Can the 1.5 ℃ warming target be met in a global transition to 100% renewable energy?

Peter Schwartzman; David Schwartzman; Peter Schwartzman; David Schwartzman

doi:10.3934/energy.2021054

AIMS Energy

2021, Volume 9, Issue 6: 1170-1191. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021054

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Can the 1.5 ℃ warming target be met in a global transition to 100% renewable energy?

Peter Schwartzman ^{1
,
,},
David Schwartzman ²

1.
Department of Environmental Studies, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois, USA
2.
Department of Biology, Howard University, Washington, DC, USA

Received: 03 September 2021 Accepted: 10 November 2021 Published: 29 November 2021

First, we recognize the valuable previous studies which model renewable energy growth with complete termination of fossil fuels along with assumptions of the remaining carbon budgets to reach IPCC warming targets. However, these studies use very complex combined economic/physical modeling and commonly lack transparency regarding the sensitivity to assumed inputs. Moreover, it is not clear that energy poverty with its big present impact in the global South has been eliminated in their scenarios. Further, their CO₂-equivalent natural gas emission factors are underestimated, which will have significant impact on the computed greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, we address this question in a transparent modeling study: can the 1.5 ℃ warming target still be met with an aggressive phaseout of fossil fuels coupled with a 100% replacement by renewable energy? We compute the continuous generation of global wind/solar energy power along with the cumulative carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in a complete phaseout of fossil fuels over a 20 year period. We compare these computed emissions with the state-of-the-science estimates for the remaining carbon budget of carbon dioxide emissions consistent with the 1.5 ℃ warming target, concluding that it is still possible to meet this warming target if the creation of a global 100% renewable energy transition of sufficient capacity begins very soon which will likely be needed to power aggressive negative carbon emission technology. The latter is focused on direct air capture for crustal storage. More efficient renewable technologies in the near future will make this transition easier and promote the implementation of a global circular economy. Taking into account technological improvements in 2^nd law (exergy) efficiencies reducing the necessary global energy demand, the renewable supply should likely be no more than 1.5 times the present level, with the capacity to eliminate global energy poverty, for climate mitigation and adaptation.
- bioenergy,
- climate change,
- carbon budget,
- geothermal energy,
- hydropower,
- renewable energy,
- solar energy,
- wind energy,
- fossil fuels,
- EROI,
- carbon budget 1.5 ℃,
- Direct Air Capture (DAC),
- circular economy
Citation: Peter Schwartzman, David Schwartzman. Can the 1.5 ℃ warming target be met in a global transition to 100% renewable energy?[J]. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(6): 1170-1191. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021054

Related Papers:

Abstract

First, we recognize the valuable previous studies which model renewable energy growth with complete termination of fossil fuels along with assumptions of the remaining carbon budgets to reach IPCC warming targets. However, these studies use very complex combined economic/physical modeling and commonly lack transparency regarding the sensitivity to assumed inputs. Moreover, it is not clear that energy poverty with its big present impact in the global South has been eliminated in their scenarios. Further, their CO₂-equivalent natural gas emission factors are underestimated, which will have significant impact on the computed greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, we address this question in a transparent modeling study: can the 1.5 ℃ warming target still be met with an aggressive phaseout of fossil fuels coupled with a 100% replacement by renewable energy? We compute the continuous generation of global wind/solar energy power along with the cumulative carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in a complete phaseout of fossil fuels over a 20 year period. We compare these computed emissions with the state-of-the-science estimates for the remaining carbon budget of carbon dioxide emissions consistent with the 1.5 ℃ warming target, concluding that it is still possible to meet this warming target if the creation of a global 100% renewable energy transition of sufficient capacity begins very soon which will likely be needed to power aggressive negative carbon emission technology. The latter is focused on direct air capture for crustal storage. More efficient renewable technologies in the near future will make this transition easier and promote the implementation of a global circular economy. Taking into account technological improvements in 2^nd law (exergy) efficiencies reducing the necessary global energy demand, the renewable supply should likely be no more than 1.5 times the present level, with the capacity to eliminate global energy poverty, for climate mitigation and adaptation.

References

[1]	Flato G, Fuglestvedt J, Mrabet R, et al. (2018) Global Warming of 1.5 ℃. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 ℃ above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC/WMO.
[2]	Lenton TM, Rockström J, Gaffney O, et al. (2019) Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against. Nature 575: 592–595. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0
[3]	Wunderling N, Donges JF, Kurths J, et al. (2021) Interacting tipping elements increase risk of climate domino effects under global warming. Earth Syst Dyn 12: 601–619. doi: 10.5194/esd-12-601-2021
[4]	Carbon Tracker (2020) Carbon budgets: Where are we now? Available from: https://carbontracker.org/carbon-budgets-where-are-we-now/.
[5]	Hilaire J, Minx JC, Callaghan MW, et al. (2019). Negative emissions and international climate goals-learning from and about mitigation scenarios. Clim Change 57: 189–219. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02516-4
[6]	Warszawski L, Kriegler E, Lenton TM, et al. (2021) All options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 ℃: a scenario appraisal. Environ Res Lett 16: 064037.
[7]	Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, et al. (2021) Summary for policymakers. in: Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, Cambridge University Press.
[8]	Nature (2021) Control methane to slow global warming-fast. Nature 596: 461. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-02287-y
[9]	Sgouridis S, Csala D (2014) A framework for defining sustainable energy transitions: principles, dynamics, and implications. Sustainability 6: 2601–2622. doi: 10.3390/su6052601
[10]	Sgouridis S, Csala D, Bardi U (2016) The sower's way: quantifying the narrowing net-energy pathways to a global energy transition. Environ Res Lett 11: 094009. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094009
[11]	Bogdanov D, Farfan J, Sadovskaia K, et al. (2019) Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps. Nat Commun 10: 1077. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08855-1
[12]	Fragkos P (2020) Global energy system transformations to 1.5 ℃: The impact of revised IPCC carbon budgets. Energy Technol, 8.
[13]	Teske S, Niklas S (2021) Fossil Fuel Exit Strategy: An orderly wind down of coal, oil and gas to meet the Paris Agreement, June 2021, The Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney Australia.
[14]	Desing H, Widmer R (2021) Reducing climate risks with fast and complete energy transitions: Applying the precautionary principle to the Paris agreement. OSF Preprints. Mater Sci Technol.
[15]	Schwartzman P, Schwartzman D (2011) A Solar Transition is Possible. Institute for Policy Research and Development. Available from: http://solarutopia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/A-Solar-Transition-is-Possible_new.pdf.
[16]	Strassburg BBN, Iribarrem A, Beyer HL, et al. (2020) Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586: 724–729. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9
[17]	Hayek MN, Harwatt H, Ripple WJ, et al. (2021) The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land. Nat Sustainability 4: 21–24. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4
[18]	Rogelj J, Forster PM, Kriegler E, et al. (2019) Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature 571: 335–342. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1368-z
[19]	Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K, et al. (2018) Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115: 8252–8259. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810141115
[20]	Le Quéré C, Jackson RB, Jones MW, et al. (2020) Temporary reduction in daily global CO₂ emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat Clim Change 10: 647–653. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x
[21]	Mufson S (2021) Global electric power demand returns to pre-pandemic levels. Washington Post, August 24. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/24/global-climate-change.
[22]	Howarth RW (2020) Methane emissions from fossil fuels: exploring recent changes in greenhouse-gas reporting requirements for the State of New York. J Integr Environ Sci 17: 69–81. doi: 10.1080/1943815X.2020.1789666
[23]	Natali SM, Holdren JP, Rogers BM, et al. (2021) Permafrost carbon feedbacks threaten global climate goals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118: e2100163118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2100163118
[24]	Matthews HD, Tokarska KB, Rogelj J, et al. (2021) An integrated approach to quantifying uncertainties in the remaining carbon budget. Commun Earth Environ 2: 7. doi: 10.1038/s43247-020-00064-9
[25]	IEA (2020) Key World Energy Statistics 2020, International Energy Agency. Available from: www.iea.org/statistics/.
[26]	Leccisi E, Raugei M, Fthenakis V (2016) The energy and environmental performance of ground-mounted photovoltaic systems—a timely update. Energies 9: 622. doi: 10.3390/en9080622
[27]	Raugei M, Fullana-i-Palmer P, Fthenakis V (2012) The energy return on energy investment (EROI) of photovoltaics: Methodology and comparisons with fossil fuel life cycles. Energy Policy 45: 576–582. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.008
[28]	Raugei M, Leccisi E (2016) A comprehensive assessment of the energy performance of the full range of electricity generation technologies deployed in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 90: 46–59. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.011
[29]	Deep Resource, EROI of Offshore Wind, 2017. Available from: https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/eroi-of-offshore-wind/.
[30]	Brockway PE, Owen A, Brand-Correa LI, et al. (2019) Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources. Nat Energy 4: 612–621. doi: 10.1038/s41560-019-0425-z
[31]	Vestas (2019) Life cycle assessment of electricity production from an onshore V150-4.2 MW wind plant—1st November 2019. vestas wind systems A/S, Hedeager 42, Aarhus N, 8200, Denmark.
[32]	Rana RL, Lombardi M, Giungato P (2020) Trends in scientific literature on energy return ratio of renewable energy sources for supporting policymakers. Adm Sci 10: 21. doi: 10.3390/admsci10020021
[33]	Bhandari KP, Collier JM, Ellingson RJ, et al. (2015) Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 47: 133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.057
[34]	Raugei M (2019) Net energy analysis must not compare apples and oranges. Nat Energy 4: 86–88. doi: 10.1038/s41560-019-0327-0
[35]	Espinosa N, Hosel M, Angmo D, et al. (2012) Solar cells with one-day energy payback for the factories of the future. Energy Environ Sci 5: 5117–5132. doi: 10.1039/C1EE02728J
[36]	Moriarty P, Honnery D (2021) The limits of renewable energy. AIMS Energy 9: 812–829. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021037
[37]	IRENA (2017) Geothermal power: Technology brief, international renewable energy agency, Abu Dhabi.
[38]	Pehl M, Arvesen A, Humpenöder F, et al. (2017) Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nat Energy 2: 939–945. doi: 10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9
[39]	Daioglou V, Doelman JC, Stehfest E, et al. (2017) Greenhouse gas emission curves for advanced biofuel supply chains. Nat Clim Change 7: 920–924. doi: 10.1038/s41558-017-0006-8
[40]	Almeida RM, Shi Q, Gomes-Selman JM, et al. (2019) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions of Amazon hydropower with strategic dam planning. Nat Commun 10: 4281. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12179-5
[41]	Ritchie H, Roser M (2020) Fossil Fuels. OurWorldInData.org. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels.
[42]	Hausfather Z (2018) Analysis: Why the IPCC 1.5C report expanded the carbon budget, Carbon Brief. Available from: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-ipcc-1-5c-report-expanded-the-carbon-budget.
[43]	Zheng Y, Davis SJ, Persad GG, et al. (2020) Climate effects of aerosols reduce economic inequality. Nat Clim Change 10: 220–224. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0699-y
[44]	Moriarty P, Honnery D (2020) Feasibility of a 100% global renewable energy system. Energies 13: 5543. doi: 10.3390/en13215543
[45]	Fishman T, Graedel TE (2019) Impact of the establishment of US offshore wind power on neodymium flows. Nat Sustainability 2: 332–338. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0252-z
[46]	Li J, Peng K, Wang P, et al. (2020) Critical rare-earth elements mismatch global wind-power ambitions. One Earth 3: 116–125. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.06.009
[47]	Reck BK, Graedel TE (2012) Challenges in metal recycling. Science 337: 690–695. doi: 10.1126/science.1217501
[48]	Jowitt SM, Werner TT, Weng Z, et al. (2018) Recycling of the rare earth elements. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem 13: 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.02.008
[49]	Pavel CC, Lacal-Arántegui R, Marmier A, et al. (2017) Substitution strategies for reducing the use of rare earths in wind turbines. Resour Policy 52: 349–357. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.04.010
[50]	Gaudin H (2019) Implications of the use of rare-earth elements in the wind energy market. Sustainalytics. Available from: https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-blog/implications-rare-earth-wind-energy-market/.
[51]	Collins L (2021) World's cheapest energy storage will be an iron-air battery, says Jeff Bezos- backed start-up. RECHARGE. Available from: https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/worlds-cheapest-energy-storage-will-be-an-iron-air-battery-says-jeff-bezos-backed-start-up/2-1-1044174.
[52]	Haegel NM, Jr Atwater H, Barnes T, et al. (2019). Terawatt-scale photovoltaics: Transform global energy. Science 364: 836–838. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw1845
[53]	Verlinden PJ (2020) Future challenges for photovoltaic manufacturing at the terawatt level. J Renewable Sustainable Energy 12: 053505. doi: 10.1063/5.0020380
[54]	Victoria M, Haegel N, Peters IM, et al. (2021) Solar photovoltaics is ready to power a sustainable future. Joule 5: 1041–1056. doi: 10.1016/j.joule.2021.03.005
[55]	Lorincz T (2014) Demilitarization for deep decarbonization: reducing militarism and military expenditures to invest in the un green climate fund and to create low-carbon economies and resilient communities. Geneva Switzerland: International Peace Bureau.
[56]	NREL. Circular economy for energy materials. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/about/circular-economy.html.
[57]	NREL (2021) What it takes to realize a circular economy for solar photovoltaic system materials, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2021/what-it-takes-to-realize-a-circular-economy-for-solar-photovoltaic-system-materials.html.
[58]	Covestro. Renewable energy—pillar of the circular economy. Available from: https://www.covestro.com/en/sustainability/what-drives-us/circular-economy/renewable-energy.
[59]	Morone P, Falcone PM, Tartiu VE (2019) Food waste valorisation: Assessing the effectiveness of collaborative research networks through the lenses of a COST action. J Clean Prod 238: 117868. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117868
[60]	Sharma HB, Vanapalli KR, Samal B, et al. (2021) Circular economy approach in solid waste management system to achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for post-COVID recovery. Sci Total Environ 800: 149605. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149605
[61]	Diamantis V, Eftaxias A, Stamatelatou K, et al. (2021) Bioenergy in the era of circular economy: Anaerobic digestion technological solutions to produce biogas from lipid-rich wastes. Renew Energy 168: 438–447. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.034
[62]	Falcone PM, Imbert E, Sicac E, et al. (2021) Towards a bioenergy transition in Italy? Exploring regional stakeholder perspectives towards the Gela and Porto Marghera biorefineries. Energy Res Soc Sci 80: 102238. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102238
[63]	D'Adamo I, Falcone PM, Gastaldi M, et al. (2020) RES-T trajectories and an integrated SWOT-AHP analysis for biomethane. Policy implications to support a green revolution in European transport. Energy Policy 138: 111220. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111220
[64]	Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[65]	Ayres RU (1998) Eco-thermodynamics: economics and the second law. Ecol Econ 26: 189–209. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00101-8
[66]	Schwartzman D (2008) The limits to entropy: continuing misuse of thermodynamics in environmental and marxist theory. Sci Soc 72: 43–62. doi: 10.1521/siso.2007.72.1.43
[67]	Lenton TM, Pichler P-P, Weisz H (2016) Revolutions in energy input and material cycling in Earth history and human history. Earth Syst Dynam 7: 353–370. doi: 10.5194/esd-7-353-2016
[68]	Schwartzman P, Schwartzman D (2019) The earth is not for sale: a path out of fossil capitalism to the other world that is still possible. Singapore: World Scientific.
[69]	Elliott D (2020) Renewable energy: can it deliver? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
[70]	Coady D, Parry I, Le N-P, et al. (2019) Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates. IMF Working Paper.
[71]	SIPRI (2020) Global military expenditure sees largest annual increase in a decade—says SIPRI—reaching $1917 billion in 2019, April 27, STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SIPRI). Available from: https://www.sipri.org/media/pressrelease/2020/global-military-expenditure-sees-largest-annual-increase-decade-says-sipri-reaching-1917-billion.
[72]	Babacan O, De Causmaecker S, Gambhir A, et al. (2020) Assessing the feasibility of carbon dioxide mitigation options in terms of energy usage. Nat Energy 5: 720–728. doi: 10.1038/s41560-020-0646-1
[73]	Beuttler C, Charles L, Wurzbacher J (2019) The role of direct air capture in mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Front Clim 1: 10. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2019.00010
[74]	Realmonte G, Drouet L, Gambhir A, et al. (2019) An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat Commun 10: 3277. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10842-5
[75]	Chatterjee S, Huang KW (2020) Unrealistic energy and materials requirement for direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat Commun 11: 3287. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17203-7
[76]	Snæbjörnsdóttir SÓ, Sigfússon B, Marieni C, et al. (2020) Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1: 90–102. doi: 10.1038/s43017-019-0011-8
[77]	Rosa L, Sanchez DL, Realmonte G, et al. (2021) The water footprint of carbon capture and storage technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 138: 110511. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110511
[78]	Kelemen P, Benson SM, Pilorgé H, et al. (2019) An overview of the status and challenges of CO₂ storage in minerals and geological formations. Front Clim 1: 9. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2019.00009
[79]	La Plante EC, Simonetti DA, Wang J, et al. (2021) Saline water-based mineralization pathway for gigatonne-scale CO₂ management. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 9: 1073−1089. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c08561
[80]	Rau GH, Willauer HD, Ren ZJ (2018) The global potential for converting renewable electricity to negative-CO₂-emissions hydrogen. Nat Clim Change 8: 621−625. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0203-0
[81]	Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Bauer ZAF, et al. (2017) 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world. Joule 1: 1−14. doi: 10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.005
[82]	Smil V (2008) Energy in nature and society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[83]	Smil V (2011) Science, energy, ethics, and civilization. In: Visions of Discovery: New Light on Physics, Cosmology, and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 709−729.
[84]	Steinberger JK, Lamb WF, Sakai M (2020) Your money or your life? The carbon-development paradox. Environ Res Lett 15: 044016. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab7461
[85]	Grubler A, Wilson C, Bento N, et al. (2018) A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 ℃ target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat Energy 3: 515–527. doi: 10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6
[86]	Millward-Hopkins J, Steinberger JK, Rao ND, et al. (2020) Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario. Glob Environ Change 65: 102168. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168
[87]	O'Neill D, Fanning A, Lamb W, et al. (2018) A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat Sustainability 1: 88−95. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4
[88]	Hickel J, Kallis G (2019) Is green growth possible? New Political Econ 25: 469−486. doi: 10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
[89]	Spash C (2020) A tale of three paradigms: Realising the revolutionary potential of ecological economics. Ecol Econ 169: 106518. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106518
[90]	Spash C (2021) Apologists for growth: Passive revolutionaries in a passive revolution. Globalizations 18: 1123−1148. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1824864
[91]	van Ruijven BJ, De Cian E, Sue Wing I (2019) Amplification of future energy demand growth due to climate change. Nat Commun 10: 2762. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10399-3
[92]	Smil V (2010) Energy transitions: history, requirements, prospects. Praeger: Santa Barbara.
[93]	Smil V (2016) Examining energy transitions: A dozen insights based on performance. Energy Res Soc Sci 22: 194–197. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.017
[94]	Diesendorf M, Elliston B (2018) The feasibility of 100% renewable electricity systems: A response to critics. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 93: 318–330. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.042
[95]	Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, et al. (2019) Impacts of green new deal energy plans on grid stability, costs, jobs, health, and climate in 143 countries. One Earth 1: 449–463. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.003
[96]	Randers J, Goluke U (2020) An earth system model shows self‐sustained melting of permafrost even if all man‐made GHG emissions stop in 2020. Sci Rep 10: 18456. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75481-z
[97]	Hanley S (2020) It's the end of the world as we know it—or not, CleanTechnica, November 14. Available from: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/11/14/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-or-not/.
[98]	Melillo JM, Frey SD, DeAngelis KM, et al. (2017) Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world. Science 358: 101–105. doi: 10.1126/science.aan2874
[99]	Bond-Lamberty B, Bailey VL, Chen M, et al. (2018) Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades. Nat 560: 80–83. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0358-x
[100]	Nottingham AT, Meir P, Velasquez E, et al. (2020) Soil carbon loss by experimental warming in a tropical forest. Nat 584: 234–237. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2566-4
[101]	Carbfix (2020) We turn CO₂ into stone. Available from: https://www.carbfix.com/faq.
[102]	Sefidi VS, Luis P (2019) Advanced amino acid-based technologies for CO₂ capture: A review. Ind Eng Chem Res 58: 20181–20194. doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b01793
[103]	Luis P (2016) Use of monoethanolamine (MEA) for CO₂ capture in a global scenario: Consequences and alternatives. Desalination 380: 93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2015.08.004
[104]	Eldardiry H, Habib E (2018). Carbon capture and sequestration in power generation: review of impacts and opportunities for water sustainability. Energy Sustainability Soc 8: 6. doi: 10.1186/s13705-018-0146-3
[105]	Jacobson MZ (2019) The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture. Energy Environ Sci 12: 3567–3574. doi: 10.1039/C9EE02709B
[106]	Nature Editorial (2021) Nuclear power will have a limited role in the world's energy. Nature 591: 177–178. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-00615-w
[107]	Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2008) Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys Res Lett 35: L04705. doi: 10.1029/2007GL032388
[108]	Lane A (2021) The regenerative revolution in food. BBC Future. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211020-carbon-farming-a-better-use-for-half-earths-land.

energy-09-06-054-S01.pdf

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)