In the race to mitigate climate change, the energy sector is facing a monumental challenge: how to remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while minimizing land use and maintaining energy security. A groundbreaking study published in Environmental Research Letters, led by Dominik Keiner from the School of Energy Systems at LUT University in Finland, sheds new light on this complex issue. The research, titled “Area demand quantification for energy system-integrated negative emissions based on carbon dioxide removal portfolios,” explores the land requirements of various carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies and their implications for the energy industry.
At the heart of the study is the comparison of different CDR portfolios, each prioritizing different factors such as cost, energy demand, security, area demand, and technology readiness. Keiner and his team linked a CDR portfolio model with an energy system model to assess the area required not just for CDR technologies, but also for the renewable energy sources needed to power the entire energy-industry-CDR system.
One of the key findings is the significant advantage of technical CDR options, such as direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS), over biomass-based solutions like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). “Technical CDR options require considerably less land compared to biomass-based CDR,” Keiner explains. “This is a crucial insight for the energy sector, as it allows for more flexible and less land-intensive strategies for achieving negative emissions.”
The study considers two climate targets: a 1.5°C increase by 2100, requiring 500 gigatons of CO2 removal, and a more ambitious 1.0°C target, needing 1750 gigatons. For the 1.5°C target, the net area demand can be kept at around 1.0% of the total land area, while for the 1.0°C target, it remains below 1.4%, except for the biomass-prioritizing portfolio, which demands about 3% of the net land area for both targets.
Biogenic and biotechnical CDR options, which rely on energy crops, are estimated to require up to 9.7% of today’s global cropland by the end of the century. This stark contrast highlights the potential commercial impacts for the energy sector. Companies investing in technical CDR technologies may find themselves at a competitive advantage, as these methods demand significantly less land and can be integrated more seamlessly into existing energy systems.
The research also differentiates between gross and net area demand, with gross area including spacing or gathering areas and net area focusing on built-up areas or those unsuitable for biodiversity. This distinction is vital for understanding the true environmental impact of different CDR strategies.
As the energy sector grapples with the dual challenges of decarbonization and energy security, this study provides a roadmap for navigating the complexities of carbon dioxide removal. By prioritizing technical CDR options, energy companies can achieve significant negative emissions without compromising on land use or energy supply. This shift could reshape the energy landscape, driving innovation and investment in technologies that offer a more sustainable and efficient path to a low-carbon future.
Keiner’s work, published in Environmental Research Letters, which translates to ‘Letters on Environmental Research,’ offers a comprehensive analysis that will undoubtedly influence future developments in the field. As the world strives to meet increasingly ambitious climate targets, the insights from this study will be invaluable for policymakers, energy providers, and investors alike. The future of carbon dioxide removal is not just about removing CO2; it’s about doing so in a way that is sustainable, efficient, and commercially viable.
