Final Draft for Commenting

ICC - Technical Background Paper on the

Role of carbon and long-term mitigation strategies beyond 2050 through

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCU ) and Closing Carbon Cycles (C³)

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 1 of 10

Key Messages and Aspects on a glance…

Business is firmly rooted in the here and now…… but looks far into the future and well beyond current boundaries.

Most climate issues are energy related and can be addressed by fuel switch…… but indispensable use of carbon requires alternative approaches in certain applications.

Not the use of carbon or the occurrence of CO2 is dangerous…… but only the emission of GHGs into the atmosphere is causing climate change.

CO2 is a very chemically inactive molecule today providing serious climate challenges…… but sufficient amounts of renewable energy can transform it into valuable input materials

for many industrial processes – both as an energy carrier and a material resource.

Short-run potentials are still in improving current processes……cross-industry approaches and CCU are important steps in the medium run…

… but in the long-run closing the carbon cycle (C³) is essential.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCU) seems to be a niche application and a researcher’s dream today…

… but current developments suggest that its long-term CO2 transformation potential is only limited by the availability of energy and the provision of adequate infrastructure.

Widespread CCU including Closed Carbon Cycles (C³) are fully operational post 2050…… but initial steps must be made today to reach the finishing line in time.

Business will continue its efforts on R&D and deployment …… but politics must support with providing stimulating regulatory frameworks and

acknowledge the role of business and other stakeholders.

CCU and Closing the Carbon Cycle (C³) are very capital intensive approaches…… but global market mechanisms, adequate climate financing and strengthening the existing

technology mechanisms can make it globally available.

COP 21 is not the time nor the place to discuss such issues in detail …… but COP 21 must not close the door on this promising approach by inadvertedly

withholding the right framework or erasing unforeseen barriers.

CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) and CCU might seem nearly the same on first glance…… but are very different and must not be confused in discussions and decision making.

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 2 of 10

Background and Outline of Ideas

Effective Climate Protection requires an extreme reduction of the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; while meeting the enormous challenge of providing a sustainable adequate standard of living for a still growing world population. A major undisputed strategy is the use of renewable energies, because fossil carbon is today overwhelmingly used just to provide energy. But certain uses of carbon are for its chemical properties or where carbon is an unavoidable component of essential input materials which cannot be readily substituted. This only applies to a fraction of carbon use, but nevertheless requires adequate attention. Examples are amongst others the production of certain chemical and pharmaceuticals where carbon is required in the molecules, or the production of cement which requires driving CO2 out of limestone. For such non-energy applications an alternative mitigation strategy is CCU (carbon capture and use) embedded in a truly circular economy. CO2 can be captured and reused as a valuable raw material with the required energy being provided from renewable sources. But required technologies, business models and infrastructure are not here yet for ready implementation but will take decades to develop and install. They require adequate political attention and regulatory frameworks starting with recognition of the option at COP 21 when designing a global climate agreement – rather than following pressures to ban carbon use completely.

Closing the carbon cycle to mitigate climate change sustainably in the long term

Closing the carbon cycle requires not only local or piecemeal approaches, but an integrated system of processes, uses and infrastructure ensuring that carbon is used efficiently while CO2 emissions are avoided effectively overall. It is not sufficient to just use CO2 once – we need to expand current CCU approaches into a truly circular approach based on renewable energy without increase in energy supply from fossils in other applications.

A first assessment will yield that most products obtained from CO2 will have an average lifetime of 50 years or less, before they end up as waste and are most likely burned, hence releasing CO2. Therefore one-step CCU approaches are not truly CO2-neutral. However, they already make an important contribution in delaying CO2 emissions and hence reducing the CO2 freight in the atmosphere for half a century.

The ultimate goal must be closing the carbon cycle completely. This can be achieved by capturing CO2 from final end-of-life emission sources such as waste incinerators and making CO2 again available as a raw material using renewable energies to transform it into useable components. Such a circular economy would result in zero net emissions and hence be an overall CO2 emission-free system. Depending on the actual CO2 and climate goals it could be sufficient to capture a significant part rather than all CO2, or

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 3 of 10

Requests for political support

1. Acknowledge Carbon Capture and Use (CCU) and Closing the Carbon Cycle (C³) as a suitable mitigation strategy for specific CO2

emissions and ensure general political support.

2. Include this technology option in relevant considerations, documents and strategies at UN and national levels.

3. Generate enabling regulatory frameworks and foster socio-political dialogues to ensure acceptance of these technologies.

4. Develop funding and risk-mitigation mechanisms for

to capture additional CO2 from renewable sources to make up for non-captured fossil-based CO2.

Today: separated quadrants Tomorrow: Closing the carbon cycle

It is not necessary to convert CO2 always fully back to carbon. Intermediate carbon compounds (such as CO) are often sufficient. This reduces the energy demand significantly. Both carbon and CO are valuable raw materials in many applications, not as mere energy carriers but as valuable feed-stock for chemical processes where they can replace fossil raw materials such as crude oil or natural gas.

Closing the carbon cycle is a long term option for a specific part of our common climate change challenge. It is a grand design which only can be finished in decades. Particularly the required infrastructure will be a major challenge and opportunity at the same time. And it does not work on its own but is linked to other developments, namely a big push in renewable energies. However, individual building blocks are under development and can make contributions already on a much shorter time scale.

Why are we not there yet?

There are several major hurdles to be overcome before a widespread contribution of such approaches will be seen. This requires activities and engagement from all stakeholders in society and can only work if adequate political decisions support such approaches.

Overcoming the hurdles

Major challenges are today certainly still the scientific and technical obstacles to be overcome with engineering ingenuity requiring great efforts in Research and Development (R&D). This challenge becomes even more demanding if it is not restricted to individual processes and industries, but addresses cross-industry process-chains or even includes all aspects of life. In addition to technology it requires the development of new business models to achieve economic viability of such approaches. This is the inherent responsibility of industry and business and still needs substantial discussions and activities within the value chain over the next decades.

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 4 of 10

Requests for political support

1. Acknowledge Carbon Capture and Use (CCU) and Closing the Carbon Cycle (C³) as a suitable mitigation strategy for specific CO2

emissions and ensure general political support.

2. Include this technology option in relevant considerations, documents and strategies at UN and national levels.

3. Generate enabling regulatory frameworks and foster socio-political dialogues to ensure acceptance of these technologies.

4. Develop funding and risk-mitigation mechanisms for

Such a fundamental redesign and reengineering of industry and business requires large amount of capital, some of it risk capital as there are many uncertainties and investments are anything but certain regarding individual pay back. Here adequate financing mechanisms are needed; including investment and deployment support regarding spreading such concepts globally. Especially risk mitigation for first of its kind installations will be decisive for a swift deployment of such technologies.

Using CO2 as a carbon resource is particularly attractive based on large CO2 sources concentrated in industrial clusters. This requires a new view on optimizing processes cross-sectors which goes beyond classical industries and combined processes from different industries such as for example energy – steel – chemistry – automotive – municipal services. It can therefore also have significant effects on regional planning. Especially the provision of required infrastructure to capture, transport and store CO2 and the intermediate raw materials and products is a major challenge. Given the issues of natural monopolies and conflicting access needs this is clearly a societal task.

But all of this will only happen in a suitable regulatory framework. This needs to be provided by politics and society-at-large. No investment or other decisions will be made without adequate legal and regulatory frameworks. To name one, MRV (monitoring, reporting, verifying) methodologies must be adjusted to foster such climate-friendly approaches

Frameworks must also be adequate to ensure long-term economic feasibility. Without such frameworks there cannot be a truly sustainable solution.

Very important are also the wider socio-political challenges, because a lot of resistance could be expected as such approaches might be misinterpreted in many ways. They could be portrayed in such a way as if industry just does not want to change its production or is trying to hide behind obstacles rather than trying to overcome them. Required infrastructure and adequate industrial processes are major projects which could easily meet the resistance of local communities or even larger political groups. This must be avoided by open dialogue, honest discussions about options, challenges and opportunities. This in turns requires adequate political support and backing, which makes it indispensable to gain credibility and support for such ideas. Without that, no researcher will continue to be enthusiastic, no process engineer keen on implementing and no board willing to provide finances.

No attempt is made to provide clear-cut solutions on these issues, because they do not readily exist. But we must address the issues and find the solutions in a socio-political dialogue involving all stakeholders. If we do that, then we can reach the goal.

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 5 of 10

General Background: Strategies for avoiding CO2 emissions and the role of closing the carbon cycle (C³)

In spite of the language often used the use of carbon as such is not causing climate change. Climate change is fueled by releasing additional greenhouse gases including CO2 from fossil sources into the atmosphere on top of the “natural emissions” from bioactivities including human breathing.

To avoid climate relevant CO2 emissions four options exist in principle:

I. Do not use carbon at all, hence no CO2 can be produced (decarburization)II. Do only use carbon from renewable sources, hence a balance between CO2

emissions and CO2-uptake for renewal is obtained (Net-balance zero emissions)III. Use carbon, but lock away the CO2 safely (CCS – carbon capture and storage)IV. Use carbon, and then reuse the CO2 as a valuable raw material and source for

carbon and carbon compounds without releasing GHG into the atmosphere (closing the carbon cycle with CCU)

I. As indicated the option of avoiding (fossil) carbon might be applicable for a majority of today’s CO2 emissions in the future and in particular for most if not all energy related applications. But indisputably there are essential chemical applications of carbon where carbon is indispensable if society does not want to reduce its standard of living significantly.

II. Using carbon from renewable sources can be an option for certain applications, but has its limitations. In particular it cannot substitute all carbon bearing inputs such as limestone in cement making and since it requires sustainable forestry huge areas of land might be needed which causes conflicts of use. Calculations estimate for example the amount of land required to produce “bio-coal” for just 10 million ton of steel to equal the size of the Kingdom of Belgium. Further, the physical and chemical properties (such as energy densities, flame temperatures, transportability or physical strength) of “bio-coals” might not be sufficient to be a true substitute in the foreseeable future.

III. The role of CCS and its potential contribution to climate change mitigation are hotly disputed. It does not close the carbon cycle, but it avoids a loose end by “trapping” CO2 in a storage side. Hence it could as well play a role in closing the carbon cycle by acting as an intermediate storage before the entrained CO2 is used again later.

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 6 of 10

IV. CCU is the approach of capturing the climate relevant gases and use them as an input for other products. There are two different “uses” of CO2 to be distinguished:

a. “Molecular use of CO2”: There are certain polymers, in which CO2 can be embedded as part of the molecular structure. Or CO2 as a molecule can be used as such; for example in greenhouses to speed up plant growth or for cleaning applications. Such uses are very limited and will only be able to contribute to minor part to solving the CO2 problem.

b. “CO2 as a raw material for carbon”: CO2 can be used in order to provide – together with renewable energies – a source of carbon for further processes.

Also there are two different options to use CO2 as a raw material. On the one hand it can be transformed to obtain pure carbon, which is very energy intensive. On the other hand for many applications it is sufficient or even more desirable to provide carbon compounds such as CO, as an important precursor from many chemical reactions. This offers a wide range of opportunities of using CO2 and broadens the scope for CCU considerably in the medium- to long-run.

On first glance the two approaches CCS and CCU might seem very similar because they both start with capturing from off-gases. But there are important technical, economic and socio-political differences which require a careful distinction between the two approaches. When using CO2 as the raw material for carbon, it is not required to have a very pure CO2 at the beginning as is the case for CCS mostly. In certain applications it might even be beneficial to not have pure CO2 but more suitable gas mixture; for example in fertilizer production mixture of CO and N2 is much more desired.

In the long term closing the carbon cycle (C³) in a truly circular economy is a very promising strategy to combine effective climate change policy with continued industrial activity and maintaining societies’ well-being.

As mentioned this is not just a technical issue, but it requires careful socio-political discussions on needed infrastructure, location of CO2 sources and users, possibly intermediate storage facilities, and many more issues.

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 7 of 10

Technical Background: How to turn CO2 from a threat into a valuable input to a climate friendly industry

Ideas and suggestions for approaches to close the carbon cycle are quite plentiful in academic and research cycles. They can be grouped into several key categories, such as:

Artificial photosynthesis, CO2 electrolysis and other means of decomposing CO2 into carbon and oxygen, which can be then used again as feedstock (or be discarded without any negative impact on climate or environment)

Mineralization, i. e. embedding CO2 in artificial “rocks” which then can be perhaps used for construction applications

CO2 valorization, i. e. using CO2 as a feedstock for chemical processes replacing fossil raw material to produce fuels, base chemicals or other products. This approach can be based on:

o Embedding CO2 directly in products such as in certain polymers (“molecular use”)

o breaking up the CO2 molecule to obtain other valuable precursors for subsequent products (“CO2 as a raw material for carbon”)

In all cases significant amounts of energy are required, sometimes in vast amounts. Hence these ideas rely on the availability of affordable and climate friendly energy. In actual processes this is normally done by adding hydrogen as an energy carrier, which in itself is quite energy intense its production. A limiting factor might be the enormous amount of electricity to produce the hydrogen needed.

Today there are three main approaches to CO2 valorization:

power to gas: using renewable electricity to obtain artificial natural gas which then can be reused for example for electricity production or fed into the gas infrastructure. This is very much a buffer function and creates a storage opportunity for renewable energies.

power to liquid: using renewable electricity to produce fuels such as methanol which then replace fossil-based fuels.

power to chemicals: using renewable energy and CO2 to provide precursors for polymer materials. As mentioned above this can be by directly using the CO2 or by breaking up the CO2 and using the resulting components.

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 8 of 10

Other approaches under the umbrella of CCU such as artificial photosynthesis and mineralization do not require as much energy theoretically, but in reality is extremely difficult to get these chemical reactions started and proceed in sensible time scales; in nature such processes normally takes thousands and millions of years.

This explains why one of the most important questions regarding CCU actually is less the issue of CO2 containing gas provision and treatment, but the provision of adequate catalysts in order to make reactions go fast enough to be of any value or commercial interest. Provision of sufficient hydrogen will be the limiting factor for industrial upscaling.

Such ideas are not just scientific thought experiments. There have been many actual activities including industrial research and demonstration of such concepts.

But reliable solutions on an industrial scale do take time. Therefore it will be essential to realize that this is not a short-term solution and that it cannot be implemented tomorrow nor replace on-going activities of mitigation efforts in existing production technologies. A lot of basic research and the course of further development a lot of applied research will be necessary to further develop those concepts.

From concept to industrial realization takes often decades

But if we do not start today to set the scene – the show will never happen!

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 9 of 10

The energy issue also determines why this approach cannot work for maintaining energy production from fossil fuels, because the energy required to break-up the

Editorial Notes:

Diagrams are still illustrative only.

Copyright for diagrammes 4-6 not yet obtained (just copied from DECHEMA presentation); possible alternative diagrams with same information to be provided

Version 4.0 long-term mitigation through Closing Carbon Cycles (C³) page 10 of 10