Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Scaling Technological Greenhouse Gas Removal: A Global Roadmap to 2050

52 views
Skip to first unread message

Renaud de RICHTER

unread,
Jan 9, 2025, 4:42:11 PMJan 9
to Carbon Dioxide Removal, healthy-planet-action-coalition
Bezos Earth Fund and RMI (2024). Scaling Technological Greenhouse Gas Removal: A Global Roadmap to 2050. https://www.bezosearthfund.org/uploads/scaling-technological-ghg-removal-roadmap-2050.pdf

This roadmap was developed by RMI in collaboration with The Bezos Earth Fund. It describes an action-oriented perspective of what is needed to rapidly scale technological greenhouse gas removal (GHGR).

To do this, the roadmap sets ambitious goals for both carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and non-CO2 greenhouse gas removal.

  1. CDR: Reach 10 Gt CO2/y of durable technological removals by 2050.
  2. Non-CO2 GHGR: Advance the science of non-CO2 removal such that decisions can be made by the early 2030s about future development and deployment.

Accomplishing these goals will require buy-in, commitments, and execution from actors across the GHGR ecosystem. The roadmap is intended to be used as a tool for aligning actions and investments across sectors and stakeholders, including government actors at all levels, funders, GHGR communities, industry, researchers, journalists and media, and nonprofits and civil society organizations.

Michael Hayes

unread,
Jan 9, 2025, 7:59:35 PMJan 9
to Renaud de RICHTER, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Renaud and list, very interesting post.

The descriptions of CDR air, ocean, and land found in Fig 4 can likely be technically coupled.

An example, the "Technical breakthroughs for living biomass" found in 'CDR land' can be applied to the 'CDR ocean' description as breakthroughs are as likely in the ocean as they would be on land. And, "open water cultivation" in 'CDR oceans' is spelled out, yet why not fully enclosed reactor-based cultivation systems?

Moreover, the 'CDR air' description in Fig 4 can also be technically coupled to reactor-based mCDR systems. Air movement is a long standing cost related limiting factor for most DAC methods and marine infrastructures can significantly aid in reducing the cost of air movement. 

Best regards 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAHodn9-ypz8eN70HKixbauvcN9QGi54p%2B0TNR2aO%2BGR-xLBuEw%40mail.gmail.com.

Ronal Larson

unread,
Jan 10, 2025, 2:24:23 AMJan 10
to Michael Hayes, Renaud de RICHTER, Carbon Dioxide Removal
List,  Renaud,  Michael:

I can understand the remarks below from both Michael and Renaud.  Michael wanting to see more on his brand of MCDR. Renaud glad to see more attention to CH4.

I happened to be reading this Bezos-RMI document already because of an earlier announcement which coupled it with a similar multi-technology comparison.  I conclude both  treated biochar in a non-discriminatory manner.  But these analyses are not recognizing parts of the biochar “story” .

They are all missing the fact that biochar (apparently uniquely) should in many cases be analyzed as an investment - not a cost.  In fact some buyers and sellers are finding cost payback in less than 2 or 3 years..  But in some cases it can be much longer - because the soil is already good.

Biochar sellers are of course always looking for potential users with a potential for sufficiently increased yield to justify the biochar cost.  To my knowledge, the same search for buyers is not available for any other CDR approach that can meet the 100 year requirement.  Planting forests to remove atmospheric carbon works as an investment- but hard to meet the guaranteed 100 year removal requirement.  

So, this report is again missing this uniqueness feature of biochar - disappointing  but not of huge concern to biochar sellers.   And presumably, sellers are making this point to investors.

But I did find a new analytical feature here that is encouraging for biochar:  the use of a new variable - ARL.  Going one step beyond TRL = Technological Readiness Level.  In  recent comparisons,  biochar is usually ranked at a (very high) TRL level of 8 or 9.  This consistent with being the leader in carbon credit transactions.   Earlier, biochar’s TRL level was cited lower - consistent with low sales.

What ARL does is add the important term “Adoption”.    See https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/ARL%20Assessment%2010-10-24.pdf,  from which the figure at the very bottom describes the advance of ARL over TRL.  The figure below shows up to 9 tests;  This statement shows 17 tests -  in four main areas of risk:

"ARL represents important factors for private sector uptake beyond technology readiness, and can be determined by performing a qualitative, but fact-based, risk assessment across 17 dimensions of adoption risk spanning four core risk areas –

• Value Proposition.     Assesses the ability for a new technology to meet the functionality required by the market at a price point that customers are willing to pay, to meet the market demand (a broadened definition of “product-market fit”).

• Market Acceptance      Captures the target market(s) demand characteristics and risks posed by existing players -- including competitors, customers, and other value chain player

•  Resource Maturity.     Determines risks standing in the way of inputs that are needed to produce the technology solution.

• License to Operate.    Identifies the societal (national, state, and local), non-economic risks that can hinder the deployment of a technology.


This new ARL approach is here:  

The report has only been out a few months.  It looks well done.  I am sure that some biochar applications (end uses) have reached the upper right corner of the figure below.





This figure below should have been above.  Sorry.  

 We now need to see which CDR approaches (for me biochar) can end up in this upper right corner.   My favorite (cookstoves) clearly does not even come close..  Plenty of detail in the DoE report.  Not much in the Bezos - RMI report.   More coming as I investigate these 17 adoption tests.   

To repeat,  there is almost nothing on ARL in the report of this message.  Only a cite.


 RWL


Screenshot 2025-01-09 at 10.11.31 PM.png

Michael Hayes

unread,
Jan 10, 2025, 4:12:09 PMJan 10
to Ronal Larson, Renaud de RICHTER, Carbon Dioxide Removal

Ron and list,

With soil biochar, regardless of the CDR math, the asset is clearly the improved soil, and thus better crops, yet biochar is also highly useful in other areas and thus is a valued commodity itself in a number of non-CDR industries. Any CDR method that generates a physical asset that can be used for credit worthy collateral likely has a distinct economic advantage over CDRs that don't as credit availabilty is typically more valuable than direct investment for most business expansion needs. As you often rightfully point out, biochar is beyond the startup business phase, it is in the expansion phase, and thus the biochar industry needs an abundant availability of long-term credit more than selling founder stocks.

Likewise:

Offshore reactor-based systems, from the purely technical perspective, uses high density polyethylene-based technologies that have been been in industrial scale use for decades. As such, it can be viewed as being in an expansion phase, just expanding into the marine space. Most importantly, the actual mCDR infrastructures themselves can be largely financially valued by gross weight, or for 'scrap value'. HDPE made with bio-ethylene is a C store, and CDR MRV accounting methods for bio-HDPE production would be more precise or more reliable than most CDR methods. However, HDPE is also easy and cheap to convert into other useful products and thus it has a broad-based value as a commodity beyond the narrow value as a mCDR method. As mentioned above, biochar also has such non-CDR values as a broadly used industrial commodity.

Prioritization of bio-ethylene production for HDPE mCDR marine reactor hull production and for the general global ethylene market, as well as biochar production in such reactor-based marine infrastructures, for external CDR use on land or sea, and for the many general carbon markets, is my strongest CDR recommendation as both generate credit worthy physical commodities and both can be mutually supportive at the processing level as well as the economic level.

As a side note on feedstock processing synergies between HDPE and biochar:

Biochar production using Kudzu vines does not have many published papers, yet the woody vine biomass can obviously be used for biochar production. Interestingly, atleast from my view, is that that one of the bacterial decomposer that favor Kudzu leaves generates an impressive amount of bio-ethylene:

Ethylene Production by the Kudzu Strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola Causing Halo Blight in Pueraria lobata (Willd) Ohwi

https://academic.oup.com/pcp/article-abstract/26/1/141/1861130

Using the woody biomass of the vine for biochar production and the leaves for bio-ethylene production would technically link the core feedstock needs of HDPE-based mCDR infrastructure expansion with biochars' feedstock expansion needs.

That synergistic processing combination, along with both CDRs having non-CDR commodity credit values, should earn high ratings in many of the areas of concern found in the ARL. 

Best regards 

Screenshot 2025-01-09 at 10.11.31 PM.png

steve.rackley

unread,
Jan 11, 2025, 4:06:46 AMJan 11
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
It is certainly good to hear that biochar "should in many cases be analyzed as an investment ...[with] some buyers and sellers ... finding cost payback in less than 2 or 3 years."
But we should not forget that, where this is the case, the accompanying CDR does not meet the test for financial additionality, and should not be eligible for any form of carbon finance.

Michael Hayes

unread,
Jan 11, 2025, 6:09:35 PMJan 11
to steve.rackley, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Steve and list,

The 45Q transferable tax structure favored, above all other CDR options, FF interests via pumping their own pollution back into the ground, and in leaky formations.

Relative to that example, how does soil BC not qualify for C finance. And, exactly who are the C financial actors? 

It is my understanding of most C centric non-governmental financial offerings is that they are largely designed to support the expansion of C smart technologies and businesses, and BC is a leading beneficiary of that type of investment model. What is wrong with that existing, not theoretical, situation?

....Besides not having enough of such financing.

Best regards 



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages