% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Borchers:1026167,
      author       = {Borchers, Malgorzata and Förster, Johannes and Thrän,
                      Daniela and Beck, Silke and Thoni, Terese and Korte, Klaas
                      and Gawel, Erik and Markus, Till and Schaller, Romina and
                      Rhoden, Imke and Chi, Yaxuan and Dahmen, Nicolaus and
                      Dittmeyer, Roland and Dolch, Tobias and Dold, Christian and
                      Herbst, Michael and Heß, Dominik and Kalhori, Aram and
                      Koop-Jakobsen, Ketil and Li, Zhan and Oschlies, Andreas and
                      Reusch, Thorsten B. H. and Sachs, Torsten and
                      Schmidt-Hattenberger, Cornelia and Stevenson, Angela and Wu,
                      Jiajun and Yeates, Christopher and Mengis, Nadine},
      title        = {{A} {C}omprehensive {A}ssessment of {C}arbon {D}ioxide
                      {R}emoval {O}ptions for {G}ermany},
      journal      = {Earth's future},
      volume       = {12},
      number       = {5},
      issn         = {2328-4277},
      address      = {Hoboken, NJ},
      publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2024-03320},
      pages        = {e2023EF003986},
      year         = {2024},
      abstract     = {To reach their net‐zero targets, countries will have to
                      compensate hard‐to‐abate CO2emissions through carbon
                      dioxide removal (CDR). Yet, current assessments rarely
                      include socio‐cultural orinstitutional aspects or fail to
                      contextualize CDR options for implementation. Here we
                      present a context‐specificfeasibility assessment of CDR
                      options for the example of Germany. We assess 14 CDR
                      options, including threechemical carbon capture options, six
                      options for bioenergy combined with carbon capture and
                      storage (BECCS),and five options that aim to increase
                      ecosystem carbon uptake. The assessment addresses
                      technological,economic, environmental, institutional,
                      social‐cultural and systemic considerations using a
                      traffic‐lightsystem to evaluate implementation
                      opportunities and hurdles. We find that in Germany CDR
                      options likecover crops or seagrass restoration currently
                      face comparably low implementation hurdles in terms
                      oftechnological, economic, or environmental feasibility and
                      low institutional or social opposition but showcomparably
                      small CO2 removal potentials. In contrast, some BECCS
                      options that show high CDRpotentials face significant
                      techno‐economic, societal and institutional hurdles when
                      it comes to the geologicalstorage of CO2. While a
                      combination of CDR options is likely required to meet the
                      net‐zero target inGermany, the current climate protection
                      law includes a limited set of options. Our analysis aims to
                      providecomprehensive information on CDR hurdles and
                      possibilities for Germany for use in further research onCDR
                      options, climate, and energy scenario development, as well
                      as an effective decision support basis forvarious actors.},
      cin          = {IBG-3 / IEK-STE},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118 / I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013},
      pnm          = {2173 - Agro-biogeosystems: controls, feedbacks and impact
                      (POF4-217) / 1111 - Effective System Transformation Pathways
                      (POF4-111) / 1112 - Societally Feasible Transformation
                      Pathways (POF4-111)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2173 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1111 /
                      G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1112},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:001264023700001},
      doi          = {10.1029/2023EF003986},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1026167},
}