Schlagwort: CDR

Peer-reviewed Publications

Luca (2026): Mechanistic Organic Electrochemistry for the Electrochemical Capture of Carbon Dioxide from Air

Oana Luca, IN: IOP Conference Series / Electrochemical Society Meeting Abstracts, https://doi.org/10.1149/MA2026-01452229mtgabs

Electro-swing carbon capture relies on modulating the redox state of an organic sorbent so that CO₂ is bound at one potential and released after a shift to another. Because this process is governed by electron transfer and the reactivity of reduced organic intermediates, it offers a direct interface with renewable electricity and avoids the thermodynamic penalties of thermal or pressure-swing systems. Mechanistically, an effective sorbent must undergo clean, reversible reduction, form a thermodynamically strong CO₂ adduct, and do so at potentials mild enough to avoid oxygen reduction—an essential requirement for direct air capture (DAC). This work integrates synthetic molecular design with mechanistic organic electrochemistry to develop improved quinone-based sorbents. Computational free energies of CO₂ addition were correlated with quinone reduction potentials, establishing a structure–reactivity relationship that guided the synthesis of new candidates. A quinone-annulated imidazolium scaffold was selected for its intrinsic charge and favorable redox profile, eliminating the need for supporting electrolyte.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Xu et al. (2026): A pathway to next-generation direct air capture using adsorbents

Yifei Xu, Qiyuan Li, Bingqiao Xie, Zixin Zhang et al., IN: Joule, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2026.102587

Direct air capture (DAC) provides a path to regulate the atmospheric CO₂ concentration and mitigate global warming. However, the scaling of DAC technology faces significant challenges in energy consumption and capture costs. Limited engineering experience and a lack of comprehensive design guidelines lead to significant knowledge gaps among researchers, engineers, and policymakers. This review identifies four critical engineering bottlenecks, summarizes cutting-edge solutions, and envisions future scenarios with matured DAC. The importance of contactor design and heat management for reducing energy consumption is highlighted, together with the necessity of system integration for improving techno-economic viability. Overall, this review seeks promising solutions and advocates blooming ideas to enhance practicability and scalability of adsorption DAC.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Engstam et al. (2026): Biogas-based hydrogen production and carbon dioxide removal: Techno-economic and climate impact assessment

Linus Engstam, Gülru Bulkan, Leandro Janke, Cecilia Sundberg and Åke Nordberg, IN: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2026.156625

Biohydrogen produced from biogas combined with carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can provide renewable energy whilst generating negative emissions. This study evaluates production costs and climate impacts of biogas-based hydrogen via steam methane reforming (SMR), electrified SMR (e-SMR), and plasma methane pyrolysis (PMP), together with CDR based on either CO₂ or solid carbon, across three production scales.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Gonzalez-Coffin et al. (2026): Naturalness catalyzes public support for carbon dioxide removal and low-carbon energy technologies

Sarah Gonzalez-Coffin, Shahzeen Z. Attari, Holly Buck, Amanda R. Carrico, Yoel Inbar, Ezra Markowitz, Kaitlin T. Raimi, Jonathon P. Schuldt, Trisha Shrum and Leaf Van Boven, IN: Communications Earth & Environment, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-026-03829-w

Carbon dioxide removal and low-carbon energy technologies offer promising methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet widespread deployment depends on public support. Two studies in the United States examined how naturalness shapes public support for six carbon dioxide removal and four low-carbon energy technologies. To the degree that participants in Study 1 perceived technologies as more natural, they supported them more, judging them as less risky and frightening, and more beneficial.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Keroglou & Ciez (2026): Process-based lifecycle climate, energy, water and material constraints of solid adsorbent production for gigaton-scale direct air capture

Ioannis Keroglou and Rebecca Ciez, IN: Energy & Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1039/D6EE03173K

Negative emissions technologies like direct air capture are critical for achieving global decarbonization targets. Sorbent materials are central to direct air capture systems, with solid adsorbents requiring lower regeneration temperatures and avoiding the evaporative losses of liquid sorbents. As use-phase emissions decline due to technological advances and the use of low-carbon power sources, sorbent manufacturing impacts become increasingly important. Prior studies of sorbent manufacturing rely on oversimplified life cycle inventories and proxy data, resulting in substantial uncertainty. Here, the authors apply a process-based model to develop sorbent-specific inventories for scaling the production of polyethyleneimine-based solid adsorbents and evaluate their cradle-to-gate climate change, fossil resource scarcity, and water use impacts in the United States.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Çakanel (2026): Integrity-first control of direct air capture systems under carbon certifiability constraints

Ahmet Çakanel, IN: Applied Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2026.128430

Direct air capture (DAC) systems are increasingly deployed with the goal of delivering net-negative carbon emissions through permanent CO₂ storage or utilization. However, capturing CO₂ from the atmosphere does not guarantee that the removal remains certifiable under conservative measurement–reporting–verification (MRV) frameworks. Grid electricity with variable carbon intensity, auxiliary power demand, and MRV uncertainty margins interact during cyclic operation to create transient periods of net-positive emissions that accumulate as a liability over time. This cumulative liability, referred to as carbon debt, must remain bounded relative to physical capture if reported removals are to be defensible under third-party verification standards. This study introduces Carbon-Integrity-Constrained Control (CICC), a supervisory framework that treats carbon certifiability as an operational constraint enforced in real time, rather than as a retrospective accounting adjustment. Admissible operation is characterized by a bounded debt-to-capture ratio (δ≤δmax).

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Moustafa et al. (2026): Review of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): Progress, Challenges, and Future Outlook

Nadine Tamer Moustafa, Nishikawa Emily, Koen H. Van Dam, Jennifer F. Holak, Sergey Paltsev, Mai Bui, Sean McCoy and Niall Mac Dowell, IN: SSRN (Preprint), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7076303

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is one of the few carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approaches consistently represented at gigatonne scale in climate mitigation scenarios. However, real-world deployment remains limited, and significant uncertainties persist regarding its feasibility at scale. This review synthesises current evidence on BECCS across technological pathways, biomass supply, lifecycle emissions, infrastructure requirements, and policy and market frameworks.The analysis highlights that BECCS performance is highly pathway-dependent, with substantial variation in carbon efficiency, CO₂ stream characteristics, and technological maturity across thermochemical and biological routes. Beyond technology, biomass availability emerges as a primary constraint. Estimates of global supply are highly sensitive to land-use assumptions, and sustainability-constrained scenarios suggest significantly lower availability. Infrastructure and spatial constraints introduce additional challenges. Biomass resources, geological storage capacity, and demand for negative emissions are not co-located, implying reliance on transport networks, cross-border trade, and coordinated infrastructure expansion.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Thornbush et al. (2026): A Systematic Review of Soil Amendments Using Biochar and Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) for Soil Carbon Sequestration

Mary Thornbush, Michael Zhang, Cooper Mandel, Ethan Andrews, Ellen Kempton and Muhammad Muneeb Ur Rehman, IN: Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.3390/su18147011

This review provides a comparative critical synthesis of biochar and enhanced rock weathering (ERW), identifies key trends and gaps in soil carbon research, and outlines pathways for improving carbon sequestration and monitoring in soil systems. From a global perspective, materials and agricultural studies were read to examine the properties of these amendments and their effects in cropland and forest soils. The main research question guiding this literature review was as follows: What are common trends in published biochar and ERW studies? Major themes were derived from the stated question and structure the Discussion. The Web of Science provided access to relevant literature for both biochar and ERW, and a total of 38 articles (biochar: 17; ERW: 21) were read and covered in this paper.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Suhrhoff et al. (2026): An Ecosystem of Carbon Dioxide Removal Reviews – Part 3: Enhanced Weathering

Tim Jesper Suhrhoff, Christiana Dietzen, Tyler Kukla, Abby Lunstrum, Tom Reershemius et al., IN: CDR.Xiv (Preprint), https://doi.org/10.70212/cdrxiv.2026417.v1

Enhanced Weathering (EW) is an emerging Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) approach within a growing portfolio of mitigation strategies, offering the potential for durable CDR alongside agronomic co-benefits. As interest in CDR increases, EW is transitioning from a primarily scientific concept toward early-stage implementation, requiring a comprehensive synthesis of the current evidence base. This systematic review focuses primarily on soil-based EW using silicate rock feedstocks. Across empirical and modelling studies, area-normalized CDR fluxes have a median value of 0.84 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare per year (tCO₂ ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹) and span several orders of magnitude. The variance in reported fluxes reflects not only context-dependent differences in EW performance, but also the diversity of quantification approaches, which differ by use case and vary in terms of their system boundaries and treatment of loss processes. When scaled globally, evidence from empirical constraints and/or modelling approaches converges on a maximum technical CDR potential of ~0.2–2 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹, though some estimates are higher. Significant uncertainty remains regarding the magnitude, persistence, and timing of loss processes after initial CDR has occurred, including secondary phase formation and cation exchange, and in how these losses depend on local soil and climate conditions and deployment strategies. Interactions with soil organic carbon introduce additional uncertainty but also the potential for increasing total CDR. Beyond CDR, EW is consistently associated with improvements in soil properties and crop productivity. Its deployment within managed land systems creates opportunities for synergies with other land-based CDR approaches, enabling combined inorganic and biological carbon sequestration. At the same time, EW raises important socio-economic and governance considerations, including distributional impacts, environmental risks, and conditional public support.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Kravitz et al. (2026): Expert Perceptions of the Viability and Importance of Solar Geoengineering and Carbon Dioxide Removal in Addressing Climate Change: A Snapshot from India and the United States

Ben Kravitz, Landon Yoder, Sangeet Nepal, Nathaniel Geiger and Shahzeen Z. Attari, IN: Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.3390/su18125933

Given the enormous span of potential strategies to address climate change, it is difficult to build consensus on what to prioritize. In 2021, the authors conducted 63 semi-structured interviews with climate change experts in the U.S. (N = 33) and India (N = 30). Experts indicated how they would address climate change through mitigation, adaptation, carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and solar geoengineering (SG). The authors’ experts studied climate change from a variety of disciplines and were not necessarily subject matter experts in CDR or SG.

LINK

#