Ranking negative emissions technologies under uncertainty - ScienceDirect

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020325731

Ranking negative emissions technologies under uncertainty

Author links open overlay panelW.Y.NgaR.R.Tanb

Show more

Outline

Share

Cite

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05730Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons license

open access

Abstract

Existing mitigation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are inadequate to reach the target emission reductions set in the Paris Agreement. Hence, the deployment of negative emission technologies (NETs) is imperative. Given that there are multiple available NETs that need to be evaluated based on multiple criteria, there is a need for a systematic method for ranking and prioritizing them. Furthermore, the uncertainty in estimating the techno-economic performance levels of NETs is a major challenge. In this work, an integrated model of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and interval-extended Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is proposed to address the multiple criteria, together with data uncertainties. The potential of NETs is assessed through the application of this hybrid decision model. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted to evaluate the robustness of the ranking generated. The result shows Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) as the most optimal alternative for achieving negative emission goals since it performed robustly in the different criteria considered. Meanwhile, energy requirement emerged as the most preferred or critical criterion in the deployment of NETs based on the decision-maker. This paper renders a new research perspective for evaluating the viability of NETs and extends the domains of the fuzzy AHP and interval-extended TOPSIS hybrid model.

• Previous article
• Next article

Keywords

Chemical engineering

Environmental science

Negative emission technologies

Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution

Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

Uncertainty

Decision analysis

[Brian Cady]

Thanks for this link, Andrew Lockley, I wonder who the expert was who provided the weightings?

Brian

-

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-06viCF7UzZOSmQjvGq7pL4_WNbOSmXMfebSF3%2BWGFp6iw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Adam Sacks]

Hi All -

It's good to see chemical engineering departments exploring possibilities that include biology, but if BECCS emerges as a top choice I would say their model needs some serious work.  

There is no "waste" in nature - everything is cycled and used by vast numbers of creatures, large to microscopic - none of it should be burned en masse for human power use.  We have a rudimentary understanding of how important these processes are but we're quickly learning, to our dismay, as we accelerate the destruction of so much in our life-support systems.

Regenerating 12 billion or so acres of living systems that civilization has desertified is still our best bet for drawing carbon down into soils and bringing health back to lands worldwide.

My 2¢.

Adam

===

Check out Bio4Climate's Compendium of Scientific and Practical Findings Supporting Eco-Restoration to Address Global Warming, 7 issues, free download.

===

Adam Sacks, Executive Director

Biodiversity for a Livable Climate

P.O. Box 390469

Cambridge, MA 02139

781-674-2339

===

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." Buckminster Fuller

===

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAAoq7hKULdf5_jRnW%2BzQsZkr2mt4fhyerauBobzf_%2B4rmEXGmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

Any ideas how I can contact the lead author (or other authors) for an interview on the Reviewer 2 podcast? There's no correspondence address and seemingly no Web footprint.

FYI, podcast is available at https://open.spotify.com/show/2KSB1lU18qh5gYIRDYPJMb?si=GGhLvcyFSNCER6_Qn32Cew

[Albert Bates]

I also found this article to be good reading, although I think the ranking algorithm, category division, and weakness of source references skewed the result. It is an early model and doubtless more will follow.

When you consider that some policy scientists are starting to lean into PyCCS as an improved form of BECCS, rather than merely producing biochar from crop waste as a soil amendment, and compelling BECCS to consider local to regional food and water security and local community livelihoods, the combined system -- BECCS, BC, and SCS -- would move from ranks 1, 3, and 4, respectively, to a consensus lead, with Artificial Trees in 2d and Lime Soda in 3d. Limed Oceans (OL) and Bejeweled Beaches (EW) would advance to 4th and 5th. [note in this regard Castree on the power of metaphor https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2020.614014/full#h1].

The Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) <https://www.c2g2.net/>  is running online webinars on NETs that are quite good, IMHO. The one on BECCS adopted PyCCS, as a mutant variant, rather than a separate species. This essentially redefined BECCS to mean biochar production combined with energy production. Other cascades of that process could include AF, SCS, and local to regional food and water security and jobs, as is presently being demonstrated at scale in several provinces of China. Prof. Daniel Sanchez's 30m talk is here: https://www.c2g2.net/?p=296816.

- Albert

On 12/27/20 10:51 AM, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com wrote:

andrew....@gmail.com

Dec 26

to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020325731

Ranking negative emissions technologies under uncertainty

--

Cool Lab Belize Project Office
Gonzalo Guerrero 5
Holbox, Q.R. 77310 México
52-998-116-5532
alb...@thefarm.org

I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned. - Richard Feynman

[Brian Cady]

I think this article is basically about the algorithm, not about the results. The 'expert' who made the judgements is unnamed. In the paper there is confirmation of the internal consistency of this unnamed experts' judgements, but internal consistency, while suggestive, is not proof of validity of the expert's judgements. I'd like to see such an algorithm coalescing a panel of experts' judgements, preceding discussion between these experts, followed by a second coalescing of the thus-modified expert's judgements. I understand that, while experts do better than most randomly sampled people at estimating things, better still are groups after discussion, even of randomly selected people.

Brian

-

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/ac4a243b-8d84-6a39-425d-6ff2ca1c3895%40thefarm.org.