(Mis)conceptions about modeling of negative emissions technologies

Wilfried Rickels · Christine Merk · Fabian Reith · David Peter Keller · Andreas Oschlies

50 citations0/0 files storedEnvironmental Research Letters

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Climate Change Policy and Economics Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies Climate Change and Geoengineering

Abstract

Intentionally removing carbon from the atmosphere with negative emission technologies (NETs) will be important to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century and to limit global warming to 2 °C or even 1.5 °C (IPCC 2018 ). Model scenarios that consider NETs as part of mitigation pathways are still largely restricted to afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), while the '[f]easibility and sustainability of [NETs] use could be enhanced by a portfolio of options deployed at substantial, but lesser scales, rather than a single option at very large scale' (IPCC 2018 , p 19). Here, we show the results from an anonymous expert survey, including 32 Earth-System-Model (ESM) experts and 18 Integrated-Assessment-Model (IAM) experts, about the role of NETs in future climate policies and about how well the various technologies are represented in current models. We find that they strongly support the view that technology portfolios are required to achieve negative emissions, however, the responses show that the number and range of NETs that can be assessed in IAMs is small and that IAMs and ESMs are rather applied to analyze technologies separately than in combination. IAM experts in particular consider BECCS as part of a future NETs portfolio; but at the same time, all experts judge the constraints BECCS would face regarding future overall feasibility and more particularly regarding resource competition to be the highest. Regarding the assessment of constraints the ESM experts are much more skeptical than the IAM experts; they also think that the BECCS carbon removal pathways are less sufficiently represented in ESMs compared to what the IAM experts thinks about the representation in their models. Despite the perceived need for NETs portfolios, the range of NETs which can be assessed in IAMs is rather small and ocean NETs have, so far, mostly been overlooked by the IAM experts.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 50 citations exist upstream.

References

2014Betting on negative emissions 2018Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies 2019Technical Summary: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty 2018Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.