Sylvera’s Post

Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) technologies have emerged in climate discussions as potent solutions capable of substantially reducing CO2 emissions in the industrial sector.  CCUS is expected to play an important role in the work towards global climate objectives, but several hurdles remain before these technologies can be deployed at scale.  “The adoption of CCUS facilitates the reduction of CO2 emissions in hard-to-abate sectors, playing a crucial role in thoroughly advancing the green transition,” says Tomas Norrena, Senior Advisor at Sweco Finland.  Sweco’s experts have years of experience from client projects related to CCUS technologies, with several active assignments across different sectors and regions.  To delve deeper into the role of CCUS in industrial emissions reduction, the economic potential of CCU technologies and insights into some of the recent client projects that Sweco has been a part of, explore our latest article: https://lnkd.in/dETTUv87 #SwecoGroup #TransformingSocietyTogether 

Next week, there is a three day expert session arranged by the IPCC Task Force on Inventories in Vienna to dicuss the national reporting of tech removals. Some friendly, yet unknown, soul must have recommended me to the organizers, and I am going there to participate in these important discussions. In the current IPCC guidelines and Common Reporting Table (CRT), there is some support for reporting tech removals. But I believe it is quite difficult to get an overall understanding what is going on. Neither is it prepared for the future where new CDR technologies will come and go. Including them in specific sectors, like Energy, may also prejudge how jurisdictions would want to set up their reporting and accounting structure. In the background material, the question has been raised whether a new category/sector should be created to cover tech CDR. My initial thought is Yes. But to also cover CCS in the same category/table to get a total overview of all carbon captured and how it has been applied. The implication would be that the existing tables would only be about the emissions that are actually emitted, even after carbon capture has been put in place (no capture technology at a point source will be 100% efficient). Below, I have made an early design of how a nation could be reporting tech CDR, CCS, CCU and CCUS to maximize transparency, overview and future-proofness. A few interesting questions appear, for example what will be relationship between gross and net removals, as also possible trade under Article 6 have to be considered? And more detailed aspects such as: should CDR with EOR be classified as CCUS or would the inclusion of EOR as application be to provide too much information? Please let me know what you think, and help me mature the thoughts in view of next week's sessions. Of course, the reporting assumes that robust MRV will be put in place and lacking definitions will be agreed. The current structure of reporting for emissions in relation to Transportation and Storage looks good, Table 1C in the CRT. Land-based removals are already covered under LULUCF.

On June 4th, the second edition of “The State Of Carbon Dioxide Removal” (CDR) report was released – one of the most comprehensive and thorough assessments of the carbon removal industry. Please find some key takeaways below! #carbonremoval #CDR #climateaction #reports https://bit.ly/4ecOBHl

I am happy to share that our US guide is out! 🇺🇸 It aims to support US regulators, policymakers, and civil society in responsibly incentivising critical CO2 reduction and removal technologies. 👥 For this guide, we conducted two workshops with the active participation of the US Department of Energy. In these workshops, we discussed synergies between the CCS+ work and US regulations and policies and how CCS+ can support the responsible adoption of removals within voluntary and compliance markets in the US. 🛡 An integrated carbon accounting infrastructure like the blueprint of the CCS+ Initiative can help maximise public investment in CCS, CCU, and CDR by facilitating the robust quantification of mitigation outcomes and incorporating key considerations, such as additionality, to target projects that truly need funding. 🗝 The CCS+ Initiative's modular design is not just a feature but a crucial aspect of its methodology framework. It can support the diverse goals of state programs, such as Regional DAC Hubs, by enabling the proper allocation of mitigation outcomes for projects that a) share the same infrastructure 🔗, b) operate under different carbon markets 🏛💼, and c) achieve a combination of emission reductions and removals 🛠. This integration can reduce costs and maximise benefits for the communities where projects take place. I led the drafting of this guide together with Laura Camarut and Christiaan Gevers Deynoot. Special thanks also to Dr. Nathalie Dällenbach and Paulien Veen for the last-mile support in publishing the guide. The guide builds on a greater effort by the CCS+ Initiative to develop state-of-the-art carbon accounting methodologies, which will be published as a public good 🌎 https://lnkd.in/eh4upQhk 👈 Link to the open-access guide South Pole, Perspectives Climate Group, CCS+ initiative #carbonremoval #USCarbonRemovals #IndustrialCarbonManagement #CCS #CCUS #CDR #NetZero

💥 Hundreds of billions to a trillion tons of CDR by 2100 is necessary to achieve the goals set out in the Paris agreement. 🔀 Far more CDR will be needed for future generations to have a chance to reverse temperature increases that are already pushing many human and natural populations and systems to the limits of their viability. 🙋🏻♀️ I'm wildly excited about marin-based pathways for #carbonremoval #CDR but am in no position to evaluate their effectiveness myself. That's why I was so happy to stumble upon Ocean Visions and their research effort to assess ('prove or disprove') these options by 2030. 🌊 👇🏻 Why are marine removals relevant? 🌊 Marine-based pathways for CDR offer significant potential advantages, given the scale of the ocean and the existing biological and chemical processes it already contains that cycle carbon over long periods of time. 🌊 The last three years have seen increased awareness, interest, and engagement with carbon dioxide removal (CDR) broadly and especially with marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR, sometimes also called ocean-based carbon dioxide removal). But, we don't know much about large scale impact: 🌊 We know a lot more today about their impact, particularly learning from small-scale testing and development. 🌊 Now we need to ramp up the scale and pace of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) to answer fundamental questions about both the additionality and durability of carbon sequestered using mCDR approaches, and their environmental and social impacts. Ocean Visions lays out three pillars of needed investment and work: 1. Doing the science and engineering at the appropriate scales to answer important outstanding questions about mCDR technologies. 2. Development of enabling environments that allow for accelerated research and development. 3. Improvement and optimization of mCDR technologies to increase their potential to achieve climate-relevant scale and impact. Climate Collective and our wider network can certainly help with #2 and #3. How can you help, and what are your thoughts about marine carbon dioxide removal #mCDR? Miranda Boettcher Lydi Keppler Thomas Cutt Lilli Kalani Carlsen Marty Odlin David Bennell Douglas Heske Hugo Tagholm James Close Heath Packard Ashleigh Arton Matthew Mulrennan Marta Krupinska Juan David Mira Brad Rochlin Stacy Kauk, P.Eng. Andrew Hume Tim Agnew Eva Greene Connor Horton Jill Hamilton #oceanconservation #bluecarbon #blueeconomy

Carbon180, Breakthrough Energy , Outlier Projects, Linden Trust for Conservation, The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment and the Larsen Lam Climate Change Foundation collectively launch the Carbon Removal Standards Initiative. Its mission is to "provide technical assistance and capacity building for #carbonremoval policy, focused on quantification standards". Read more in "New Initiative Seeks to make Carbon Dioxide Removal Count" here: https://lnkd.in/eif8YQ_c #sustainability #energytransition #IRA #CO2 #carbon #cleanenergy #decarbonization #decarbonisation https://lnkd.in/e__f3B86

Recent scrutiny of Human Induced Regeneration projects highlights the importance of high-integrity carbon projects and the need to work with carbon providers who are on the ground and undertake rigorous due diligence processes to guarantee quality, integrity and measurable carbon abatement impact.   Here we share the Carbon Market Institute (CMI) response to a study published today in 'Communications Earth & Environment', which CMI says appears largely based on information previously released by the authors in the context of the Chubb Review, completed in late 2022. CMI is an independent, member-based institute accelerating the transition to net zero emissions.   https://lnkd.in/gtSiNwJm #carbonintegity #HIR #humaninducedregeneration #carboncredits #carbonoffsetting #carbonprojects

Despite overwhelming evidence showing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as costly, complex, and ineffective, the Carbon Capture industry continues to shape the European Union policy agenda! The Industrial Carbon Management Forum (previously called the CCUS Forum) is dominated by fossil fuel interests, and is currently meeting in Pau, France. A few data: 🔥 80% of large-scale CCS projects have failed, even after $83 billion in investments since the 90s, due to technical challenges and cost overruns. 🔥 Despite these efforts, only 53Mt of carbon dioxide has ever been stored long-term, while the EU aims to store 280Mt by 2040. 🔥 The EU's proposed CCS infrastructure could cost taxpayers an astonishing €140 billion and labels it as "too complex, too expensive, and too late to support net-zero targets." That's why SOMO joined 40+ NGOs across the globe in calling on EU policymakers to: 👉 End support for CCS technologies, including Carbon Removals, & commit to a phase-out of all fossil fuels fast and fairly 👉 Thoroughly assess the scientific and real-world evidence of CCS's failures & challenges 👉 Invest in real climate solutions 👉 Reject fossil fuel industry influence, such as the ICM Forum Read more in the letter [link in the first comment] It's high time for the EU to reject industry influence and invest in real climate action, not gamble with our future and public funds on unproven technologies! #CCS, #ICMForum, #ClimateAction Real Zero Europe

In response to the recent scandal, erupted as a result of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) changing its stance on the offsetting of Scope 3 emissions, the Board of Trustees has added a clarification to its earlier statement. #emissions #climateaction #carbonoffsets #carboncredits https://bit.ly/3UfFyh2

Our newest World Resources Institute paper looks at measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) for #carbonremoval within U.S. federal policy. We lay out some basics of MRV, including challenges associated with MRV for CDR and where MRV is in federal policy already, and then propose a “federal MRV function” to create oversight for how MRV shows up in federal policy. As federal investment in CDR continues to grow in scale and scope, such a function could help avoid replicating the challenges we’ve seen in the voluntary market with MRV. Thanks to Danielle Riedl and Haley Leslie-Bole for working on this one with me! Read the full paper here: https://lnkd.in/e5v4tuub And/or a short summary article here: https://lnkd.in/e_Y_FW2i We’d be interested to hear what you think!