dispersed use of fossil fuels (which needs to be discouraged also for health reasons) the emitter typically has little choice if they cannot switch to other energy sources. In that case the producer needs to organise offsets (both for emissions and production) through DACS and/or BiCRS. This will increase the product price significantly and so encourage customers to switch to other more sustainable options.
At the moment the producer has no form of responsibility whatsoever for the emissions/waste of their product. That seems to be a serious omission.
7.??????From a consumer perspective is a CTBO not the same as a carbon tax? And therefore resisted?
See above (impact on energy prices)
8.??????Will a CTBO not lead to energy shortages when there are insufficient carbon storage credits?
In theory that is indeed a possibility. The more detailed design of the regulations will include rules on what will happen in case of non-compliance. A limited amount of ‘banking and borrowing’ will likely be acceptable, followed by heavy fines for a limited period (more expensive than the cost of storage certificates), after which production would have to be reduced so that the required storage % can be met. Governments will have to deliver on their part of the deal, eg timely permitting of CCS infrastructure. The slow initial ramp-up of the storage percentage should give companies enough time to change their business models and/or make plans for accessing sufficient storage capacity by the time they will need it.
9.??????Will a CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) be needed to avoid leakage (companies moving to countries without CTBO)?
Oil- and gas-producers will stay as long as the difference between revenues and operating costs is generating sufficient profits. Governments typically fine-tune their take (royalties, taxes, lease rents, etc) to make it (just) interesting enough for companies to continue production. Producers will take on extra costs (for carbon storage) and are likely to pass on most of that cost to the customers. Companies that import fossil fuels would also have to purchase Carbon Storage Units (CSUs) to be allowed to sell their products. If they import fossil fuels from a country with comparable CTBO regulations then they would not have to purchase CSUs anymore. As a result importers will prefer and pay a price premium for fossil fuels from countries with CTBO regulations.
Industries that depend on CCS for reducing their emissions will benefit from a CTBO as there now will be demand for their CO2. Energy intensive industries that cannot capture their CO2 and cannot easily change to electricity or hydrogen could be affected by price increases at a later stage when the takeback percentage becomes more significant. At that point CBAM-like tools may be needed. ?
领英推荐
10.??How will this policy impact poorer people both in wealthier countries and in developing countries?
Price increases in the next 10 years or so will be very small as the cost of storing a small percentage of the carbon produced is spread (dilluted) over all product sales. Ultimately, price increases will become larger and therefore it is important that governments continue with demand-side policies and programs to make sure everyone, independent of income, can move away from using gas in their homes and from using gasoline or diesel for their cars (not only the wealthier people).
A CTBO may offer a compromise for the polarised discussion between developing nations and wealthier countries on the fossil energy projects in developing countries. Rich nations telling poor nations not to produce and use fossil resources is perceived as hypocrisy and is leading to distrust and division in those countries. A CTBO could encourage fossil energy development in way that prepares for a future (infrastructure) with green energy carriers (electricity, hydrogen) but that still allows a country to benefit from its natural resources. Deals and contracts should include technology transfer (CCS, renewables, hydrogen). This should all start from the premise that the world cannot afford to build more unabated fossil energy infrastructure (IPCC). But for energy access, affordability, etc, the world does still need abated fossil energy for a while. Therefore it has to become a condition from the start of any new project that there will be abatement in the form of minimised methane emissions and an increasing percentage of the life-cycle CO2 emissions captured and stored. Implementation of a CTBO would make sure of that. The take-back percentages in developing countries could be ramped up more slowly than in wealthy countries.
11.??Should the price of carbon not be determined by the so-called Social Cost of Carbon (instead of indirectly basing it on carbon storage costs)?
In our proposals we see a CTBO as a supply-side policy (to control production) that is implemented in addition to demand-side policies. Carbon pricing (taxes or trading systems) can be used to put a value on the external costs of emissions (social cost of carbon). There is a political challenge here that it has proven to be very difficult to get to a level of carbon pricing that is effective and anywhere close to the social cost of carbon. That is one of the reasons we propose the simultaneous introduction of supply-side policies like a CTBO.
The CTBO does indeed result in a higher product price in a similar way as an upstream carbon tax would do. However, it is fundamentally different because?the increase in price due to the CTBO is reflecting the cost of mitigation (CO2 storage) and the increase in price due to a tax is not directly linked to reduced emissions (the money goes to the government instead of to cleaning up).
Fossil carbon produced under a CTBO has a higher price than fossil carbon produced without a CTBO. That is because producers have to include carbon storage (waste disposal) in their operating costs.
This can be compared to wood from sustainable forestry: it tends to be more expensive than wood without a sustainable forestry label. The higher price gives assurerance that the forester adds enough carbon to their forests (growing new trees) so that they can harvest wood in a sustainable way. The wood can be the same quality, etc, as from an unsustainable forest but for a responsible buyer it will be worth paying a bit more to know that the forests (carbon stocks) are managed responsibly.
Similarly, CTBO-oil or CTBO-gas will have a premium value as customers will know the carbon stocks (geological carbon) are managed in a responsible way (consistent with agreed net zero targets). This premium value can be converted to a comparable CO2 price but is really more a reflection of the cost of making sure enough carbon gets put back into geological storage. ?
12.??For the EU: won’t this all eventually happen anyways with the ETS?
Yes, some of it may. The benefits of adding storage requirements in supply-side regulations are:
-?????????Faster scaling up of CCS projects because of an additional source of financing; growth of stored CO2 volumes is far too slow at the moment.
-?????????More certainty for investors; ETS prices can vary quite a bit, CTBO acts as contract for difference, providing confidence for investors, banks, etc.
-?????????Supply-side regulations cover ALL fossil carbon used, ETS covers around 40% of fossil energy use and emissions (and probably no more than half of that is suitable for CCS)
-?????????Supply-side carbon restrictions will therefore also encourage producers to start selling decarbonised products: either by actual physically decarbonising fossil fuels, converting them into hydrogen, ammonia, electricity with CCS, or by virtual decarbonising by selling bundled products (fossil fuels with offsets from carbon removal and storage through DACS or BiCRS).
13.??What about methane emissions?
Methane emissions need to be addressed urgently. They are a big concern independent of whether the natural gas is used ‘unabated’ (without CCS) or ‘abated’ (with CCS). The good news is that many companies and countries have shown that with good designs, regulations and enforcement (monitoring, verification, reporting, penalties, etc) methane emissions can be reduced to very low levels.
Furthermore, a CTBO would ideally be placed on producers. This means that ultimately the same amount of carbon has to be stored as what is taken out of the ground. This includes any methane that is leaked along the way. In the first NL CTBO report we propose that any release of methane or geological (co-produced) CO2 will be subject to a 100% takeback obligation from day 1. That way a CTBO can be used to put pressure on companies to minimise wasteful and harmful releases of methane and geological CO2. But preferably, this would also be regulated directly by responsible governments.
14.??Who does this policy appeal to? And why? Who won’t like this policy and why?
Ngo’s are interested because the responsibility is placed on the companies that they consider to be the key problem, because it would reduce and end subsidies for CCS, and (for pro-CCS ngo’s) it could help speed-up CCS volumes to the kind of levels needed according to Net Zero scenario’s (at the moment there is significant under-investment in CCS compared to what is needed).
Companies are interested because they realize more durable (and broadly supported) business models are needed for CCS and because they would like more stability in the policies on fossil energy production. They are also looking for ways to have a more credible approach to managing their scope 3 emissions (shareholder pressures, etc). Some are also becoming increasingly concerned about court cases (new permits, liabilities, business plans, etc).
Groups that are more critical to this idea are economists (preferring carbon taxes), emissions policies experts (preferring to only regulate the emissions) and deep green groups (seeing CCS as a fake solution and hoping that somehow fossil fuels can be phased out quickly enough).
Below, as example the quotes from some of the participants in the 2nd CTBO study in the Netherlands (at the time of publication of the study):
“The great thing about the CTBO is that it makes the CO2 emitters themselves responsible for cleaning up the pollution they cause. Of course the prevention of CO2 emissions should be paramount, and that can be taken into account in the design of a CTBO.”
Michelle Prins, Program Lead Industry, Nature & Environment
“The climate policy mix has over the past thirty years not led to a global peak in emissions. Fossil fuels, the primary cause of the problem, can still be produced without any regard of climate change. A CTBO puts the financial responsibility on the producer and thereby addresses the problem -literally- at the well. It is not a panacea, but it can, if well designed, make a difference in the climate policy mix.”?
Heleen de Coninck, Professor socio-technical innovation and climate change, Eindhoven University of Technology?
"Two years ago BP has set a goal to become net zero in 2050 and studies like this sharpen our thinking on effective ways to reach that goal"
Karen de Lathouder, CEO bp Netherlands
“For all fossil energy companies it is essential to move towards a zero climate impact as fast as possible.Introducing a CTBO scheme would help the sector as a whole to realize that objective.”
Jan Willem van Hoogstraten, CEO EBN?
“Natural gas produced in the Netherlands has a very low carbon footprint, and ElementNL members (formerly NOGEPA) are working hard to reduce this even further. A CTBO would enable also scope 3 emission reductions. That is why ElementNL supports research and development of this policy instrument.”
Arendo Schreurs, Director ElementNL
15.??What about the health and fence-line impacts on communities? A CTBO only addresses carbon and climate impact. ?
Health and fence-line impacts are more likely to get addressed in a CCS retrofit or new project than when a fossil energy asset is left to produce products in an unabated old-fashioned way. So it offers an opportunity to put pressure on the companies (and authorities) that want to progress these abatement projects to simultaneously include other impact reducing measures.
More in general, a CTBO will drive companies to CENTRALISED conversion of fossil fuels to energy carriers like electricity, hydrogen, ammonia, so that they can capture and store the CO2 and meet their ‘takeback’ obligation. Dispersed burning of fossil fuels (cars, homes, etc) will become more and more expensive as this can only be compensated for with more expensive carbon removal (atmosphere) and storage technologies. It is the dispersed use of fossil fuels (in homes and on the roads) that causes most of the negative impacts on health (air pollution). ?
16.??CCS/CDR is too insignificant or too big/large
Interestingly both objections are made: CCS and/or CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) are too insignificant (so not worth the effort) and CCS/CDR will be too large (and therefore not possible).
The truth is that we don’t know yet how large CCS/CDR will be. CCS&CDR are never an objective in itself. The scale of CCS and CDR depends on how quickly we manage to move away from fossil energy. If we do it very quickly then we won’t need that much CCS/CDR, but if it takes longer than hoped then we may require quite a bit of CCS/CDR. Optimistic Net Zero scenarios (like IEA NZ) include 5 to 10 Gt/y of carbon storage by 2050 (CCS plus CDR). This amounts to 10 to 20% of current emission levels. A small but not insignificant amount. And more importantly, many of these emissions are difficult to abate/reduce with other technologies. The ‘vital but limited role’ of CCUS is well described in a recent paper of the Energy Transitions Commission.
So why do people also say CCS/CDR is too big/large?
This argument is made for different reasons. Many (IPCC) scenario’s have more than 10 Gt/y of CCS/CDR for a long period of time, often also including very large amounts of bio-energy CCS. It is uncertain whether that is realistic: can it be scaled up that quickly, is there enough biomass (without creating food shortages or impacting nature), can we afford it? These are good questions and good reasons to try to actively limit the maximum percentage of emissions to be reduced/compensated with CCS/CDR.
However, there also is a group of people that think 5 to 10 Gt/y is already too large and too difficult to achieve by 2050. The argument that is often used is that 5 Gt/y is comparable to the current oil production per year and that it took 60+ years to build up that industry so it would not be realistic to build-up the CCS industry in 30 years.
This frame, that we need to grow an industry the same size as the oil and gas industry but in half the time, suggests that we need to invest as much, build as much, transport/process as much, and do it much faster. That is simply not the case. Why not?
Let’s?assume 7.5 Gt/y CO2 storage. At the moment we produce around 5 Gt/y oil, 2.5 Gt/y gas. Coincidentally indeed more or less the same amount (by weight) per year.
Why are these numbers not equivalent and indicative for ‘the size of the CCS industry’?
1)?????The annual mass flow is not an accurate indicator of the effort required. The level of activity/investment is more accurately indicated by comparing the economic value: a rough estimate (at old oil& gas prices of 50$/bbl oil, 20 ct/m3 gas) of the annual value of oil & gas production is around 2325 billion $/y. Note that this number excludes the value generated further downstream: refining, chemicals, fuels, etc. In other words: only the ‘upstream’ part of the oil/gas value chain. CCS at 50-100 $/ton would be valued at 375 to 750 billion $/y. Therefore, a factor 3 to 6 smaller.
2)?????The oil & gas production assets that we see today are very different from 20 or 40 years ago. Most wells and fields produce no more than 15 to 25 years. Hence, the suggestion that the current industry took 50 to 100 years to build is incorrect. The industry has been re-built several times during this period.
3)?????As example: worldwide around 60000 wells are drilled each year (80000/y before recent decline). CO2 storage projects so far have aimed (and achieved) injection capacities of 0.5 to 1.0 Mt CO2/y per well. This means that with the number of wells drilled in 1 year we could already store 30 to 60 Gton of CO2 per year! Or put differently, CCS will require far fewer wells (orders of magnitude) than the oil & gas industry did.
4)?????Finally, in many regions it will be possible to re-use some of the infrastructure that was used for oil and gas production. Eg in NL we will be re-using depleted gas reservoirs (and platforms and wells).????
Therefore, despite a very similar annual weight to be moved, the CCS industry will be smaller, easier, cheaper and quicker to build. The required resources, expertise, equipment (drilling rigs, pipeline construction, etc) are likely to be in no short supply as it is very similar to what the oil- and gas-industry (which will be scaling down) was using. ?That’s good news, because it makes it a challenging but also a realistic and achievable ambition.
17.??Is it not better to put all our money in renewable energy instead of ‘false’ solutions like CCS?
We are supportive of scaling up renewable energy as quickly as possible. But it is not possible to replace all fossil energy investments overnight with renewable energy investments. For large scale projects governments have to indicate where these can be built and under which conditions, grids have to be upgraded, supply chains have to be scaled up, people have to be trained and hired, permit procedures have to be followed, etc. This will go more quickly in some countries than others. In the meantime almost all scenario’s predict that we will use more fossil fuels than we can afford (carbon budget). And therefore, CCS and CDR have to be used also to get the carbon footprint from remaining fossil fuel use down as quickly as possible, and to net zero before the aspired net zero year. People who call climate-critical solutions such as CCS and CDR ‘false’ solutions should realize that by doing so they increase the risk of emission reduction targets not being met and of temperature increases far above 1.5 degC. We need to do both: reduce fossil fuel use as quickly as possible AND reduce the carbon emissions of the remaining fossil fuel use while we still need them. See this 2-pager for more detail.
18.??Carbon/CO2 from which origin is eligible for CSUs?
Stored carbon is eligible for Carbon Storage Units/credits (for CTBO compliance) when the following conditions are met:
19.??Will this not lead to more fossil energy use? Lock-in of fossil energy use?
This issue was an important topic for the first NL CTBO report. In Chapter 3.3 (p43 and further) you can read the results. In short: it depends a lot on what your baseline expectations are.
If you compare it to scenarios where we reach net zero quickly, phase out fossil energy use very quickly, reduce total energy demand, and change behaviours, then yes, a CTBO will lead to more fossil energy use.
If you compare it to eg IEA and DNV net zero scenarios then a CTBO is likely to help deliver the substantial amounts of CCS and CDR that are required (for which there currently are so-called ‘policy gaps’) in these scenarios and therefore will be fairly neutral with respect to the amount of fossil energy that is used.
If you compare it to 2degC and higher scenarios (which unfortunately are the more likely scenarios still) then a CTBO may well lead to less fossil energy use as the CTBO will make the unabated use of fossil energy (that is driving the higher emissions in these scenario’s) very expensive which will put the brakes on fossil energy production and use and accelerate investments in CDR. See this 2-pager for more detail.
Vacuum is nothing, why worry about nothing
1 年Thanks. My most interesting question: 19.??Will this not lead to more fossil energy use? Lock-in of fossil energy use?
Given that NOCs produce 85% of the worlds oil and gas - do you see CTBO being applied to them, or just to the commercial companies who produce the other 15%?
Domain Architect Data Analytics & AI
1 年Thank you very much for writing the Q&A. I was especially concerned with Question 1 and are reliefed that basically any method fixating carbon for sufficient periods of time will qualify.