Schlagwort: Carbon Dioxide Removal

Keiner et al. (2025): Area demand quantification for energy system-integrated negative emissions based on carbon dioxide removal portfolios

Dominik Keiner, Andreas Mühlbauer, Christoph Gerhards and Christian Breyer, IN: Environmental Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adccd9

If climate change mitigation is based on energy crops, the impact of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on area demand may be significant. The CDR-specific area demand is usually not presented. This study compares a CDR technology portfolio prioritising biomass-based solutions to portfolios prioritising low cost, low energy demand, high security, low area demand, and high technology readiness in terms of area demand. The CDR portfolio model is linked with an energy system model to include the area required for solar photovoltaics and wind power for the energy supply of the whole energy–industry–CDR system.

LINK

Nature – Lee et al. (2025): Bio-accelerated weathering of ultramafic minerals with Gluconobacter oxydans

Joseph J. Lee, Luke Plante, Brooke Pian, Sabrina Marecos, Sean A. Medin, Jacob D. Klug, Matthew C. Reid, Greeshma Gadikota, Esteban Gazel & Buz Barstow, IN: Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-99655-9

Ultramafic rocks are an abundant source of cations for CO₂ mineralization (e.g., Mg) and elements for sustainability technologies (e.g., Ni, Cr, Mn, Co, Al). However, there is no industrially useful process for dissolving ultramafic materials to release cations for CO₂ sequestration or mining them for energy-critical elements. Weathering of ultramafic rocks by rainwater, release of metal cations, and subsequent CO₂ mineralization already naturally sequesters CO₂ from the atmosphere, but this natural process will take thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to remove excess anthropogenic CO₂, far too late to deal with global warming that will happen over the next century. Mechanical acceleration of weathering by grinding can accelerate cation release but is prohibitively expensive. In this article the authors show that gluconic acid-based lixiviants produced by the mineral-dissolving microbe Gluconobacter oxydansaccelerate leaching of Mg²⁺ by 20× over deionized water, and that leaching of Mg, Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni further improves by 73% from 24 to 96 h.

LINK

Nature – Davis et al. (2025): Carbon dioxide pipelines are disproportionally located in marginalized communities in the United States

Julia A. Davis, Nafiseh Salehi, Liqing Li & Majid Shafiee-Jood IN: Communications Earth & Environment, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02295-0

Carbon capture and storage and carbon dioxide removal technologies are pivotal for net-zero climate goals, requiring extensive carbon dioxide pipeline expansion across the U.S. However, as this network grows, concerns about safety and environmental justice intensify, due to insufficient regulations that may disproportionately expose marginalized communities to risks. Here, the authors empirically examine the environmental justice implications of existing and potential pipelines across communities. Using census-tract demographic data and pipeline spatial data, they applied LASSO regression to identify key demographic variables and incorporated them into binary logistic regression models to uncover if the locations of, and disadvantages associated with, carbon dioxide pipelines are equally distributed among different demographics.

LINK

Science – Tangparitkulet al. (2025): CO₂ storage infrastructure and cost estimation for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in Northern Thailand

Suparit Tangparitkul, Thakheru Akamine, Romal Ramadhan, Vorasate Thanasaksukthawee, Chetsada Tapanya, Thanapol Tantisattayakul and Premrudee Kanchanapiya IN: Carbon Capture Science & Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2025.100425

The current study evaluated CO₂ storage infrastructure in Northern Thailand’s onshore saline formations to support BECCS deployment and contribute to the nation’s decarbonization goals under its Nationally Determined Contribution. The geological storage potential, CO₂ plume migration, storage containment, and cost estimates of the Lampang and Nong Bua Basins were comprehensively assessed. Numerical simulations were performed to evaluate storage capacities and containment mechanisms, incorporating reservoir heterogeneity and geomechanical constraints.

LINK

Anandapadmanaban et al. (2025): Optimizing the generated waste proportion to improve the characteristics of biochar for CO2 sequestration and other applications

Baala H. Anandapadmanaban, Yen San Chan, Chi-Wen Lin and Shu-Hui Liu IN: Springer Nature, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06187-3

This review emphasizes the substantial progress in producing biochar from waste materials and its contribution to CO2 sequestration, thereby mitigating the environmental impact.

Ren et al. (2025): Olivine-induced seasonal dynamics of eukaryotic microalgal and bacterial assemblages in mid-latitude nearshore marine ecosystems

Hongwei Ren, Yubin Hu, Lianbao Zhang, Xianzhe Gong, Liwen Zheng and Jihua Liu IN: Marine Pollution Bulletin, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.117964

Ocean alkalinization, especially through olivine addition, represents a promising strategy for reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. The addition of olivine may have seasonal impacts on marine microalgal and bacterial communities, which have not been studied yet. In this study, controlled laboratory experiments were conducted in spring and autumn to measure the responses of microalgal and bacterial communities to olivine addition in different seasons.

LINK

Yao et al. (2025): Exploring Site‐Specific Carbon Dioxide Removal Options With Storage or Sequestration in the Marine Environment – The 10 Mt CO2 yr−1 Removal Challenge for Germany

W. Yao, T. M. Morganti, J. Wu, M. Borchers, A. Anschütz, L.‐K. Bednarz, K. A. Bhaumik, M. Böttcher, K. Burkhard, T. Cabus, A. S. Chua, I. Diercks, M. Esposito, M. Fink, M. Fouqueray, F. Gasanzade, S. Geilert, J. Hauck, F. Havermann, I. Hellige, S. Hoog, M. Jürchott, H. T. Kalapurakkal, J. Kemper, I. Kremin, I. Lange, J. M. Lencina‐Avila, M. Liadova, F. Liu, S. Mathesius, N. Mehendale, T. Nagwekar, M. Philippi, G. L. N. Luz, M. Ramasamy, F. Stahl, L. Tank, M.‐E. Vorrath, L. Westmark, H.‐W. Wey, R. Wollnik, M. Wölfelschneider, W. Bach, K. Bischof, M. Boersma, U. Daewel, M. Fernández‐Méndez, J. K. Geuer, D. P. Keller, A. Kopf, C. Merk, N. Moosdorf, N. Oppelt, A. Oschlies, J. Pongratz, A. Proelss, G. J. Rehder, L. Rüpke, N. Szarka, D. Thraen, K. Wallmann and N. Mengis IN: Earth’s Future, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004902

In this work, the authors explore different options for mCDR and mCS, using the German context as a case study. They challenge each option to remove 10 Mt CO2 yr−1, accounting for 8%–22% of projected hard-to-abate and residual emissions of Germany in 2045. They focus on the environmental, resource, and infrastructure requirements of individual mCDR and mCS options at specific sites, within the German jurisdiction when possible. This serves as an entry point to discuss main uncertainty factors and research needs beyond technology readiness, and, where possible, cost estimates, expected environmental effects, and monitoring approaches. In total, they describe 10 mCDR and mCS options; four aim at enhancing the chemical carbon uptake of the ocean through alkalinity enhancement, four aim at enhancing blue carbon ecosystems‘ sink capacity, and two employ geological off-shore storage.

LINK

Gulde et al. (2025): Frameworks to assess climate change responses – A systematic analysis to enhance frameworks for Carbon Dioxide Removal

Felix Gulde, Maximilian Witting, Frederike Neuber, Christian Baatz and Matthias Garschagen IN: Environmental Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adcad3

This study conducts a systematic literature review of assessment frameworks used for climate change responses, analyzing how they address what the authors identified as key requirements. By expanding the scope beyond CDR-specific assessment frameworks, they identify and derive valuable insights and approaches that can inform their refinement. Following a three-step approach, they first conducted a preceding scoping review to determine key requirements for holistic assessments. Second, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify a broad range of assessment frameworks for climate responses. Third, based on a qualitative content analysis we examined how these frameworks address the key requirements identified earlier.

LINK

Dörpmund (2025): Motivations and challenges for carbon dioxide removal development: empirical evidence from market practitioners

Felix Dörpmund IN: Environmental Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adcad4

This study explores the role of private companies in shaping the early CDR innovation ecosystem by conducting interviews with senior practitioners (suppliers, purchasers / marketplaces, investors) actively involved in CDR markets. The author examines their motivations and challenges.

LINK

Baatz et al. (2025): A holistic assessment framework for marine carbon dioxide removal options

Christian Baatz, Lukas Tank, Lena-Katharina Bednarz, Miranda Boettcher, Teresa Maria Morganti, Lieske Voget- Kleschin, Tony Cabus, Erik van Doorn, Tabea Dorndorf, Felix Havermann, Wanda Holzhüter, David Peter Keller, Matthias Kreuzburg, Nele Matz-Lück, Nadine Mengis, Christine Merk, Yiannis Moustakis, Julia Pongratz, Hendrikje Wehnert, Wanxuan Yao and Gregor Rehder IN: Environmental Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adc93f

The authors present a novel assessment framework designed for mCDR options. The framework provides important conceptual advancements to existing frameworks currently used to assess climate options: It clearly distinguishes between and allows for the assessment of both the feasibility and desirability of mCDR options, it makes explicit the evaluative standards upon which the assessment is based and it separates the descriptive listing of information from the evaluation of said information. The assessment framework aims to advance the debate on what role mCDR can and should play in responding to the climate crisis by providing a tool for both policymakers and stakeholders to assess mCDR options in a transparent and comprehensive way.

LINK