3. 221129 Amsterdam CDR Report EN (1)

Local drivers and barriers Figure 16: Enhanced weathering process (stylized; supply chains not shown)

Key considerations •

Enhanced weathering is slow, happening over years or decades. Gravel-sized olivine (3 mm) could lead to less than 5% CO₂ uptake (60 kg CO₂/t olivine) in the first 30 years, depending on site conditions

•

Smaller grind sizes increase weathering speeds, but also increase energy use needed for grinding. Sand sized olivine (0.1mm) could have 80% CO₂ uptake (1 t CO₂/t olivine) in the first 30 years. Depending on site conditions.

•

Higher temperatures and higher moisture increase weathering speeds. Weathering will occur faster if the olivine is exposed to rain, high humidity environments, or waves. Low temperatures, such as those found in temperate regions like the Netherlands, slow weathering reactions.

•

Health impacts of very fine olivine are unknown. In particular, if very fine grinds (<0.01 mm) are used to speed CO₂ dissolution, the olivine would count as fine particulate matter (PM10), and thus a potential air pollutant.

Enhanced weathering does not require dedicated space and can be applied to existing surfaces such as park pathways, sports terrain, traffic medians, agricultural soils, and rooftops. According to CNI, if all available traffic, sport, agrarian, recreation, forest terrain, and rooftops in the Amsterdam municipality were used, a maximum of ~1 Mt CO₂ (cumulative) could be removed from the atmosphere and would require approximately 800,000 t olivine. The removals would occur over a period of years to decades, depending on grain size and local conditions. After application, the minerals would be unlikely to require additional energy or labour inputs, except for monitoring and verification. Application of olivine currently exists in a legal grey area, as it is not recognized as a construction material or fertiliser, and may be considered a 'foregin substance' that would limit potential use. Clarification of the legal status of enhanced weathering minerals is needed before large scale application could occur. In the Netherlands, greenSand and Carbon Neutral Initiative (CNI) currently sell olivine for CO₂ removal purposes. In the interview conducted for this report, CNI has expressed interest in Amsterdam-region demonstrations projects.

Given the uncertainties around removal rates and co-impacts, as well as the site-sensitive nature of enhanced weathering, real world implementation, such as medium and large scale multi-year pilot projects, would be needed to assess how well enhanced weathering could work in North Sea Canal region, including optimal grain size and siting options.

45

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

5.3 Soil carbon storage Soil carbon storage (SCS) is the use of land management practices that increase the organic carbon content of soil (Figure 17). These practices include the increased application of carbon (e.g. manure, compost), and the decreased removal of carbon (e.g. erosion control, decreased tillage). The ability to increase soil carbon depends on the soil type; soil that has been already depleted (e.g., from extensive tillage) have a potential to restore lost carbon stocks, and thus result in CDR. For soils with high carbon content (e.g. peat soils), regenerative land management has the equally important benefit of preventing additional carbon loss—emission reduction rather than carbon removal.

Figure 17: Soil carbon storage process (stylized; supply chains not shown)

Key considerations •

Annual soil carbon increases are small (<1 tonne per hectare per year) and the rate of increase decreases over time as the soil sink saturates.

•

Soil carbon increases can be difficult to monitor and distinguish from natural carbon fluxes, as they can account for <1% of total soil carbon. This is particularly true for soils with existing high carbon content, like the peat soils that are common in the NSCA. Techniques for monitoring and models are described in existing methodologies, but project- and soil-specific baselines and monitoring techniques must be developed.

•

Increasing soil carbon has a higher associated risk of reversal and requires ongoing maintenance to avoid losses of stored soil (e.g., via erosion).

•

Land management practices that increase soil carbon may have co-benefits, such as higher agricultural yields and water retention, improved water management and resistance to drought, reduced demand for chemical fertilisers, and soil biodiversity.

•

Increasing soil carbon may affect N2O emissions, due to the link between the soil carbon and nitrogen cycles.

Local drivers and barriers In the Netherlands, the average hectare of soil contains between 52 and 191 tonnes of carbon per hectare in the top 30 cm, with 123 tonnes/ha for grassland, including grazing land – dairy and meat farms make up 95% of the farms in the Amsterdam region. There are 35,252 ha of agricultural land in the Groot-Amsterdam COROP statistical area, of which 2,638 are in the municipality of Amsterdam itself. At a rate of increase of ~1 tonne/ha/year (the average range of increase in European projects is 0.5–1.5 tonne/ha/year, depending on specific activities), agricultural soils could store over 35,000 t CO₂/year. However, the average farm size is small, around 50–60 ha according to Wij.land. They assess that the combination of small farm size and slow rate of increase means that ‘results-based’ compensation of CDR credits would be unlikely to compensate for the difficulty of verifying increases and the administrative burden. Instead, practicebased compensation that supports long-term regenerative practices would allow for increases in soil carbon as a co-benefit, rather than a targeted outcome. Wij.land has expressed willingness to be an intermediary between the municipality and regional farmers to work together to promote regenerative practices.

46

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

5.4 Biochar Biochar is woody biomass that is pyrolysed into a charcoal-like substance, after which it can be pulverised and applied to soil or simply buried (Figure 18). While predominantly applied in soils, recent innovation allows permanent storage of biochar carbon in other materials, such as concrete or asphalt. Biochar is porous hydrophobic and can be used to increase water retention in soils. Depending on the type of biomass and pyrolysis conditions used, biochar carbon can be very stable, with potentially 80+% of stored carbon remaining in the soil for hundreds of years.

Figure 18: Biochar process (stylized; supply chains not shown)

•

The dark colour of biochar decreases albedo. While this effect is not thought to be significant and is generally not included in carbon accounting methodologies, it may increase local warming and soil temperatures. This warming impact needs to be assessed in the context of already increasing heat stress, both in areas where the biochar is applied and areas affected by wind-lost biochar (Bond et al 2013).

•

Overall impact on agricultural soils and yields is highly situational. If used as a soil amendment, changes to crop productivity, water retention, and nutrient demand may occur due to changes in soil structure, soil carbon balance, microbiome, and albedo. The impact of biochar is dependent not only on the type of biochar, but also the application rate, soil type, and climate. When used correctly in soil, biochar is understood to have co-benefits in soils, such as increased water retention, increased and delayed nutrient distribution, and improved soil properties.

Local drivers and barriers

Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is combustion in the absence of oxygen and produces a mix of gases, oil, and solids (biochar). Pyrolysis gas can be combusted for energy or used to produce synthetic fuels. Pyrolysis oil can also be used as a fuel source but has a short shelf-life due to a high oxygen content. Pyrolysis oil can also be reinjected back into geologic reservoirs as a form of CDR.

Key considerations •

Not all biochar is equal. The type of biomass used and the pyrolysis conditions both impact the properties and stability of the biochar. Biochar can be between 70–90% carbon, roughly translating to 2.5–3.0 tonnes of CO₂eq stored in each tonne of biochar.

•

CDR potential depends on the sustainability of the source biomass supply chain. Besides the cultivation and transport of biomass, the pyrolysis process needs to be carefully controlled to prevent methane emissions.

Multiple Dutch producers of biochar market biochar as a soil amendment and CDR technology, including PyroPower, First Tree, and Greenwave Biochar. Biochar is produced in Amsterdam as a byproduct of the biosyngas production of Bio Energy Netherlands, at a rate of 1,000 t biochar/year. However, currently that biochar is classified as a waste, with the endof-waste regulation as the primary hurdle for reuse of biochar. Their biochar is landfilled, which does result in similar storage as application to soils, but provides no compensation or incentive for the carbon storage. Besides carbon storage, biochar’s use as a soil amendment to prevent water loss could support adaptation to ongoing climate change. However, large-scale pilot studies are needed to understand the overall impact of specific biochars on Dutch soils. Furthermore, while Cargill plans to produce biochar in some facilities in Africa, it expressed concerns at the small market for biochar as a soil amendment in the EU, especially for small-scale production (~8,000–9,000 t per year).

47

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

5.5 Afforestation Afforestation is the storage of atmospheric carbon in the living biomass of deliberately planted and maintained long-lived biomass, such as trees (Figure 19). Afforestation has many non-CDR purposes, such as restoring biodiversity, maintaining soil fertility, increasing wood supply, aesthetic improvement, and local economic prospects.

Figure 19: Afforestation process (stylized; supply chains not shown)

Local drivers and barriers The Amsterdam municipality has approximately 1 million trees, with a goal to plant an additional 8,000–10,000 trees over 2020–2023, and has provided subsidies for small-scale urban tree planting initiatives. Trees can reduce the heat island effect and erosion, as well as improving biodiversity and increasing the attractiveness of urban and natural areas. However, as reported by Wij.land, restrictive land use regulations currently make it difficult to plant additional trees on agricultural lands. Besides direct planting initiatives, reducing the administrative burden, as well as providing assistance with species selection and maintenance, can help increase local afforestation. However, the impermanent nature of biologic sinks means that using afforestation for creditable CDR would require deliberate planning to manage risk of reversal.

Key considerations •

Carbon storage in living biomass is not inherently permanent and requires careful and continuous management.

•

Afforestation has a high risk of reversibility, from fire, pests, disease, and mismanagement. Plans for afforestation must include procedures and financing for monitoring as well as replacing lost trees.

•

Newly planted trees grow slowly, with fastest CO₂ uptake in the tree’s midlife, and finally slowing to saturation as the tree matures, though rates vary widely between tree species.

•

Careful species selection is needed to avoid ecosystem stress. Tree selection should take into account local considerations such as available water supply and soil nutrients, including expected future changes due to climate change.

48

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

5.6 Standalone CDR options summary Several CDR options exist that can be implemented independently of industrial activity, including: Direct air capture with geologic CO₂ storage (Carbyon): using energy and chemicals to extract CO₂ out of the air and store it underground. •

Scalable

•

Flexibly Sitable

•

Currently very energy intensive

•

Requires access to geologic storage

Key challenge: Resource intensive → Competition for limited resources (e.g., energy, water, CO₂ storage capacity) Enhanced weathering (Carbon Neutral Initiative): spreading ground minerals that dissolve atmospheric CO₂ into the soil over a period of years or decades. • •

Dedicated land not required Flexibly sitable

•

Very slow

•

Low potential per hectare

Afforestation: increasing – and indefinitely maintaining – long-term biomass stocks •

Many co-benefits

•

Typically popular

•

Subject to sink saturation

•

Requires large amounts of land

Key challenge: Biomass sensitive to environmental hazards → Risk of reversal

While all of these CDR options have some potential for implementation in the NSCA, none are a panacea, or a replacement for rapid emission reduction. Pilot studies to understand regional-specific potential and how to best verify and monitor different types of CDR are key near-term actions, along with easing hindering regulation, such as land use restrictions for afforestation and the ‘foreign substances’ status of biochar and enhanced weathering minerals.

Key challenge: Carbon dissolves into soil → Monitoring and verification Soil carbon storage (Wij.land): increasing organic carbon stocks via application of composts and such and the prevention of erosion •

Part of good agricultural land management

•

Risk of reversal

•

Low potential per hectare

Key challenge: Carbon increases are small compared to existing carbon stocks → Monitoring and verification Biochar (Bio Energy Netherlands): producing charcoal that is then stored in soils or underground •

Scalable

•

•

Can improve water retention

High biomass demand

•

High variability of quality and net emission

Key challenge: Mix of stable and unstable carbon distributed in soils → Monitoring and verification

49

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

6. Conclusion and recommendations 6.1 Key takeaways → There is no net zero without CDR – CDR should be an integral part of a municipal and regional climate strategy. ♦ However, the development and deployment of CDR must not deter from deep emission reductions. The focus of any climate strategy should be on: i) preventing additional emissions from being released; and ii) reducing existing emissions, thus minimising what must be compensated with removals. ♦ While bioCCS provides carbon removal, it should not overshadow conventional fossil CCS, which lead to emission reductions. The promotion of bioCCS should be part of a wider deployment of carbon capture with permanent storage for any fossil emissions. ♦ The availability of CDR to balance municipal emissions will be limited within the urban environment itself. Appropriate storage opportunities are likely to be located outside the Amsterdam metropolitan area and the NSCA.

→ Individual CDR solutions each have their own merits and limitations, and should not be considered equivalent. ♦ CDR activities must be rooted in the fundamental scientific principles of physical, permanent, and net removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere. ♦ CDR activities must be selected based on local context and specificities. ♦ Co-benefits of CDR options should be measured – and incentivised – separately. ♦ CDR claims must only be made for removals that have already occured, not that will occur in the future. This is particularly relevant for slow-acting CDR options such as enhanced weathering and afforestation.

♦ Land-management-based CDR, such as soil carbon storage and afforestation, could be quick to implement and have a high potential for cobenefits, but also has low total potential due to land-dependence, may be difficult to monitor, and will require continuous management to balance a high risk of reversal.

→ While there is potential for CDR in Amsterdam and the NCSA, the development and deployment of these processes are hindered by a number of factors, as addressed in this report. ♦ Limited data is available on regional biogenic CO₂ emissions preventing a complete overview of the full potential. ♦ There is a lack of stable demand for removals and financial incentives to establish CO₂ capture for biogenic CO₂ emissions and to store that CO₂, rather than sell it for reuse (e.g., to greenhouses). ♦ High uncertainties remain concerning the mitigation and financial viability potential of standalone CDR options, particularly in the NCSA regional context. ♦ Cumbersome regulation and permitting processes – and regulatory ambiguity – are a hurdle for bioCCS (‘end-of-waste’ regulation), afforestation (land use limitations), and biochar and enhanced weathering (‘foreign substance’ status). ♦ CDR will compete with other demand for captured CO₂. The lack of financial valuation of CDR leads to CCU activities, such as for the large greenhouse facilities in the Netherlands being the intended destination of current plans for captured biogenic CO₂.

50

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

6.2 Key takeaways → Set a CDR-specific target and roadmap. ♦ Setting a CDR-specific target can be the turning point to signal to industrial stakeholders and decision makers, even in the absence of legal enforcement mechanisms at municipal level. ♦ Such a target should include volumes per year and a specified timeline, to enable a more focused approach, while embedding it in the city and NSCA’s broader climate strategy as a complement to emissions reduction targets. ♦ A CDR roadmap should identify the CDR mix (various selected CDR options) that enables the achievement of the target. This will enable the development of solutions conducive to achieving the target, including financial support.

→ Dedicate more resources to research development and accounting of CDR.

for,

♦ More comprehensive studies are needed to define the CDR potential at the municipal and regional scales, by 2030, 2050 and beyond. ♦ Reporting requirements for biogenic emissions need to be put in place to remedy current data gaps. ♦ Biomass is not inherently sustainable. While the sustainability of the upstream supply chains of biomass wastes is conventionally not considered, biomass in general should not be considered “carbon neutral”. In particular, the use of dedicated biomass, now or in the future, requires critical evaluation of its origin and supply chain sustainability to determine the net-removal potential of bioCCS. ♦ Pilot studies of stand-alone CDR options such as enhanced weathering, soil carbon storage, and biochar are needed to provide region-specific knowledge on co-impacts and implementation optimization. ♦ Quantification of CDR potentials must account for the variance both in the speed of CO₂ removal and the performance of CO₂ storage.

→ Take a more active role in supporting CDR activities at the municipal and regional scales. ♦ The most requested assistance from the interviewed stakeholders was help from local authorities in streamlining hindering permitting processes, particularly the 'end of waste' criteria. Other hindering regulations identified include land use restrictions on multi-use spaces (e.g., 'nature' vs 'agricultural' land), and the status of spreading 'foreign materials' (e.g. biochar, olivine) on soils and other lands. ♦ The municipality and region must be clear on its standards to ensure CDR credibility as well as the required monitoring, verification, and maintenance of sinks. ♦ The municipality and region can help design funding pathways for CDR options, such as: i) via their procurement strategies, to require any emissions that cannot be reduced be offset with credible and permanent removals, or require, e.g. the use of mineralised or recycled concrete; and ii) valuing public goods such as urban greenspaces and agricultural carbon sinks that are funded through, e.g. property taxation. ♦ The municipality and region should take a central role in convening stakeholders and resources, e.g. to facilitate the creation of CDR and CCS innovation hubs.

♦ The municipality and region are also well-placed to raise awareness and undertake educational activities to raise the social legitimacy of and commercial interest in CDR. ♦ The municipality and region should promote CDR activities at the national level, for example by lobbying the national government for legislation and regulatory incentives to deploy CDR at scale. ♦ The municipality and region can promote harmonised regional assessments of CDR demand and potential to help assess the potential supply versus anticipated demand to better inform realistic climate action plans. CDR use must be assessed in the context of competing demand for limited resources such as CO₂, land, biomass, and energy.

51

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

6.3 Call to action Cities are a critical arena for climate action. Urban areas will account for over half of global increase in carbon emissions by 2030. They concentrate economic, political and cultural activity, and are motors of change and innovation, able to transform human structures, and design, facilitate and implement concrete actions. Cities are a critical actor in the multi-level governance of climate politics, at times acting independently from their national government. The city is therefore an important scale for climate and removals action, particularly when considering the ubiquitous and inclusive approaches needed to deploy CDR. Although a large number of cities have committed to net zero, they may not have the knowledge, capacity or network to integrate removals in their strategies or implement city-scale removal solutions. It is crucial that the municipality of Amsterdam and the NSCA deepen their knowledge, build their capacity and expand their network to reach their climate goals. The municipality of Amsterdam is already at the forefront of climate change action, having committed to ambitious climate goals and taking part in initiatives such as the EU Mission for Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities.

It is also taking steps to develop its understanding of the potential for emissions reductions and removals, through this study and a similar quick scan conducted on CCU potential. Its proximity to biogenic emission sources in surrounding industrial areas and potentially massive storage potential in the North Sea makes it a prime candidate to explore CDR at a large scale. By being an early adopter and promoter of CDR, the region also stands to become a hub for CDR solutions and industry, attracting businesses and stimulating a sector increasingly recognised as essential to mitigating climate change.

Immediate next steps for the City of Amsterdam and the NSCA: → Address the end-of-waste regulation, which must be streamlined to facilitate the capture of both biogenic and non-biogenic CO₂. → Comprehensively identify and quantify the opportunities for the capture, transport and storage of biogenic emissions, and for the use of standalone CDR solutions. → Explicitly address the role of CDR envisaged in municipal and regional climate strategies. → Set a CDR-specific target to catalyse investment in and development of CDR activities. → Take an active role in innovation, e.g. by showcasing demonstrations and pilots. → Convene a multi-stakeholder group to inform a CDR deployment roadmap. → Advocate with other Dutch and international cities for national CDR policies and funding. → Convene a citizen assembly on removals to start building social legitimacy.

The municipality of Amsterdam and NSCA should contribute to driving the acceleration toward the deployment of CDR, thereby catalysing private sector action, rather than the opposite. CDR, as essential to reach climate goals, must be considered a public good, rather than a purely commercial or industrial undertaking. In the same way that local governments provide waste management services (e.g. for sewage and water), the provision of – or promotion of – CO₂ management services could be foreseen to be an essential public service.

52

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

7. Annexes 7.1 Methodology 7.1.1 Data collection protocol

•

Interviews with companies outside the geographical area covered by the project, when these were deemed sufficiently relevant to the project; Existing literature – e.g. on costs and emissions of removal, transport and storage options – to inform the assessment of negative emission potential.

The collected data was informed by the following. •

A review of existing data to form the basis of the data collection needed to conduct the analysis. The municipality shared some existing data on biogenic emissions of companies, but this was found to be very restricted.

•

•

Information from the NSCA Environmental Service on additional biogenic emission sources;

•

Information from &Flux, during the implementation of a similar CCU quick scan;

•

Interviews with companies in the geographical area covered by the project;

•

Interviews with companies specialising in standalone CDR activities, which were not all Amsterdam-specific;

An initial list of companies to interview was developed based on: i) South Pole market expertise; ii) Bellona Europa expertise; and iii) suggestions from the Municipality of Amsterdam. From an initial list of ~40 entities, 16 interviews were conducted in the scope of this project (Table 5). Final interviewees were selected based on perceived relevance and responsiveness of stakeholders. While this is not an exhaustive list of all the biogenic CO₂ emitters, transport providers and storage providers in the project geographical scope, they provide an indicative representation of types of CDR-relevant stakeholders.

Table 5: Interviews conducted Type Sources of biogenic emissions

Transport for and sinks of biogenic emissions

Standalone CDR solutions

Others

Name of entity

Description

AEB

Waste-to-energy

Cargill

Agricultural products

Future Biogas

Biomethane

Gidara Energy

Biomethanol

Waternet

Wastewater treatment

Porthos

Carbon transport and storage

Mitsubishi Corporation

Carbon mineralisation in building products

SIKA

Carbon mineralisation in building products

OCAP

Carbon transport

Air Liquide

Carbon processing and transport

Bio Energy Netherlands

Biochar (in future: hydrogen production)

Carbyon

Direct air capture

Carbon Neutral Initiative

Enhanced weathering

Wij.land

Carbon farming

TNO

Research (carbon transport and storage)

Omgevingsdienst NCSA

Regional environmental service entity

53

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

7.1.2 Assessment criteria The following assessment criteria was developed to compare and assess the data collected during the data collection stage described above (Table 6). After a

section applicable for all interviewees, the assessment is separated into sections for biogenic carbon emitters, off-takers, and for standalone CDR options.

Table 5: Assessment criteria Criteria

Unit

Description

Description

n/a

Description of the specific process, technology or solution

Technology readiness level (TRL) of solution

Integer

9: Widespread commercial operation, 8: First-of-a-kind full scale commercial operation, 7: Pre-commercial demonstration scale, 6: Pilot scale, 5: small-scale pilot. (Projects with research-level only TRLs not considered)

[Proposed] Start of operations

Year

Year of (expected) start of operations

Current stage of project development

n/a

Extant, planning for full-scale operation, test scale operation, test scale planning, exploration, no plan

All components

Location

n/a

Geographic location

Scale (present)

kt CO₂/yr

Scale of biogenic carbon emissions OR scale of storage capacity OR scale of removals achieved

Scale (expected by 2030)

kt CO₂/yr

As above, expected by 2030

Estimated electricity demand

kWh/t CO₂

Electricity consumption – may be based on generic data

Estimated thermal energy demand

GJ/t CO₂

Heat consumption – may be based on generic data

Estimated emissions

t CO₂e/tCO₂

Ballpark estimate of greenhouse gas emissions associated with activity – may be based on generic data

Cost Estimation

EUR

OPEX (per tCO₂) and CAPEX (total) for activity

Point source % of CO₂

%

Concentration of CO₂ in flue gas stream

Other flue gas considerations

n/a

E.g. composition of gas, risks of contamination

Biogenic/atmosphere fraction of CO₂

%

Percentage of CO₂ that is of atmospheric origin (non-fossil)

For CO₂ sources

Carbon source

n/a

Origin of carbon (waste, crops, wood...)

Available waste heat

GJ/year

Unused heat that could be used for CO₂ capture heat demand

Available space

n/a

If the space is available for the CO₂ capture equipment

Available CO₂ transport options

n/a

Based on the location of the source site

Envisaged offtakers

n/a

Identified off-takers of the biogenic carbon

For CO₂ sinks Durability of storage

Years

Timescale of carbon storage in selected sink, may be based on generic data

Storage medium

n/a

Where the CO₂ is physically stored

MRV-viability

low/med/high

How easy it is to monitor the continuance of CO₂ storage. May be based on generic data

Risk of reversibility

low/med/high

Likelihood of the CO₂ is likely to be re-released into the atmosphere. May be based on generic data

[Expected] CO₂ sources

n/a

Where the stored CO₂ is already expected to come from

Available transport options

n/a

How the CO₂ arrives at the storage site

CO₂ quality requirements

n.a.

Requirements such as purity, pressure, maximum level of contamination...

Removal mechanism

n/a

How CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere

Storage medium

n/a

Where the CO₂ is physically stored

Carbon source

n/a

Origin of carbon (atmospheric, waste, crops, wood...)

MRV-viability

low/med/high

Ease of monitoring the continuance of CO₂ storage. May be based on generic data

For stand-alone CO₂ removal options

54

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

Criteria

Unit

Description

Risk of reversibility

low/med/high

Likelihood of the CO₂ is likely to be re-released into the atmosphere. May be based on generic data

Durability of storage

years

Timescale of carbon storage in selected sink, may be based on generic data

Removal efficiency

%

Amount of CO₂ removed compared to estimated GHG emissions

Available transport options

n/a

How the CO₂ is transported (if relevant)

Expected payback period

Years

Time before the CO₂ removal technology stores more CO₂ than the process emitted. May be based on generic data

7.2 Guiding questions for interviews The following text and lists of questions were developed to guide the interview process to gather further data from identified companies. While these are intended to cover a wide range of topics, informed by the assessment criteria, it should be noted that they are ‘guiding’ only and that interviews may have covered additional or more specific subtopics. These questions were adapted for interviews with CO₂ transport providers and standalone CDR companies.

•

If any (planned) CO₂ capture exists, what is the (proposed) fate of the CO₂?

•

If CO₂ capture was installed, is there waste heat or other energy already available?

•

Is there space available at the facility for a CO₂ capture installation?

•

For possible CO₂ transport, does the facility have access to

Introductory text:

•

space for a pipeline?

As part of a project commissioned by the Amsterdam municipality to assess the negative emissions potential in the region, we are conducting a survey of potential suppliers of biogenic and atmospheric CO₂. We would like to understand what potential CO₂ streams are available, if you have any existing plans for emission reduction, and your general thoughts on CO₂ capture and related technologies.

•

rail access?

•

canal/harbour access?

Aside from the quick-scan, a) this is an exploration of decentralised urban CDR potential more generally, and b) this will likely feed into an in-depth study by the Amsterdam municipality.

•

Are there non-CO₂ capture based plans to reduce the CO₂ emissions of the facility? If so, on what timeline?

•

Do you have any thoughts on main barriers for CO₂ capture at your facility?

•

Do you have any thoughts on what would be required to incentivise CO₂ capture at your facility?

•

Are you familiar with the concept of 'carbon dioxide removal' (aka 'negative emissions'), and do you have any opinions on how they relate to your operations? Or in general?

7.2.1 Questionnaire for CO₂ sources •

What existing gas streams produced at your facility contain biogenic/atmospheric CO₂?

7.2.2 Questionnaire for CO₂ sinks

•

What is the carbon source? (e.g., type of biomass)

•

What is the storage location?

•

What is the volume and composition of these gas streams?

•

What is the storage medium?

•

What transport options are there to transport CO₂ from source to sink?

•

What sources of CO₂ are typically used?

•

What processes are used for sequestration?

•

When is/were the start of operation (if relevant)?

•

What are conservative estimates of CO₂ storage in tonnes per year (now and projected in the future)?

•

•

If the gas stream contains a mix of biogenic and fossil CO₂, what fraction is biogenic and what fraction is fossil? Is there any existing CO₂ capture or plans for CO₂ capture in the future? If so, what type of capture and on what timeline?

55

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

•

What is the estimated durability/ timescale of storage?

•

What is the TRL of the storage solution?

•

Is the process MRV viable?

•

What is the cost (per tonne if possible)?

•

Ownership of carbon rights?

•

Certification?

•

What would be required to incentivise CO₂ storage?

•

What are drivers and barriers to CO₂ storage?

•

What are the co-benefits of the storage solution?

7.3 Comparative analysis Please refer to the attached comparative analysis table.

56

Carbon removal potential in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the North Sea Canal Area

57