top of page
Color logo - no background.png

Policy Pulse

Thanks for subscribing

Join our readership of thought leaders and policy makers by subscribing to Policy Pulse, an update on trending policy issues in climate change, international conflict economics and infrastructure. 

Policy Pulse – 14 June 2022 – George Anjaparidze

Photo by Chris Lutke on Unsplash

  • Direct air carbon capture processes are effective and can be cost-competitive, the capture of a metric ton of CO2 can be achieved at a price range of $94 to $218

  • Cost of capital is a key factor determining the cost-competitiveness of direct air carbon capture

  • Carbon pricing mechanisms in 2022 across leading markets had a price range of $87 to $137 per metric ton of CO2

  • Support for cost-effective direct air carbon capture technologies can have a transformational impact as these technologies could enable meeting Paris Agreement temperature goals while continuing to use significant parts of the existing energy system, thereby allowing adequate time for meaningful transition to sustainable energy use


Background

Carbon dioxide (CO2) removal refers to taking carbon out from the atmosphere either through natural or technological means. According to almost all scenarios considered by the latest IPCC climate mitigation report, carbon dioxide removal could help take out between 192 – 1221 Gt CO2 from the atmosphere in this century. The high-end of this range (1221 Gt CO2) represents a colossal amount. It is roughly 80% of all CO2 emitted by human activity since 1750 or about 20 times the current global annual greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalent terms.


The most cost-effective forms of carbon removal from the atmosphere can be found in agriculture and forestry sectors, which include activities such as vegetation growth as well as sequestration of carbon in soil. Opportunities in agriculture and forestry sectors represent the next wave of cost-effective climate action. However, the full carbon sequestration potential of these sectors remains unrealized due in part to concerns related to permanence, meaning investments that support carbon sequestration activities in these sectors have been held back by concerns that the captured carbon will at some point be released back into the atmosphere. For example, because of forest fires and erosion. Permanence concerns in these sectors have been addressed through program design features such as buffer pools, where unexpected underperformance in any one particular year or project can be matched by accumulated emission reductions in the buffer pool, set aside from portfolios of projects. Nevertheless, not all countries have the available resources, especially land and water, to pursue opportunities in agriculture and forestry sectors.


Therefore, in countries where land and water resources are scarce, carbon sequestration through use of technology can have an important role in climate mitigation strategies. Carbon sequestration methods, including direct air carbon capture, that store the captured carbon in solid, compressed gas or solution form, can give more certainty on permanence with negligible risk of CO2 leakage into the atmosphere. However, technologies and processes such as direct air carbon capture are characterized by much higher costs. Nevertheless, several initiatives and companies, including Climateworks AG and Global Thermostat, are investing in bringing these technological solutions to market. One company, Carbon Engineering, developed an innovative direct air carbon capture process at an industrial scale using existing mature technologies. The result is a direct air carbon capture process that is cost-competitive with existing carbon prices in leading markets.


New direct air carbon capture processes can be cost-competitive

The cost of capturing one metric ton of carbon dioxide using new direct air carbon capture processes developed by Carbon Engineering is estimated to be between $94 and $134, depending on the operating conditions and when the cost of capital is zero. However, when the cost of capital is high, for example 12.5% per year, the cost range becomes $145 to $218 per metric ton of carbon dioxide captured. These ranges are broadly consistent with estimates of the International Energy Agency, which reviewed a larger set of processes and technologies for direct air carbon capture.


In comparison, direct carbon pricing mechanisms in 2022 across leading markets had a price range of $87 to $137 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. Therefore, under certain conditions direct air carbon capture can offer a cost-competitive alternative compared to existing carbon pricing practices.

The three types of direct air carbon capture plants presented in the chart are the same as plant configurations A, B, and C contained in the Joule Journal 2018 paper “A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere” and have the following characteristics:

  • Early plant – represents expected costs of constructing and operating early plants where locations have geological storage and comparatively low natural gas prices.

  • “N-th” plant – reflects improvements in construction costs, better supply chain relationships, and other learning that are expected to be realized after the construction of early plants.

  • “N-th” plant with cheap power – incorporates the learnings associated with “N-th” plants and in addition is deployed in locations with low-carbon electricity that is available at low-cost.


Policy implications of cost-effective direct air carbon capture processes

Direct air carbon capture has the potential to offer near endless opportunities for sequestering carbon at the same carbon price, when required conditions are met. In effect, the availability of this technology at cost-competitive rates and at scale can put a price ceiling on reducing carbon emissions. Meaning emitters would in effect have the option to pay for direct air carbon capture instead of implementing more costly emission reductions. In addition, in countries that are phasing-out nuclear power, direct air carbon capture technology can allow the continued pursuit of ambitious climate goals while using fossil fuels to balance intermittency of renewable power. In Europe, availability of direct air carbon capture technology has the potential to reduce opposition of radical climate activists to urgently needed projects that strengthen energy security by enhancing access to Caspian energy resources.


Technologies and processes, such as direct air carbon capture, have the potential to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere at a rate that would enable the world to continue to use significant parts of the existing energy system while meeting Paris Agreement temperature goals, thereby allowing adequate time for meaningful transition to sustainable energy use. Despite this potential, there are risks associated with these technologies as it could turn out to be more costly in practice to deploy or could have unforeseen adverse consequences that hinder implementation. Nevertheless, the availability of these technology options points to the need to keep an open mind about how to solve the climate mitigation challenge and the importance of using technology neutral policy instruments to incentivize desired investments.


Carbon pricing policies can be designed in a technology neutral way and are generally more efficient instruments than the use of bans or blacklists of certain technologies or fuels. Therefore, using carbon pricing metrics to measure alignment with temperature goals is more appropriate than trying to engineer alignment with some predetermined technology-based policy trajectory. Carbon pricing is not a panacea and is most effective when combined with a broader policy mix. Nevertheless, in general, a price signal on carbon ensures that the most cost-effective emission reductions are prioritized not only within a sector but also across sectors. Ensuring appropriate accounting and equal treatment between emitting and capturing carbon are among the key issues to resolve for using carbon pricing to support carbon capture and sequestration actions. An added benefit in the current economic context is that carbon pricing can create fiscal space to foster green recovery and growth.


In the context of direct air carbon capture processes developed by Carbon Engineering, public policy intervention and support may be appropriate to accelerate the learning from early plant development to “N-th” plant deployment. While individual projects using Carbon Engineering technology have received support, including grants, tax credits, and promise of future carbon credits, there is a need for a more systematic approach that targets lowering the cost of capital. An enabling framework that reduces the cost of capital, without dulling the appetite of equity investors, may be an appropriate option to consider (for example through availability of more attractive debt financing). In the US context this may imply the need for a federal debt support facility, whereas internationally it may be fitting to incorporate these considerations in policies of export credit agencies and providers of international concessional finance.


Crucially, governments should not restrict their focus only on processes developed by Carbon Engineering, which were inherently limiting as the designed carbon capture approaches used only mature technologies. In parallel, governments should also support research and development of more novel approaches to carbon capture because in the longer-term they may prove to be even more cost-effective. Commitments by governments to support technology-based direct air carbon capture processes will motivate further research and breakthrough solutions.


__________


About Veritas Global: Our vision is to have a positive impact on the world through truthful advice informed by robust analysis. We are a premier provider of tailored solutions on climate change, international conflict economics and infrastructure.











 
 
 

Policy Pulse - Madhumita Varma - 29 January 2020

Last week, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Microsoft pledged $1 billion in an Innovation Fund aimed to promote carbon removal technology. This fund is part of Microsoft’s climate action plan in which they would reduce their emissions by half before 2030 and draw out all of the carbon they have ever emitted by 2050.


Microsoft’s carbon negative plan points to a crucial element of climate action that is too often overlooked – carbon drawdown. Carbon drawdown – also known as carbon sequestration – refers to the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. While the focus of climate action has been to reduce emissions, which is an indispensable step, carbon drawdown has gained little attention though it has been just as essential as cutting emissions. This is due to the fact that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have a long atmospheric life and trap heat for many years. Therefore, even if all greenhouse gas emissions are stopped right away, we are still committed to the rise in average temperature over the next few decades. Consequently, climate action can no longer stop at reducing emissions; carbon sequestration is now an obligation.


While Microsoft and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are considering carbon capture and storage technologies, the agriculture and forestry sector is not to be overlooked when considering carbon drawdown. When it comes to natural forms of carbon drawdown, trees and other land-based plantations gain most attention. Nonetheless, the oceans are impressively capable of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon. This can be done through seaweed. Certain species such as giant kelp, can grow up to two feet a day. Such growth requires intensive photosynthesis, which the entire body of the kelp plant is capable of. Once the kelp plant sinks about a kilometer deep into the ocean, the carbon it has captured stays in the ocean for centuries. It has been stipulated that a hundred square metres of seaweed can capture 16 tonnes of carbon a year. Thus, if approximately 9% of the world’s oceans can be covered in seaweed farms, climate change can be reversed.

This chart shows that seaweed is more efficient at absorbing CO2 than rainforests.

Source: “What is Marine Permaculture?,” Climate Foundation.


South Korea’s seaweed farms, which are some of the largest in the world, provide hope that carbon drawdown can be expanded to large scales. These farms produce seaweed, which are used for human consumption. While this method draws down atmospheric carbon, it does not sequester it in the deep oceans. Therefore, while Microsoft’s Innovation Fund can be used to scale-up land-based air capture and carbon storage technologies, it can also be used to fund initiatives that place seaweed in the deep oceans.


Dr Brian von Herzen and his team are working on a marine permaculture project, in which kelp is grown in the open ocean. With the help of wave- and solar-deep water pumps, nutrients are provided to the seaweed. The regeneration of kelp forests in ocean deserts attracts various species of fish. Both kelp and fish can then be used for human consumption. The kelp could be harvested to be used as biofuel, feedstock, superfood, to name a few. Investing into kelp forest regeneration would help provide food, fertilizer and fuel for 9 billion people who are likely to inhabit the planet by 2040. After high-value extraction, the kelp could be sunk into the deep ocean where it locks away 90% of the sequestered carbon for millennia. Dr Herzen estimates that with an initial investment of $5 million, yields of $1 million per year for the kelp and another million per year for the fish can be expected. Thus, opportunities for Microsoft to clean out its emissions lie not only on land, but also in the deep oceans. By contributing a part of its $1 billion fund to open ocean permaculture, Microsoft would not only be setting an example for other firms by cleaning up its emissions, it would also be investing into feeding the world.



About the author: Madhumita has research interests in climate, environment and conservation issues, as well as impact evaluation of policies and practices related to security and development.


About Veritas Global: Our vision is to have a positive impact on the world through truthful advice informed by robust analysis. We are a premier provider of tailored solutions on climate change, international conflict economics and infrastructure.

 
 
 

Policy Pulse - 15 August 2019 - George Anjaparidze

Last week, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on land. Highlighting that land is a critical resource. The report indicates that about 23% of all human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributed to land, or those related to agriculture, forestry and other land uses. However, agriculture and forestry are even more important to climate policy than their relative share of global GHG emissions. The next wave of opportunities for scaling-up climate action are in agriculture and forestry.[i]


Achieving the current targets communicated through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) implies reducing the 2030 GHG emissions trajectory by 4.8 Gt CO2e or about 8%.[ii] Countries can largely achieve this trajectory by focusing on win-win solutions, where GHG abatement measures create cost savings. Within the basket of such cost-effective measures, agriculture and forestry can contribute about 11% of all GHG abatement potential. However, if countries start raising the level of ambition, they will increasingly need to rely on agriculture and forestry. A more “ambitious NDC” scenario that targets reducing the 2030 GHG emissions trajectory by 9.6 Gt CO2e or about 16%, would result in 49% of all cost-effective abatement potential to be in agriculture and forestry (see chart above). In fact, nearly 70% of all additional cost-effective abatement measures, beyond those in the NDC scenario, would be in the agriculture and forestry sector.


Even the more “ambitious NDC” scenario, presented above, falls short of the effort needed to limit global warming to 1.5° to 2°C. The “1.5° to 2°C” scenario would imply reducing the 2030 GHG emissions trajectory by 27 Gt CO2e or about 44%. Under this scenario, agriculture and forestry would also be a major source of abatement potential, with over 33% of all cost-effective abatement measures.


Targeting agriculture and forestry for GHG emission reductions is also attractive because approaches used generally rely on proven technology and are relatively less capital intensive.[iii] This means that these measures are more conducive to be taken up in developing countries and can more rapidly be deployed at scale. In many cases, there are also significant co-benefits that could be generated beyond climate change mitigation.


The IPCC report on land concludes that, despite human activity, this sector managed to on net remove 6 Gt CO2e from the atmosphere between 2007 and 2016. Increasing international support for mitigation measures in agriculture and forestry, channeled through development banks and others, can serve as a catalyst to realizing potential opportunities. Companies involved in producing agricultural products and managing large areas of land would stand to benefit from this additional support. The world as a whole would also benefit. Agriculture and forestry offer an opportunity to scale-up action on climate change by leveraging a natural advantage.


[i]SeeMcKinsey analysisof global GHG abatement costs (version 2.1).

[ii]See earlier analysis from Veritas Global Paris Agreement: the inconvenient gap between ambition and reality

[iii]SeeMcKinsey analysisof global GHG abatement costs (version 2.0).



About Veritas Global: Our vision is to have a positive impact on the world through truthful advice informed by robust analysis. We are a premier provider of tailored solutions on climate change, international conflict economicsand infrastructure



 
 
 
bottom of page