% 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},
}