Exploring Site‐Specific Carbon Dioxide Removal Options With Storage or Sequestration in the Marine Environment – The 10 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> yr<sup>−1</sup> Removal Challenge for Germany

Abstract Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) and geological carbon storage in the marine environment (mCS) promise to help mitigate global climate change alongside drastic emission reductions. However, the implementable potential of mCDR and mCS depends, apart from technology readiness, also on site‐specific conditions. In this work, we explore different options for mCDR and mCS, using the German context as a case study. We challenge each option to remove 10 Mt CO 2 yr −1 , accounting for 8%–22% of projected hard‐to‐abate and residual emissions of Germany in 2045. We focus on the environmental, resource, and infrastructure requirements of individual mCDR and mCS options at specific sites, within the German jurisdiction when possible. This serves as an entry point to discuss main uncertainty factors and research needs beyond technology readiness, and, where possible, cost estimates, expected environmental effects, and monitoring approaches. In total, we describe 10 mCDR and mCS options; four aim at enhancing the chemical carbon uptake of the ocean through alkalinity enhancement, four aim at enhancing blue carbon ecosystems' sink capacity, and two employ geological off‐shore storage. Our results indicate that five out of 10 options would potentially be implementable within German jurisdiction, and three of them could potentially meet the challenge. Our exercise serves as an example on how the creation of more tangible and site‐specific CDR options can provide a basis for the assessment of socio‐economic, ethical, political, and legal aspects for such implementations. The approach presented here can easily be applied to other regional or national CDR capacity considerations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earth s Future
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024ef004902
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Methane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.30

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exploring Site‐Specific Carbon Dioxide Removal Options With Storage or Sequestration in the Marine Environment – The 10 Mt CO2 yr−1 Removal Challenge for Germany

Isabel Lange, Sabine Mathesius, Ute Daewel, Murugan Ramasamy et al.
5 citations
Earth s Future
Methane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
4.30
article

Exploring Site‐Specific Carbon Dioxide Removal Options With Storage or Sequestration in the Marine Environment – The 10 Mt CO2 yr−1 Removal Challenge for Germany

Isabel Lange, Sabine Mathesius, Ute Daewel, Murugan Ramasamy, Maria-Elena Vorrath, Daniela Thrän, Inga Hellige, Jasmin Kemper, Natascha Oppelt, Fredrik Ståhl, Christine Merk, Achim Kopf, Lukas Tank, Nóra Szarka, Margarita Liadova, Miriam Philippi, Neha Mehendale, Firdovsi Gasanzade, Wolfgang Bach, Mario Espósito, Maarten Boersma, K. Wallmann, Sonja Geilert, Amy J. Anschutz, Julia Pongratz, Teresa Morganti, Jana K. Geuer, A. S. Chua, Gregor Rehder, Felix Havermann, Andreas Oschlies, Michael E. Böttcher, Alexander Proelß, Michael Fink, Sven Hoog, David Peter Keller, Judith Hauck, Lars Ruepke, H. T. Kalapurakkal, Wanxuan Yao, Kremena Burkhard, Tanvi Nagwekar, Jiaping Wu, M. Fouqueray, Malgorzata Borchers, Nadine Mengis, Hao‐Wei Wey, Kai Bischof, Isabel Kremin, Mar Fernández‐Méndez, Jannine M. Lencina‐Avila, Isabel Diercks, Nils Moosdorf, Malte Jürchott, Tony Cabus, Gustavo Leite Neves da Luz, Lennart Westmark, Ronja Wollnik, Mirco Wölfelschneider, Feifei Liu, Lena-Katharina Bednarz, K. A. Bhaumik
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Abstract Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) and geological carbon storage in the marine environment (mCS) promise to help mitigate global climate change alongside drastic emission reductions. However, the implementable potential of mCDR and mCS depends, apart from technology readiness, also on site‐specific conditions. In this work, we explore different options for mCDR and mCS, using the German context as a case study. We challenge each option to remove 10 Mt CO 2 yr −1 , accounting for 8%–22% of projected hard‐to‐abate and residual emissions of Germany in 2045. We focus on the environmental, resource, and infrastructure requirements of individual mCDR and mCS options at specific sites, within the German jurisdiction when possible. This serves as an entry point to discuss main uncertainty factors and research needs beyond technology readiness, and, where possible, cost estimates, expected environmental effects, and monitoring approaches. In total, we describe 10 mCDR and mCS options; four aim at enhancing the chemical carbon uptake of the ocean through alkalinity enhancement, four aim at enhancing blue carbon ecosystems' sink capacity, and two employ geological off‐shore storage. Our results indicate that five out of 10 options would potentially be implementable within German jurisdiction, and three of them could potentially meet the challenge. Our exercise serves as an example on how the creation of more tangible and site‐specific CDR options can provide a basis for the assessment of socio‐economic, ethical, political, and legal aspects for such implementations. The approach presented here can easily be applied to other regional or national CDR capacity considerations.

Earth s FutureVol. 13(4)
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (DE), Leibniz University Hannover (DE), Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (DE), Dalhousie University (CA), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (DE), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (DE), Universität Hamburg (DE), University of Bremen (DE), Utrecht University (NL), Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (DE), Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde (DE), Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Kiel (DE), Leibniz Association (DE), Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE), GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (DE), Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DE), Fichtner (Germany) (DE), Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology (DE), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon (DE), Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (DE), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Methane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
4.30
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.