8/ Thank you for reading, and thank you to my co-authors @philippverpoort.bsky.social @gunnarenergyclima.bsky.social @falkoueckerdt.bsky.social. We look forward to your feedback!

7/ In conclusion, major bottlenecks need to be resolved to scale up CCS, low-emission hydrogen and non-fossil CO2. Once these barriers are overcome, we find a clear pathway for decarbonizing the hard-to-electrify sectors, although abatement costs are likely to remain high, exceeding 300 EUR/tCO2.

6/ We find that there is no substantial window for CCU for these sectors. In steel and cement, which could supply fossil CO2, CCS remains more cost-effective. Even when adjusting how CCU emissions are attributed, this option quickly becomes too expensive for the chemical and transport sectors.

5/ Partial abatement options lose their cost advantage when residual emissions are considered. In the steel sector, hydrogen-based steel is more expensive than CCS but results in lower residual emissions. When climate neutrality is required, the additional CDR makes CCS significantly costlier.

4/ Drop-in synfuels are generally more expensive than CDR compensation. However, CDR is already needed for non-CO2 emissions compensation, and its scale-up is uncertain. Energy and industry CO2 emissions should be abated, rather than compensated, to reduce the risk of fossil lock-ins.

3/ We use these mitigation landscapes to investigate 3 further questions: how synfuels face a cost disadvantage compared to CDR compensation
why accounting for residual emissions (eg. from CCS options) is important, and why coordinating CCU between the hard-to-electrify sectors is challenging.

2/ These results suggest a clear mapping of abatement options: prioritizing CCS in cement, scaling up hydrogen-based steel, reserving CDR compensation for non-CO2 sectors and fostering low-emission synfuels for aviation, chemicals and potentially maritime (to avoid the risks of ammonia combustion).

1/ We derive the mitigation landscapes by varying the cost of low-emission hydrogen and non-fossil CO2. We do this in three cases:
1️⃣ Base case
2️⃣ Fossil CCU needs to be coordinated between user and source sectors.
3️⃣ 2️⃣ + we require full (CO2) climate neutrality for all abatement options.

⚡ New paper in @natcomms.nature.com on decarbonizing the hard-to-electrify sectors!

Which abatement option is most cost-efficient for the steel, cement, chemical, or long-distance transport sectors? In this paper, we explore the mitigation landscape of each sector.

🔗 Article: rdcu.be/ejLI0

🚨New Paper and Policy Brief🚨

How has green hydrogen developed recently? How much hydrogen is needed for 1.5°C? And what are plausible future pathways?

In a new Nature Energy study, we look at these questions.

🔗Article: https://buff.ly/3WeOh3G
🔗Policy Brief: https://buff.ly/3C2F6wm

#EnergySky

A gentle reminder that if we miss the 1.5°C target (and we certainly will), the next target is 1.51°C and not 2°C. We need to keep fighting.

Every tonne of CO₂ emitted makes the job of future CO₂ removal harder, and every 0.01°C of temperature increase makes the world more chaotic and dangerous.

Atlantic circulation collapse? "In short, it’s a climate scientist’s nightmare come true."
Here's a good 'deep dive' into this risk, from Yale Climate Connections.
yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/12/atla...

For a conventional quantum computing calculation, the chip consumption itself is likely not too bad. The dilution fridge and liquid helium needed to operate it however ..