An Analysis of Two Geoengineering Solutions Against Climate Change: BECCS and SAI
Guillaume Hewitt, Ashlyn Roy, Mya Sharma, Dominic Wood
Introduction to Geoengineering
Geoengineering is a method of reducing or counteracting the negative impacts of climate change, by manipulating different environmental processes (Zhang et al., 2015). As climate change effects become more pronounced, geoengineering is being advocated for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a potential solution (de Coninck et al., 2018; Reynolds, 2019). There are two major geoengineering categories, carbon dioxide removal (CDR), where atmospheric CO2 is directly removed, and solar radiation management (SRM), where the technology reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth (Zhang et al., 2015).
BECCS and SAI
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a form of CDR which uses plants for capturing atmospheric CO2, reducing its greenhouse effect (Gough et al., 2018). The plants are then burned, allowing for long term storage of the carbon produced and the extraction of usable energy (Gough et al., 2018).
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a SRM technique that involves the injection of sulphuric acid into the upper layers of the atmosphere to mimic the effects of volcanic eruptions (Pope et al., 2012; Preston, 2017). Lofted by a specialized aircraft, these particles would limit incoming solar radiation and lower global temperature (Robock et al., 2009).
How do BECCS and SAI Compare?
BECCS and SAI have distinct implementation strategies. A global BECCS initiative is made up of many individual units, while SAI is a large, centralized operation that requires massive initial development (Brovkin et al., 2009; National Research Council, 2015). This gives BECCS the ability to function using various private enterprises, as opposed to SAI, which requires collective initiative and funding from multiple nations. Once implemented, BECCS can start and stop operation with no negative implications, as it only affects the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. SAI, on the other hand, carries the risk of a termination shock if injections were stopped, potentially causing a rapid and damaging rise in temperatures (Brovkin et al., 2009). Other important factors including environmental impacts, government and public approval, and financial considerations of BECCS and SAI can be found in Table 1, which demonstrate the favourability of BECCS.
Table 1: A comparison of the benefits and disadvantages of BECCS and SAI as geoengineering techniques.
Limitations of Geoengineering
However, due to geoengineering being a rapidly growing industry, there are many challenges in its implementation. While the engineering of the technology is driving the enterprise forward, public and political perception often limits its roll-out, since there is hesitation in implementing such world-altering solutions. This is also brought on by the limitations of models and small-scale studies, which may not accurately predict costs, benefits, and consequences of the technologies.
Conclusions and Next Steps
BECCS and SAI are not directly comparable as they affect the climate through different methods. However, their comparison is important when considering the future of the Earth to make the most informed decisions. While one single geoengineering project may not be the sole solution to climate change, it is important to choose the best option and weigh the risks and rewards. BECCS appears to be more feasible than SAI, with a higher probability of being implemented in the future, possibly in conjunction with other methods of reducing CO2 emissions. The execution of the solutions at maximum efficacy requires a deeper understanding of the technologies, as well as the need for public education in order to garner support. Geoengineering may hold the key to our salvation, and the merging of critical analysis and accelerated development is crucial in order to draw out its full potential.
References
Ajayi, T., Gomes, J.S. and Bera, A., 2019. A review of CO2 storage in geological formations emphasizing modeling, monitoring and capacity estimation approaches. Petroleum Science, [online] 16(5), pp.1028–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-019-0340-8.
Brovkin, V., Petoukhov, V., Claussen, M., Bauer, E., Archer, D. and Jaeger, C., 2009. Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: Earth system vulnerability to technological failure. Climatic Change, [online] 92(3), pp.243–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9490-1.
de Coninck, H., Revi, A., Babiker, M., Bertoldi, P., Buckeridge, M., Cartwright, A., Dong, W., Ford, J., Fuss, S., Hourcade, J.-C., Ley, D., Mechler, R., Newman, P., Revokatova, A., Bakker, S., Bazaz, A., Belfer, E., Benton, T., Connors, S., de Kleijne, K., Abdulla, A., Boer, R., Howden, M. and Ürge-Vorsatz, D., 2018. Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response. IPCC, p.132.
Corry, O., 2017. The international politics of geoengineering: The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change. Security Dialogue, [online] 48(4), pp.297–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010617704142.
Creutzig, F., Ravindranath, N.H., Berndes, G., Bolwig, S., Bright, R., Cherubini, F., Chum, H., Corbera, E., Delucchi, M., Faaij, A., Fargione, J., Haberl, H., Heath, G., Lucon, O., Plevin, R., Popp, A., Robledo‐Abad, C., Rose, S., Smith, P., Stromman, A., Suh, S. and Masera, O., 2015. Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. GCB Bioenergy, [online] 7(5), pp.916–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205.
Gough, C., Thornley, P., Mander, S., Vaughan, N. and Lea-Langton, A., 2018. Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): Unlocking Negative Emissions : Unlocking Negative Emissions. [online] Newark, UNITED KINGDOM: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Available at: <http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mcmu/detail.action?docID=5451951> [Accessed 6 Mar. 2021].
Gough, C. and Upham, P., 2011. Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS or Bio‐CCS). Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, 1, pp.324–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.34.
Haywood, J.M., Jones, A., Bellouin, N. and Stephenson, D., 2013. Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall. Nature Climate Change, [online] 3(7), pp.660–665. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1857.
IPCC, 2012. Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Geoengineering. [Meeting Report] Lima, Peru: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.pp.1–99. Available at: <https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/EM_GeoE_Meeting_Report_final.pdf>.
Muri, H., 2018. The role of large—scale BECCS in the pursuit of the 1.5°C target: an Earth system model perspective. Environmental Research Letters, [online] 13(4), p.044010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab324.
National Research Council, 2015. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. [online] The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18988.
Pope, F.D., Braesicke, P., Grainger, R.G., Kalberer, M., Watson, I.M., Davidson, P.J. and Cox, R.A., 2012. Stratospheric aerosol particles and solar-radiation management. Nature Climate Change, [online] 2(10), pp.713–719. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1528.
Preston, C.J., 2017. Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms. Ethics & International Affairs, [online] 31(4), pp.479–493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0892679417000466.
Reynolds, J.L., 2019. Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, [online] 475(2229), p.20190255. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2019.0255.
Robock, A., Marquardt, A., Kravitz, B. and Stenchikov, G., 2009. Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letters, [online] 36(19). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039209.
Smith, W., 2020. The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100. Environmental Research Letters, [online] 15(11), p.114004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba7e7.
Smith, W. and Wagner, G., 2018. Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment. Environmental Research Letters, [online] 13(12), p.124001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d.
Zhang, Z., Moore, J.C., Huisingh, D. and Zhao, Y., 2015. Review of geoengineering approaches to mitigating climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 103, pp.898–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.076.