This February, the European Commission’s strategy on industrial carbon management and the key points set out by Germany’s Federal Government for its Carbon Management Strategy (CMS) and Long-term Strategy on Negative Emissions (LNe) provided fresh impetus for the subject of carbon management. How do CMS and LNe relate to one another and to the European Commission’s strategy? What points do they leave unclarified? Where does action need to be taken? The discussion paper “An Integrated Approach to Carbon Management: Requirements of an Overall Strategy Comprising CCS, CCU and CDR” presented by the “Energy Systems of the Future” (ESYS) project – a joint initiative from acatech, Leopoldina and Akademienunion – focuses on these and other related questions.
The publication reveals how Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) overlap when it comes to technologies and infrastructure. Their sustainable potential is limited, and conflicts of use are possible. These three pillars of carbon management must therefore be examined collectively from the outset and regulated in a coordinated manner.
No climate neutrality without CCS, CCU not a replacement in most cases
CCS – i.e. capturing carbon and injecting it into the ground for permanent storage – is controversial in Germany. However, the ESYS experts come to the conclusion that the risk of not using CCS and missing climate goals as a result outweighs the risks of using CCS – especially given the experience with this technology gathered e.g. in Norway. Without CCS, climate neutrality – not to mention net-negative emissions – will not be possible, or will only be possible with unrealistic, far-reaching changes in people’s behaviour and advances in industry that would not appear to be in reach before 2045. Indeed, in some sectors, such as the cement industry and agriculture, producing greenhouse gases cannot be completely avoided with the technologies currently at our disposal.
Storing carbon solely in vegetation or the soil is limited by the capacity of the available land. In addition, the permanence of storage is uncertain. It can therefore not serve as the sole alternative to CCS. Equally as unsuitable for replacing CCS is the less controversial CCU – the capture and reuse of carbon as a raw material: The climate footprint of CCU depends on both the source of the carbon and the lifespan of the products manufactured using it. For example, negative emissions are only achieved with CCU in the case of very long-lasting products such as building materials manufactured using CO2 from the atmosphere. So although CCU is an important replacement for oil and natural gas as a source of carbon, the emissions e.g. from agriculture and the cement industry can in most use cases not be permanently neutralised.
Prioritise avoidance of emissions, define hard-to-abate emissions more precisely
Even if carbon management is a necessary part of climate action, the ESYS experts underline that it can only make a small contribution compared with the avoidance of greenhouse gases. Using renewable energies, expanding the hydrogen infrastructure and switching over to lower-emission production methods in industry therefore remains essential in order to make progress on the road to climate neutrality. CCS, CCU and CDR are also envisaged in the key points for Germany’s CMS and LNe, above all for “hard-to-abate” emissions – but the key points remain vague and inconsistent when it comes to the limitations for their application. In particular the openness to the use of CCS in fossil-natural-gas-fired power plants needs to be set out in more detail from an energy sector perspective, so as not to jeopardise the necessary public support for carbon management and CCS in particular.
all news
back