Carbon Capture FORUM

• Exchange meeting 25 January 2023 with Cryril BRUNNER - ETH Zurich

He is currently working in the Climate Physics group of Prof. Dr. Reto Knutti, where Cyril is the scientific project leader of the SPEED2ZERO project. In SPEED2ZERO, toolboxes, action plans and technologies are developed to enable a sustainable transformation in Switzerland. A transformation that meets international and national climate goals, in which a resilient energy supply is ensured and in which biodiversity can regain its richness. It is central that SPEED2ZERO has a direct benefit for Switzerland.

In addition, Cyril is involved in research on carbon dioxide removal (CDR/GGR), what is needed to address human-induced climate change, and what emissions will be difficult to avoid under net zero emissions (specifically methane, nitrous oxide, hydrogen, refrigerants, and SF6).

As part of carbon dioxide removal research, he is investigating all land-based approaches to removing CO₂ and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere: enhanced silicate rock weathering, direct air capture and storage (abbreviated DACS, also DACCS), methane removal, nitrous oxide removal, carbon storage in long-lived products (wood, plastics), and biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS), for example. e.g., in improved forest management, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), waste incineration plants, cement production with CCS, woodor biomass power plants with CCS, or in the production and storage of biochar, pyrolysis oils, and other pyrolysis products.

In his latest project, he investigated the potential of carbon dioxide removal for Switzerland to support the political and societal debate on Switzerland's net-zero target with scientifically sound statements and quantitative estimates that can be used, for example, for climate strategies. The project was supported by more than 35 research partners from ETH Zurich, EPFL, WSL, PSI, EMPA, ZHAW and OST.­

• Workshop 15 Dec 2022 "CCU and CCS in climate accounting"

The CCCA together with BioBASE GmbH and the Institute for Industrial Ecology continued the Carbon Capture Forum (online) on 15 Dec 2022 with the topic "CCU and CCS in climate accounting" to present and discuss the current situation of the accounting rules on the different levels. National climate accounting, the inclusion of these two technologies in emissions trading and, in the discussion, the operational level of climate accounting were considered.

This revealed significant differences in the treatment of the two technologies specifically with respect to the "permanent sequestration" of CO₂ after capture. For the ETS system, this is essential for accounting for capture at the emitting facility, whereas for national accounting, it is the ultimate release of CO₂ and its location that is decisive. Thus, CCS in particular can be taken into account for emissions trading at the plant level, CCU systems only if the permanence of keeping the CO₂ out of the atmosphere can be shown with certainty. This thus corresponds to the idea of producer responsibility in the broadest sense, in that one is responsible for the products emitted, in this case CO₂. This could result in increased motivation for manufacturers to establish and use recycling systems. For national climate accounting, on the other hand, the temporary fixation of CO₂ in products can also be taken into account, since the ultimate release of the emission is relevant here. For the climate accounting of companies according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or for environmental product declarations ofproducts (EPD or PEF), according to the guideline LCA4CCU of the EU, analogous to the ETS system, the emission also seems to remain with the emitter in the case of CCU, but the CO₂ is then calculated negatively there when it is passed on to a processing company.

Overall, advantages of CCS systems over CCU were shown in the treatment in climate accounting, but this is not yet reflected in higher acceptance. For CCU, the incentives for their implementation and thus for the use of CO₂ as a raw material could be lost if they are not taken into account at the operational level. In any case, however, from estimative overall balances of emissions and usable quantities, increased application of systems with permanent capture of CO₂ seems inevitable. In any case, direct capture of CO₂ from the atmosphere was seen as inefficient because of the great expense involved, given the low
concentrations.

Below are questions asked during the presentations in the chat and during the discussion (no guarantee of completeness):

• What conditions must be met for CO₂ to be classified as CO₂ "permanently chemically bound..."

Under what conditions the CO₂ is "permanently chemically bound..." will only be defined in a delegated or implementing act of the EU ETS Directive. Time horizon, "normal use", etc.

• Please clarify again regarding the delineation of carbon removals from emissions trading. Do I understand correctly that biogenic emissions (sustainable biogenic emissions in the future) from industrial activities are not covered by emissions trading and can therefore fall within the scope of carbon removals?

The biomass must have been classified as sustainable, then 0 can be entered as emissions.

• My last reading is that geological storage of CO₂ is not allowed in Ö. Is this still correct?

Yes, in AT there is a CCS ban outside a research framework of 100,000 tons. Law would have to be evaluated again in 2023.

• How is CO₂ storage in mineral building materials evaluated with regard to inventory?

There are countries that want to take a closer look. But is not yet considered in any inventory to allow consistent comparability between countries. Is not currently considered in the guidelines.

• But why is this taken into account for melamine in Austria?

Because it is actually just a transfer of emissions to the EOL. The binding of CO₂ cement is not an expense for the plant. If something would be bound in the process, this would be considered in the inventory, but it needs strong studies as proof to be able to
defend this approach in Austria in the reviews.

• Due to the various regulations, there is an ever increasing obligation to recycle plastics. If polyolefins (plastics) are kept in a (carbon) cycle through targeted recycling, is this also considered to be permanently bound?

Emissions are only recorded during incineration, not in the cycle.

• How is interim storage assessed?

For the inventory, it is only interesting when the C flow continues or when it ends, i.e. when the emission occurs. Only sources in Austria are accounted for, emissions abroad through Austrian exports are not considered in the inventory. For CO₂ intermediate storage (pipelines, storage tank, ship transport) the ETS rules are to be applied. In one year there will be new information about this.

• Approximately when can we expect the finalization of the rules and regulations for the treatment of e-Fuels?

Drafts on hydrogen will be issued in the next few months. For CO₂-based fuels it will take at least another year.

• How is it to be evaluated with regard to the sustainability criteria if biomass is imported from abroad (USA; Eastern Europe) and then BECCS is operated?

The NDCS have to be registered at the place of biomass production, but each country has a large degree of freedom. Forests will be considered in the USA, for example. In the global south rather less. More economic consideration: Sustainability criteria must be fulfilled, then the emissions can be evaluated as 0. A negative emission is only possible via carbon removals.

• What about corporate balance sheets? Assumption CCU (fuel or short term storage) --> is it only a balance sheet shift of scope 1 emission (CO₂, which we capture and convert) to scope 3 (we sell the captured, converted CO₂, which is then released again)?

Good question, no one could answer clearly. Due to the shift to scope 3, many companies fear a loss of shareholders. Accordingly, the willingness to innovate in this respect is diminished.

The following are points from the general discussion:
Preference for DAC to be reconsidered as very energy inefficient due to low CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere. Maintaining cycles more reasonable.

Short-lived CCU products are not counted as emissions (e.g. plastics) or only when burned. The balance of Ö can be improved by appropriate exports.

The reason why CCS and CCU are treated differently is that CCU is still quite linear.

The political requirement is: there should be no CO₂ emissions in the post-treatment of CCU products.

From the ETS point of view, CO₂ capture for the production of plastics would not be deducted from the emissions of the ETS operation if a release is to be assumed afterwards - i.e. it would then still be counted as an emission. This therefore results in an extension of producer responsibility, which is intended to encourage the CO₂ cycle to be closed.

Market advantages will arise in the near future due to the geographical location with better possibilities for CCS (e.g. at the North Sea). Austria would then probably be in a rather bad position.

As further steps, it was invited to discuss the three topics mentioned: Biomass, Negative Emissions, Nature Based Solutions in the context of CCU and CCS, to register further focal points for discussion. Two to three workshops on this are planned in 2023 to further anchor this so important topic CCU and CCS and to present the current situation.

Downloads:

• CCU current status EU level
• OLI_ETS_CCU_221215_final
• CCU_fol_CCCA-CC Forum_22-09-15 v4
• Proell_2022_CCUvsCCSforÖ

• Workshop Sept. 15, 2022 "Community Building"

The goal of the event was to highlight the breadth of research as well as research gaps and to come to a better alignment within researchers. The topic of CO₂ accounting of CCU and CCS also plays a role here, as well as bio-methane deployment.

Downloads:

• Impulse lecture_Lehner_Kienberger
• CCU_fol_CarbonCaptureFORUM_Communiy Building_15092022