4.8 Article

Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

期刊

NATURE
卷 583, 期 7815, 页码 242-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2448-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Leverhulme Research Centre Award from the Leverhulme Trust [RC-2015-029]
  2. UKRI under the UK Greenhouse Gas Removal Programme [NE/P019943/1, NE/P019730/1]
  3. Research Council of the University of Antwerp
  4. EPSRC [EP/K007254/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. NERC [NE/P019730/2, noc010011, NE/P019943/2, NE/S017119/1, NE/P015093/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enhanced silicate rock weathering (ERW), deployable with croplands, has potential use for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) removal (CDR), which is now necessary to mitigate anthropogenic climate change(1). ERW also has possible co-benefits for improved food and soil security, and reduced ocean acidification(2-4). Here we use an integrated performance modelling approach to make an initial techno-economic assessment for 2050, quantifying how CDR potential and costs vary among nations in relation to business-as-usual energy policies and policies consistent with limiting future warming to 2 degrees Celsius(5). China, India, the USA and Brazil have great potential to help achieve average global CDR goals of 0.5 to 2gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year with extraction costs of approximately US$80-180 per tonne of CO2. These goals and costs are robust, regardless of future energy policies. Deployment within existing croplands offers opportunities to align agriculture and climate policy. However, success will depend upon overcoming political and social inertia to develop regulatory and incentive frameworks. We discuss the challenges and opportunities of ERW deployment, including the potential for excess industrial silicate materials (basalt mine overburden, concrete, and iron and steel slag) to obviate the need for new mining, as well as uncertainties in soil weathering rates and land-ocean transfer of weathered products.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据