role and cost of negative emission technologies for carbon

Role and Cost of Negative Emission Technologies for Carbon Neutrality

Keigo AkimotoSystems Analysis GroupResearch Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)

ICEF, 8th Annual Meeting, 2021October 7, 2021

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

CO

2 em

issi

ons

[GtC

O2/

yr]

HistoricalBaseline2DS(▲40% GHG in 2050)B2DS(▲70% GHG in 2050)Below 1.5℃ in 2100 (>66%)

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

GH

G e

mis

sion

s[G

tCO

2eq/

yr]

HistoricalBaseline2DS(▲40% GHG in 2050)B2DS(▲70% GHG in 2050)Below 1.5℃ in 2100 (>66%)

Global Baseline Emissions andAssumed Emissions Scenarios under 2°C and 1.5°C

※ 2DS, B2DS, B1.5OS scenarios assume emission constraints equivalent to NDCs of each nation up to 2030

GHG emissions

CO2 emissions

Note) Emissions for baseline shows model estimates results under SSP2, not assumed scenario

Net zero CO2 emissionsaround 2100

Net zero CO2 emissionsaround 2060

Net zero GHG Emissions around 2100

Net zero CO2 emissions around 2050

Net zero GHG emissionsaround 2065

2

Negative emissions will be necessary for achieving the Paris long-term targets.

Questions are how much we depend on NETs.

Categorization of deep emission reduction scenarios for below 1.5 °CSource) IPCC SR15

Final energy demandsLow High

SSP1SSP2

(Middle scenario) SSP5LED: Much lower energy demand scenarios than those of SSP1

- Large-scale deployments of CDR, e.g., CCS, BECCS, DACCS, are required.

- Low energy demand is induced autonomously on economic principle through technological and social innovations including AI, IT innovations.- Low carbon prices (business based measures even without strong climate polices)

The total risk management is important, and various kinds of technologies play their own roles.

3

High dependency in Negative Emission Technologies (NETs)

Negative Emission Technologies (NETs)

Example Quantitative Scenarios of DACCS using IAMs: Studies after the IPCC SR15

Assessment by MERGE-ETL model: Global CO2 capture (with DAC- w/o DAC)Source）Marcucci et al., Climatic Change (2017)Note 1) Overshoot of temperature is assumed for the 1.5 °C scenario.Note 2) For the 1.5 °C scenario without DACCS, there are no feasible solution. Therefore, in the 1.5 °C scenario, only CO2 capture of DAC are shown.

Economical deployments of DACCS are about 40 GtCO2/yr in 2100 for the 1.5 °C target.

Assessment by TIAM and WITCH models

CO2 emission pathways

CO2 marginal abatement cost（2030 price）

Source) Realmonte et al., Nature Communications, (2019)

Economical deployments of NETs are over 30 GtCO2/yr in 2100 for the 1.5 °C target. (under the assumption of maximum deployment of DACCS of 30 GtCO2/yr)

Thanks to DACCS, the marginal abatement costs can be greatly reduced.

4

Assumed energy consumption and facility costs of DAC in 2020 based on M. Fasihi et al., (2019):

Required energy (horizontal axis), Land areas (color), Investments (circle size) etc.Source) Smith et al. (2015)

DAC is a technology to capture atmospheric CO2 at low level of about 400ppm, requiring more amounts of energy than capturing exhaust gas emissions from fossil fuels combustion.

On the other hand, DACCS can achieve negative emissions. It is economical to deploy DAC in area close to CO2 storage and where energy supply is available at low

cost such as low cost PV and wind power.

EW: Enhanced weatheringAR：Afforestation and reforestation

Direct Air Capture (DAC): Overview

Energy consumption （/tCO2） Facility costs（Euro/(tCO2/yr)）

2020 2050 2020 2050High temperature (electrification) system (HT DAC)

Elec.(kWh) 1535 1316 815 222

Low temperature systems（LT DAC）: use of hydrogen or natural gas for heat

Heat(GJ)

6.3 (=1750 kWh)

4.0730 199

Elec.(kWh) 250 182

5

The following scenario analyses adopt “Conservative” among two scenarios, “Base” and “Conservative”, by Fasihi et al.

Role of NETs: GHG Emissions by Sector in Japan in 2050

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Ref

eren

ceca

se

1. R

E100

2. R

E in

nova

tion

3. N

ucle

ar E

nerg

yU

tiliz

atio

n

4. H

ydro

gen

Inno

vatio

n

5. C

CU

SU

tiliz

atio

n

6. D

eman

dTr

ansf

orm

atio

n

2015 2050

GH

G e

mie

eion

s [M

tCO

2eq/

yr]

DACCS

Non-CO2 GHG

Process CO2

LULUCF CO2

Other energy conversion

Power generation

Residential & Commercial

Other domestictransportationDomestic aviation

Road transportation

Other industry

Chemical

Pulp & Paper

Cement

Iron & Steel

6

1.5 °C emission pathway for the world + net zero of GHG emissions by 2050 in Japan,

EU, UK, and US

For net zero GHG emissions in Japan, NETs such as DACCS, BECCS, and forestation, will contribute to offsetting the residueemissions of non-CO2 GHGs, process CO2, and other energy-related CO2, and achieving the target more economically.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Ref

eren

ceca

se

1. R

E100

2. R

E in

nova

tion

3. N

ucle

ar E

nerg

yU

tiliz

atio

n

4. H

ydro

gen

Inno

vatio

n

5. C

CU

SU

tiliz

atio

n

6. D

eman

dTr

ansf

orm

atio

n

2015 2050

Prim

ary

ener

gy s

uppl

y [M

toe/

yr]

Gas: non-energy use

Oil: non-energy use

Import: Hydrogen andammoniaImport: Biofuel

Solar thermal

Solar PV

Wind power

Nuclear power

Hydro and Geothermal

Biomass w/CCS

Biomass w/o CCS

Synthetic methane

Gas w/CCS

Gas w/o CCS

Synthetic oil

Oil w/o CCS

Coal w/CCS

Coal w/o CCS

Role of NETs: Total Primary Energy Supply in Japan in 2050

Note 1) Conversion rates of primary energies correspond to IEA statistics.Renewable energies except biomass : 1 TWh = 0.086 Mtoe, nuclear : 1TWh = 0.086 / 0.33 Mtoe

Note 2) Fossil fuels without CCS are offset with NETs, thus serving as carbon-neutral fossil fuels.

Various options such as energy saving, renewable energies, CCS, hydrogen, ammonia, and synthetic fuels will be economicalfor achieving net zero emissions in Japan in 2050.

Thanks to NETs such as BECCS and DACCS, fossil fuels without CCS can be used even under the net zero emission target.

All are offset with NETs in ▲100% scenarios

7

Emission reduction potentials and costs in 2050 by sector and technology: Japan

CO2carbon neutral

▲16% from 2015 level

Adopting CCS to gas power

Adopting CCS to co-firing of coal / biomass

Energy saving in energy-intensive industries, etc.

Adoption of hydrogen DRIAdopting BEV to light truck, etc.

Use of syn. liquid fuels in Road Transportation

Use of syn. methane in Residential & Commercial sector

Use of bio fuels in Road Transportation

Refinery loss reduction due to decrease of petroleum products demand

Shift from coal to gas CGC

Nuclear power

DACCS

Hydrogen / Ammoniapower generation

CCS

Solar PV, Wind power

Ready-mixed concrete CO2trace absorption / curing promotion

Concrete products with absorbed CO2 (for road)

Heat supply by Gas CGS, etc.

Adopting CCS to gas power

GHGcarbon neutral

Note 1) This analysis shows the result of the estimation under the technology assumption in the “Reference case”.Note 2) The emission reduction potentials in this analysis should be referenced as a rough guide, as the emission reduction effects by sector / technology will vary depending on the definition of the variables for sectors, countermeasures, and technologies, etc.

H2-based DRI

CO

2M

argi

nal A

bate

men

t Cos

t [$/

tCO

2]

CO2 Reduction compared with Baseline [MtCO2/yr]

Power generation: High efficiency / Shift among fossil fuels

Power generation: CCUSPower generation: BiomassPower generation: Hydro / GeothermalPower generation: Nuclear powerPower generation: Wind powerPower generation: Solar PV

Power generation: Solar thermalPower generation: Hydrogen / AmmoniaPower generation: Synthetic methaneOther energy conversionIndustry: CCUSIndustry: High efficiency /

Shift among fossil fuelsIndustry: Zero emission fuels

Transport: High efficiency /Shift among fossil fuels

Transport: Zero emission fuelsResidential & Commercial: High efficiency /

Shift among fossil fuels Residential & Commercial: Zero emission fuelsForestationDACCS, Mineralization

BECCS

Reforestation/rehabilitation

8

DACCS will serve as a “backstop” technology even in Japan, but will have a dependency on CO2 storage potentials domestically and possibilities of transport to overseas.

Forestation and BECCS will be cheaper than DACCS, but are constrained by the land available area.

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ref

eren

ce c

ase

(I) L

ow c

ost o

f ren

ewab

les

and

EV

(II) H

igh

cost

of D

AC a

ndlo

w p

oten

tial o

f bio

ener

gy s

uppl

y

(III)

Low

pot

entia

l of C

O2

stor

age

2015 2050

CO

2 em

issi

on[G

tCO

2/yr

]

DACCSProcess CO2LULUCF CO2Other energy conversionPower generationResidentail & CommercialInternational aviation bunkersInternational marine bunkersOther domestic transportationDomestic aviationRoad transportationOther industryChemicalPetrochemicalPulp & PaperCementIron & Steel

9

CO2 marginal abatement cost (USD/tCO2)Japan US EU Others

Reference case 525 167 211 162(I) Low cost of renewables and EV 416 114 150 114(II) High cost of DAC and low potential of bioenergy supply 524 222 222 222

(III) Low potential of CO2 storage 814 610 610 610

Global CO2 emissions by sector 1.5 °C emission pathway for the world + net zero of GHG emissions by 2050 in Japan, EU, UK, and US

Role of NETs: Global CO2 Emissions by Sector and Costs in 2050

Even if renewables and EV are assumed to be lower costs, DACCS will play an important role for net zero emissions.

Even if the DAC facility costs and required energies keep the current levels, and bioenergy supplies are constrained, DACCS and BECCS will still play a large role.

BECCSat powerstation When NETs such as BECCS

and DACCS are constrained, the abatement costs greatly increase under the net zero emission target.

♦ Various options such as energy saving including social innovation, renewableenergies, CCUS, hydrogen, ammonia, and synthetic fuels will be important forachieving net zero emissions by 2050 in Japan.

♦ On the other hand, for net zero GHG emissions in Japan, NETs such as DACCS andBECCS, will contribute to offsetting the residue emissions of non-CO2 GHGs,process CO2, and other energy-related CO2, and will help achieve the target moreeconomically.

♦ There are larger potentials of DACCS and BECCS with lower costs in the world thanin Japan. The NETs will play an important role to achieve global net zero emissions.

♦ Particularly DACCS can play a role as a backstop-type technology, and will alsocontribute to the whole management of climate change mitigation costs includingthe cost targets of technology development.

Conclusion10

Appendix

Image of Primary Energy for Carbon Neutrality (Net Zero Emissions)

Use of overseas renewables (green hydrogen) (import of hydrogen, ammonia, and syn. fuels (CCU))

Use of renewables surplus for hydrogen

Use of overseas CO2 reservoir (pre-combustion CO2capture) (import of blue hydrogen (incl. ammonia))

BECCS, DACCS Forestation, mineralization (concrete CCU)

Fossil fuels w/o CCS

Decarbonized

energy

Remaining fossil fuels

Fossil fuels + CCS

Renewable energy

Nuclear

【Use of overseas resources】

Energy saving or Reduction in embodied energy of goods/services(incl. Society 5.0)

Negative emission technologies (NETs)

Domestic renewables

Measures of grid to expand renewables (incl. storage battery)

Sys. fuels prone to be generated from fossil fuels if the constraint on CO2 is loose in the producing countries, while from BECCS or DAC (with increased cost) if the constraint is strict.

Fossil fuels w/CCS

Nuclear

Use of overseas CO2reservoir (post-combustion)

Domestic CO2 storage

【Use of overseas resources】

Energy savings are important options even for the net zero emissions.

For the net zero, large expansions of renewable energies are key. On the other hand, nuclear power, CCS, and NETs are also important options.

It is not so simple to achieve net zero whose measure is renewables + electrification.

12

Energy Assessment Model: DNE21+ (Dynamic New Earth 21+)

♦ Systemic cost evaluation on energy and CO2 reduction technologies is possible.♦ Linear programming model (minimizing world energy system cost; with 10mil. variables and 10mil. constrained

conditions)♦ Evaluation time period: 2000-2100

Representative time points: 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2070 and 2100♦ World divided into 54 regions

Large area countries, e.g., US and China, are further disaggregated, totaling 77 world regions.♦ Interregional trade: coal, crude oil/oil products, natural gas/syn. methane, electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, CO2 (provided

that external transfer of CO2 is not assumed in the baseline)♦ Bottom-up modeling for technologies on energy supply side (e.g., power sector) and CCUS♦ For energy demand side, bottom-up modeling conducted for the industry sector including steel, cement, paper, chemicals

and aluminum, the transport sector, and a part of the residential & commercial sector, considering CGS for other industry and residential & commercial sectors.

♦ Bottom-up modeling for international marine bunker and aviation.♦ Around 500 specific technologies are modeled, with lifetime of equipment considered.♦ Top-down modeling for others (energy saving effect is estimated using long-term price elasticity).

• Regional and sectoral technological information provided in detail enough to analyze consistently.• Analyses on non-CO2 GHG possible with another model RITE has developed based on US EPA’s assumptions.

• Model based analyses and evaluation provide recommendation for major governmental policy making on climate change, e.g., cap-and-trade system and Environmental Energy Technology Innovation Plan, and also contribute to IPCC scenario analysis.

13

Scenario Assumption for GHG Net Zero Emissions in Japan and Share of Renewables in Total Electricity Supply in 2050

ScenarioCost of

renewable energy

Ratio of nuclear power

Cost of hydrogen CCUS(Storage potential)

Fully autonomous driving

(Car ride sharing)

Share of RE in total electricity

Reference Case*1

Standard cost

10%

Standard costDomestic

storage:91MtCO2/yr,Overseas transportation：

235MtCO2/yrStandard assumption

(no fully autonomous cars)

54%(Optimization results)

1. Renewable Energy 100% (RE 100) 0%

Almost 100%(Assumption)


2. Renewable Energy Innovation Low cost 10%

3. Nuclear Power Utilization*2

Standard cost

20% 53%(Optimization results)

4. Hydrogen Innovation

10%

Hydrogen production such as water

electrolysis, hydrogen liquefaction facility

cost: Halved


5. CCUS Utilization

Standard cost

Domestic：273MtCO2/yr、Overseas：282MtCO2/yr


Domestic: 91Mt,Overseas: 235Mt

Realization and diffusion of fully autonomous driving and

expansion of car ride sharing after 2030, and decrease in material production due to reduction of the number of

automobiles


6. Demand Transformation

*1：There is no feasible solution without DAC, and DAC is assumed to be available in all scenarios for carbon neutrality by 2050 in Japan.*2：Nuclear power utilization scenarios up to the share of 50% are also examined.

14

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Ref

eren

ceca

se

1. R

E100

2. R

E in

nova

tion

3. N

ucle

ar E

nerg

yU

tiliz

atio

n

4. H

ydro

gen

Inno

vatio

n

5. C

CU

SU

tiliz

atio

n

6. D

eman

dTr

ansf

orm

atio

n

2050

CO

2ca

ptur

e, s

tora

ge a

nd u

tiliz

atio

n [M

tCO

2/yr]

CO2 Balances in Japan in 2050Capture

Storage,utilization

In all of the scenarios for the net zero emissions in 2050, DACCS will be an economic option. In the RE100 case, fossil fuels + CCS is excluded and BECCS is utilized instead.

Storage, utilization

Capture

CO2 geological storage

CCU

Overseas transport

DAC

Ammonia production

Cement

BF-BOF

Hydrogen production

Biomass-fired

Gas-fired

Oil-fired

Coal-fired

15

CO2 marginal abatement costs (carbon price) for 1.5 °C targets

Note) All of the scenarios do not consider DACCS.

The costs estimated by DNE21+ model without DACCS are almost consistent or slightly smallercompared with the ranges of costs gathered by the IPCC SR15.

16

Source) IPCC SR15

245-14,300 $/tCO2 (whole range); about 700-4,000 $/tCO2 (25-75 percentile)

About 400-1000 $/tCO2 even for the scenarios with low overshoot of temperature

role and cost of negative emission technologies for carbon

Documents