Evaluating carbon removal: Integrating technical potential with environmental, social, governance criteria, and sequestration permanence

Jan Mertens^{1

2}, Christian Breyer³, Ronnie Belmans^{4

5}, Corinne Gendron⁶, Patrice Geoffron⁷, Carolyn Fischer⁸, Elodie Du Fornel¹, Richard Lester⁹, Kimberly A Nicholas¹⁰, Paulo Emilio V de Miranda¹¹, Sarah Palhol¹², Peter Verwee¹², Olivier Sala¹, Michael Webber¹³, Koenraad Debackere¹⁴

Affiliations

¹ ENGIE Research, 1 PL. Samuel de Champlain, Paris-la Défense, 92930 Paris, France.
² Department of Electromechanical, System and Metal Engineering, Ghent University, Technologiepark Zwijnaarde 131, Zwijnaarde, Belgium.
³ LUT University, Yliopistonkatu 34, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland.
⁴ Electrical Energy and Computer Architectures, K.U.Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.
⁵ EnergyVille, Thor Park 8310, 3600 Genk, Belgium.
⁶ Université Du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Département de Stratégie, Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale, École des Sciences de La Gestion (ESG), Québec, Canada.
⁷ Dauphine Economics Laboratory, Université Paris Dauphine-PSL, Place Du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 75016 Paris, France.
⁸ Sustainability and Infrastructure Team, World Bank Group, 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA.
⁹ Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA.
¹⁰ Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden.
¹¹ Hydrogen Laboratory at Coppe-Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Av. Moniz Aragão, 207, Rio de Janeiro 21941-594, Brazil.
¹² Engie Impact, Simon Bolivarlaan 34 1000 Brussel, Belgium.
¹³ Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 204 E. Dean Keeton St, Stop C2200, Austin, TX 78712-1591, United States.
¹⁴ KU Leuven, ECOOM, Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation, Faculty of Economics and Business, Naamsestraat 69, BE-3000 Leuven, Belgium.

PMID: 39717094
PMCID: PMC11664158
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111418

Review

Evaluating carbon removal: Integrating technical potential with environmental, social, governance criteria, and sequestration permanence

Jan Mertens et al. iScience. 2024.

. 2024 Nov 19;27(12):111418.

doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111418. eCollection 2024 Dec 20.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ ENGIE Research, 1 PL. Samuel de Champlain, Paris-la Défense, 92930 Paris, France.
² Department of Electromechanical, System and Metal Engineering, Ghent University, Technologiepark Zwijnaarde 131, Zwijnaarde, Belgium.
³ LUT University, Yliopistonkatu 34, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland.
⁴ Electrical Energy and Computer Architectures, K.U.Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.
⁵ EnergyVille, Thor Park 8310, 3600 Genk, Belgium.
⁶ Université Du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Département de Stratégie, Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale, École des Sciences de La Gestion (ESG), Québec, Canada.
⁷ Dauphine Economics Laboratory, Université Paris Dauphine-PSL, Place Du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 75016 Paris, France.
⁸ Sustainability and Infrastructure Team, World Bank Group, 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA.
⁹ Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA.
¹⁰ Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden.
¹¹ Hydrogen Laboratory at Coppe-Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Av. Moniz Aragão, 207, Rio de Janeiro 21941-594, Brazil.
¹² Engie Impact, Simon Bolivarlaan 34 1000 Brussel, Belgium.
¹³ Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 204 E. Dean Keeton St, Stop C2200, Austin, TX 78712-1591, United States.
¹⁴ KU Leuven, ECOOM, Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation, Faculty of Economics and Business, Naamsestraat 69, BE-3000 Leuven, Belgium.

PMID: 39717094
PMCID: PMC11664158
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111418

Abstract

Climate modeling suggests that achieving international climate goals requires a reduction in current CO₂ emissions by over 90%, with any remaining emissions to be addressed through carbon dioxide removal (CDR) solutions. Sixteen CDR strategies are evaluated by integrating technical potential, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria, along with sequestration permanence. This evaluation, conducted by ENGIE's scientific council using an interdisciplinary Delphi panel methodology, proposes a "quality" measure for each technology. This measure combines ESG scores and sequestration timescales to rank and select the most promising solutions. The findings highlight the necessity for further research to understand and mitigate ESG impacts, aiming to inform both future research and current decision-making to support the effective and legitimate use of CDR strategies.

Keywords: Energy policy; Energy resources; Energy sustainability; Energy systems.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

**Figure 1**
Potential pathways for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), carbon capture and utilization (CCU), and carbon removal Two dimensions structure the technological landscape of CO₂ management technologies: biogenic versus fossil CO₂ and CO₂ sequestration versus use. CCS of fossil fuel-based CO₂ and CCU both allow emission reduction while CDR can only be achieved through the sequestration of biogenic or atmospheric CO₂.

**Figure 2**
Estimated technical potential of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options (left part of the figure) versus their likely uptake in different climate modeling scenarios (right part of the figure) in Gtonnes per year by 2050 The dotted line shows today’s yearly CO₂ emissions.

**Figure 3**
“Quality” of CDR options versus their 2050 technical potential in Gtonnes of CO₂ per year Estimated “quality” is based on their ESG score and the estimated CO₂ sequestration timescales. The color indicates the TRL of each technology, ranging from low (red) to high (green).

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

1. Forster P.M., Smith C., Walsh T., Lamb W.F., Lamboll R., Hall B., Hauser M., Ribes A., Rosen D., Gillett N.P., et al. Indicators of Global Climate Change 2023: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 2023;16:2625–2658. doi: 10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024. - DOI
1. IPCC . In: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team. Lee H., Romero J., editors. IPCC; 2023. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report; p. 184. - DOI
1. IEA . IEA Paris, France; 2023. Net Zero Roadmap A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach.https://www.energy-transition-institute.com/
1. Hepburn C., Adlen E., Beddington J., Carter E.A., Fuss S., Mac Dowell N., Minx J.C., Smith P., Williams C.K. The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal. Nature. 2019;575:87–97. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1681-6. - DOI - PubMed
1. Mertens J., Belmans R., Webber M. Why the carbon neutral transition will imply the use of lots of carbon. C-Journal of Carbon research. 2020;6:1–8.

Publication types

Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- Elsevier Science
- PubMed Central

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Evaluating carbon removal: Integrating technical potential with environmental, social, governance criteria, and sequestration permanence

Affiliations

Evaluating carbon removal: Integrating technical potential with environmental, social, governance criteria, and sequestration permanence

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Figures

References

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources