4.6 Article

The potential for implementation of Negative Emission Technologies in Scotland

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.06.021

关键词

Negative Emission Technologies; Bioenergy; Carbon capture and storage; Direct air capture; Enhanced weathering; Afforestation-reforestation; Soil carbon sequestration; Biochar; Scotland

资金

  1. ClimateXChange, on the project: Work stream on Perception and Communication of Risk and Uncertainty
  2. UKERC [NE/M021327/1, EP/M013200/1, NE/M016900/1, NE/P019455/1]
  3. Scottish Government
  4. EPSRC [EP/P026214/1]
  5. EPSRC [EP/M013200/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. NERC [NE/P019455/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission rates alone appears insufficient to limit the rise in global temperatures. Negative Emission Technologies (NETs) can be helpful in this critical goal by actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Industrialised countries like Scotland will require NETs to address their climate targets and reach net-zero carbon emissions in a timely manner. However, the implementation of NETs has varied energy, economic and environmental implications that need to be analysed in detail. In this paper, we explore the potential energy and economic costs for implementation of land-based NETs in Scotland. This analysis is based on the calculated averaged costs of the different technologies and the availability of resources for its implementation in Scotland. We found that the country has a maximum technical potential to abate 90-100% of its annual CO2 emissions by means of land-based NETs, thanks to its low annual emissions and large land area for implementation of NETs. Even in less optimistic scenarios, Scotland is exceptionally well suited for land NETs, which can complement and enhance the potential of more conventional technologies, like renewable energy resources. Our results show that Scotland could lead the transformation towards a carbon-neutral society.

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

4.6
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