Our recent @natureportfolio.bsky.social paper with TKazlou & @acherp.bsky.social argues there is little hope #CCS can grow fast enough for 1.5°C target. The 2°C target is realistic if CCS failure drops fast and CCS expands as fast as mainstream energy technologies. www.nature.com/articles/s41... - ThreadSky

jdjewell.bsky.social • 99 days ago

Our recent @natureportfolio.bsky.social paper with TKazlou & @acherp.bsky.social argues there is little hope #CCS can grow fast enough for 1.5°C target. The 2°C target is realistic if CCS failure drops fast and CCS expands as fast as mainstream energy technologies. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-02104-0

Comments

jdjewell.bsky.social•99 days ago

Massive use of CCS (carbon capture and storage) is necessary to limit global warming to < 2.5°C and rapid near-term growth is required for 1.5°C and 2°C targets. The current plans are to increase CO2 use eight-fold by 2030, but in the past almost 90% of such plans failed.

jdjewell.bsky.social•99 days ago

We show that in order to deploy CCS as fast as required in 2°C-compatible scenarios, the number of CCS plans should approximately double in 2022-2025 and the failure rate should drop to 45–60%.

jdjewell.bsky.social•99 days ago

After extensive policy and technology learning, technologies tend to ‘take off’ and enter the acceleration phase before growth stabilises and eventually saturates. Success of early projects can lead to CCS ‘take off’ by 2030, but what is the feasible maximum growth post-2030?

jdjewell.bsky.social•99 days ago

To assess feasible deployment, we assume that CCS uptake accelerates in 2030-2040 and then continues to grow at peak speed. Fastest acceleration was achieved by solar (10-fold in 2012-2022), while nuclear power had maximum annual additions (1.4% of global electricity in 1984).

jdjewell.bsky.social•99 days ago

Even if in 2030-2040 CCS achieves 10-fold expansion; and after 2040 keeps adding annual capacity as fast as nuclear power did in the 1980’s, it would only be in-line with 14% of 2°C pathways that store up to 600 GtCO2 by 2100. The entire AR6 ensemble foresees up to 2000 GtCO2.

jdjewell.bsky.social•99 days ago

The reliance on CCS technologies in Paris-compatible climate pathways has been gradually declining, but the 1.5°C pathways still require CCS to be upscaled unrealistically fast.

blueeyedhexe.bsky.social•91 days ago

China has planted tens of billions of trees and is huge into renewables, while late stage capitalist societies give away their wealth to greedy billionaires and elect people who literally say global warming is a Chinese hoax.

mikebbarnes.bsky.social•91 days ago

2C is due 2030-35. CC never gonna catch up.

markoz-22.bsky.social•99 days ago

So far, CCS has a long history of being a non-improving technology.

Batteries and solar are improving fast, especially on cost.

Wind, heat pumps, and heat storage are improving at a reasonable pace.

acherp.bsky.social•98 days ago

That's true, but neither of those can support negative emissions or contribute in other niche CCS applications. So we need CCS even if all renewables and related tech develop astronomically fast.

suzwarto.bsky.social•98 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/suzwarto.bsky.social/post/3lbffywcwsk2u

markoz-22.bsky.social•98 days ago

For some hard to abate areas, we can consider ethanol. Any fast growing plant that can be used for that purpose should also be on the list.

I agree that we need negative emissions, but we need low capex, fast acting, economic and sustainable solutions.

acherp.bsky.social•98 days ago

Sure. But as soon as a solution is "on the list" we should be able to do a feasibility assessment similar to that we did for CCS here.

markoz-22.bsky.social•98 days ago

The following plants (amimal) do a good job of capturing CO2.

Sugarcane, bamboo, hemp, algae.

US start-up Terraform aims to make synthetic methane, which involves capturing CO2.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply