Evaluating carbon removal: Integrating technical potential with environmental, social, governance criteria, and sequestration permanence

Jan Mertens; Christian Breyer; Ronnie Belmans; Corinne Gendron; Patrice Geoffron; Carolyn Fischer; Elodie Du Fornel; Richard Lester; Kimberly A Nicholas; Paulo Emilio V de Miranda; Sarah Palhol; Peter Verwee; Olivier Sala; Michael Webber; Koenraad Debackere

doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.111418

Evaluating carbon removal: Integrating technical potential with environmental, social, governance criteria, and sequestration permanence

iScience. 2024 Nov 19;27(12):111418. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111418. eCollection 2024 Dec 20.

Authors

Jan Mertens^{1

2}, Christian Breyer³, Ronnie Belmans^{4

5}, Corinne Gendron⁶, Patrice Geoffron⁷, Carolyn Fischer⁸, Elodie Du Fornel¹, Richard Lester⁹, Kimberly A Nicholas¹⁰, Paulo Emilio V de Miranda¹¹, Sarah Palhol¹², Peter Verwee¹², Olivier Sala¹, Michael Webber¹³, Koenraad Debackere¹⁴

Affiliations

¹ ENGIE Research, 1 PL. Samuel de Champlain, Paris-la Défense, 92930 Paris, France.
² Department of Electromechanical, System and Metal Engineering, Ghent University, Technologiepark Zwijnaarde 131, Zwijnaarde, Belgium.
³ LUT University, Yliopistonkatu 34, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland.
⁴ Electrical Energy and Computer Architectures, K.U.Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.
⁵ EnergyVille, Thor Park 8310, 3600 Genk, Belgium.
⁶ Université Du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Département de Stratégie, Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale, École des Sciences de La Gestion (ESG), Québec, Canada.
⁷ Dauphine Economics Laboratory, Université Paris Dauphine-PSL, Place Du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 75016 Paris, France.
⁸ Sustainability and Infrastructure Team, World Bank Group, 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA.
⁹ Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA.
¹⁰ Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden.
¹¹ Hydrogen Laboratory at Coppe-Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Av. Moniz Aragão, 207, Rio de Janeiro 21941-594, Brazil.
¹² Engie Impact, Simon Bolivarlaan 34 1000 Brussel, Belgium.
¹³ Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 204 E. Dean Keeton St, Stop C2200, Austin, TX 78712-1591, United States.
¹⁴ KU Leuven, ECOOM, Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation, Faculty of Economics and Business, Naamsestraat 69, BE-3000 Leuven, Belgium.

Abstract

Climate modeling suggests that achieving international climate goals requires a reduction in current CO₂ emissions by over 90%, with any remaining emissions to be addressed through carbon dioxide removal (CDR) solutions. Sixteen CDR strategies are evaluated by integrating technical potential, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria, along with sequestration permanence. This evaluation, conducted by ENGIE's scientific council using an interdisciplinary Delphi panel methodology, proposes a "quality" measure for each technology. This measure combines ESG scores and sequestration timescales to rank and select the most promising solutions. The findings highlight the necessity for further research to understand and mitigate ESG impacts, aiming to inform both future research and current decision-making to support the effective and legitimate use of CDR strategies.

Keywords: Energy policy; Energy resources; Energy sustainability; Energy systems.

Publication types

Review