Offshore wind (OSW) is a critical tool in our efforts to decarbonize the energy sector, one of the global community’s primary tasks in confronting the climate emergency. Beyond OSW, the vast majority of climate work and investment must focus on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and decarbonizing the global economy more generally, in order to reach a target of net-zero emissions by 2050. However certain emissions sectors – such as agriculture, shipping, and aviation – will be impossible to abate in a climate-relevant time-frame. As such, there is growing scientific consensus that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will be required at immense scale – 1.5 to 3.1 gigatonnes (Gts) or more.

Toby

Offshore wind (OSW) is booming. Last month’s U.S. federal auctions for six leases covering 488,000 acres in the New York Bight <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/climate/new-york-offshore-wind-auction.html">netted a record $4.37B</a>, and are expected to generate 7 gigawatts (GW) of electricity, enough to power 2 million homes. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/29/climate/biden-offshore-wind.html?searchResultPosition=1">More than 2,000 wind turbines</a> are forecast for the U.S.’s Atlantic coast by 2030, and a similar scale of expansion is expected globally, with <a href="https://www.offshorewind.biz/2021/04/30/offshore-wind-investments-to-reach-usd-810-billion-by-2030-rystad-energy/">$810B set to be invested this decade</a> to bring global installed OSW capacity to <a href="https://www.offshorewind.biz/2021/04/30/offshore-wind-investments-to-reach-usd-810-billion-by-2030-rystad-energy/">over 250 GW by 2030</a>.
OSW is a critical tool in our efforts to decarbonize the energy sector, one of the global community’s primary tasks in confronting the climate emergency. Beyond OSW, the vast majority of climate work and investment must focus on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and decarbonizing the global economy more generally, in order to reach a target of net-zero emissions by 2050. However certain emissions sectors – such as agriculture, shipping, and aviation – will be impossible to abate in a climate-relevant time-frame. As such, there is <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/">growing scientific consensus</a> that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will be required at immense scale – <a href="https://cdrprimer.org/read/chapter-1#:~:text=Thus%2C%20a%20critical%20and%20controversial%20question%20facing%20climate%20science%20and%20policy%20communities%20is%20how%20much%20CDR%20is%C2%A0required%20to%20achieve%20climate%20goals">1.5 to 3.1 gigatonnes (Gts)</a> or <a href="https://www.wri.org/initiatives/carbon-removal">more</a> – by mid-century for us to have any chance of meeting our climate goals and limiting warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
In addition to hundreds of GW of renewable electricity, the global economy’s large investments in OSW create two conditions that represent a significant opportunity for the integrated deployment of CDR. First, the tens of thousands of wind turbines that will be built, operated, and maintained over the coming decades offer a physical platform that can be leveraged for colocation of certain CDR pathways. In addition to the structures themselves, there will be regular service personnel and ship traffic in and around the OSW that can deploy and maintain offshore CDR projects. Second, due to its intermittent nature, OSW globally will generate thousands of gigawatt-hours (GWh) of annual curtailment, electricity that cannot be fed into the grid. Of course every electron generated that can be fed into the grid, must be fed into the grid. For the electrons that remain, CDR can beneficially use this curtailed energy resource.
Three promising CDR pathways that can potentially be colocated with OSW deployment are marine permaculture; integrated direct air capture (DAC) with geologic sequestration; and electro-chemical ocean-based CDR. Each of these pathways is being advanced independently, both in terms of research and development (R&amp;D) as well as commercialization. However, the opportunity to create leverage via integrating with OSW deployment remains largely untapped by OSW developers.
<a href="https://www.climatefoundation.org/what-is-marine-permaculture.html">Marine permaculture</a> is the ocean farming of kelp or other macroalgae, which can be harvested for use as <a href="https://civileats.com/2022/03/16/can-small-seaweed-farms-help-kelp-scale-up/">food</a> or to create <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90693649/this-startup-is-making-compostable-plastic-out-of-seaweed">bio-plastics</a> and other products, as well as be <a href="https://www.runningtide.com/carbonsinking">employed for CDR</a>. In addition to these economic uses of the resulting biomass, marine permaculture offers <a href="https://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/marine-permaculture-ocean-farming-and-restoring-undersea-ecosystems">a number of co-benefits</a> including ocean deacidification, restoration of marine ecosystems, and provision of forage for aquatic life, all of which can augment artisanal and commercial fisheries – <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/exclusive-us-studies-plan-pay-fishing-industry-offshore-wind-impacts-2021-07-28/#:~:text=Commercial%20fishing%20fleets%20have%20vehemently,with%20navigation%20and%20altering%20ecosystems.">which are frequently and in some cases vehemently oppositional to the deployment of OSW</a>. <a href="https://www.northseafarmers.org/projects/wier-en-wind">Initial pilot deployments of marine permaculture with OSW exist in the North Sea</a>, and the opportunity to scale this integration is low-cost and high-leverage for OSW developers and operators.
There has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/offshore-wind-farms-could-help-capture-carbon-from-air-and-store-it-long-term-using-energy-that-would-otherwise-go-to-waste-173208">recent discussion and exploration</a> of integrating DAC with OSW’s curtailed energy resource and the offshore geologic CO2 sequestration opportunity that coincides at scale with OSW deployments around the globe. Potential locations include the North Sea, <a href="https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/21/carbon-project-longship-norway-co2-north-sea/">which has been extensively studied</a>, and the New York Bight, identified by <a href="https://people.climate.columbia.edu/users/profile/david-s-goldberg">Dr. David Goldberg</a> of Columbia University’s <a href="https://lamont.columbia.edu/">Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory</a> as being another area with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqpYVXfqr9Q">high potential storage capacity</a>. Additionally <a href="https://solidcarbon.ca/">Solid Carbon</a> is researching, and seeking to advance, a pilot deployment of the concept off the coast of British Columbia. Offshore CO2 sequestration will require site-specific survey and research to operationalize, but the science and the injection process is generally well understood.
Two primary techno-economic challenges remain to be solved with respect to integrating DAC with OSW. First, DAC mechanics must be adapted to the harsh marine environment – moisture, salinity, storms, etc. (These conditions can be mitigated somewhat by siting the DAC onshore, but then CO2 transport will be required to the offshore storage site.) Second, it will be challenging to amortize the DAC capital expenditure against a curtailed energy resource. Emergent DAC pathways are being developed that <a href="https://aircela.com/">minimize capex</a> in order to take advantage of an intermittent renewable energy resource, but more innovation here is needed, and at greater scale.
Electrochemical ocean-based CDR pathways are currently at a lower technological readiness level (TRL) than DAC, but startups including <a href="https://www.ebbcarbon.com/">Ebb Carbon</a>, <a href="https://www.seachangeinc.co/">SeaChange</a>, and <a href="https://www.planetarytech.com/">Planetary Technologies</a> will be opening demonstration plants over the next 12-24 months. Each of these companies employ renewable electricity, in differing ways, to increase ocean alkalinity or reduce acidification which – as with marine permaculture – is beneficial to marine ecosystems and fisheries, in addition to causing the ocean to draw CO2 down from the atmosphere in scientifically predictable quantities. These technologies would most practically be deployed onshore and be powered by curtailment from OSW generation. As with DAC, amortizing capex will be a challenge, but as these technologies move down the cost curve and potentially optimize capex to leverage the curtailed energy resource, or supplement the curtailment with dedicated renewable generation, the integration opportunity could be significant.
CDR represents a very material incremental revenue opportunity for OSW developers, in addition to the extensive potential climate benefit. Integrating CDR with OSW projects will certainly require additional capital. However, the high leverage of these incremental investments, given existing infrastructure and operations for OSW, represent a meaningful opportunity for OSW project developers to more fully monetize their investments via the sale of carbon credits from the integrated CDR projects.
Integrating CDR with OSW will require advance planning; permitting and regulatory issues must be addressed up front; and further innovation will be required to adapt DAC and electrochemical ocean-based CDR pathways to take full advantage of an intermittent renewable energy resource. For such an opportunity to be realized at a scale and time-frame relevant to climate, the moment for <a href="https://www.equinor.com/en/what-we-do/wind.html">Equinor</a>, <a href="https://us.orsted.com/wind-projects">Orsted</a>, and other major developers to begin exploring the integration of CDR with OSW is now. And because deployment at scale will by necessity be capital and resource intensive, and will involve complex regulatory factors, both state and federal governments have a potentially important, indeed critical, role to play in facilitating near-term progress. The rewards on offer are great, both economic and a potentially meaningful contribution to the restoration of our climate and oceans to a healthier state.
 Energy Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Offshore Wind: A Platform Opportunity for Carbon Removal

The Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act (CDRLA), new legislation recently introduced in the New York Legislature, may serve as a model for government carbon dioxide removal programs that seek to help facilitate large-scale deployment over the next few decades.  In this blog, Wil Burns and Toby Bryce will outline the bill’s key provisions.

There is growing scientific consensus that the global community, in addition to decarbonizing the world economy as aggressively as possible, will need to <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/">remove gigatons of carbon dioxide annually from the atmosphere</a> to hold temperatures to between 1.5°–2.0°C above pre-industrial levels. Cumulatively, this translates into hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over the course of the 21st century. While the bulk of these removals would occur in the second half of the century, as <a href="https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2590332220303596?token=B259987BC675887DDC493FE04F78F36A42DF47A8AB5CEB271CC02F949E5F56F1F863083330EF18459F47681F29DFC767&amp;originRegion=us-east-1&amp;originCreation=20220118220203">Morrow, et al. concluded</a>, “scaling up CDR capacity to the multi-gigaton scale, if feasible, would take several decades.” This emphasizes the need to mobilize quickly to deploy carbon removal now     
However, many CDR pathways, especially those that may deliver critical long-term sequestration of carbon, are currently in nascent stages of development, and as such are very expensive, at least in a world that does not accurately translate <a href="https://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/january/emissions-social-costs-011215.html">the true social cost of carbon</a> into policymaking. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.636657/full">Recent studies</a> have indicated that government carbon procurement programs may be a critical component of efforts to ensure large-scale market adoption of CDR, <a href="https://openaircollective.cc/concrete-square-one-for-scaling-distributed-direct-air-capture/">helping to drive early stage niche discovery and penetration</a>, and facilitating scaling up and learning, driving down costs, and opening up new markets.
<a href="https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&amp;leg_video=&amp;bn=A08597&amp;term=&amp;Summary=Y&amp;Memo=Y&amp;Text=Y#jump_to_Text">The Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act</a> (CDRLA), new legislation recently introduced in the New York Legislature, may serve as a model for government carbon dioxide removal programs that seek to help facilitate large-scale deployment over the next few decades.  In this blog, we will outline the bill’s key provisions.
The CDRLA authorizes the creation of a state-run procurement program to provide market support for durable CDR. The bill directs the state to purchase no less than 10,000 tons of CDR in 2024, and increases annual removal targets by 100 percent year-on-year over the course of its initial five-year authorization. The bill is standards-based – requiring clear additionality, a minimum of one-hundred-year durability, and third-party measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) – and otherwise non-prescriptive in terms of what CDR pathways are eligible for purchase. These approaches may include terrestrial biomass-based carbon removal; enhanced rock weathering and other mineralization; ocean-based approaches; long-lived products such as concrete and other construction materials that sequester carbon dioxide; and direct air capture.
The CDRLA would facilitate state purchases through a reverse auction (sec. 76-0103), a bidding process whereby qualified suppliers of CDR would submit bids for removal in exchange for state payments. Reverse auctions have been recognized as an effective process in the context of scaling renewable energy deployment to <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/markets/2019/01/24/how-reverse-auctions-can-help-scale-energy-storage/">drive down prices and ensure reliable procurement</a>. The bill would authorize the state to pay a maximum average price per ton of $350 for qualified projects in 2024, with this sum decreasing by 5% annually, adjusted for inflation. The state’s CDR purchases under the bill would be financed by the repeal of a corporate tax subsidy on fossil fuel used for commercial aviation, one of the “hard-to-abate” sectors identified in the state’s landmark net-zero policy, the 2019 <a href="https://climate.ny.gov/">Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act</a>.
The bill also contains a number of provisions that seek to ensure the integrity of procured CDR in meaningfully addressing the threat of climate change, as well as to deliver the economic benefits of CDR -- <a href="https://carbon180.medium.com/carbontech-a-trillion-dollar-opportunity-154a9c62cf1c">estimated to be a multi-trillion-dollar market opportunity in the coming decades</a> -- to New York. Beyond additionality, durability, and verification, the bill requires a full lifecycle assessment (LCA) of all proposed CDR projects to ensure their carbon efficiency – i.e., that substantially more carbon dioxide is removed from the process than is emitted through its implementation and execution. Additionally, the bill explicitly prohibits procurement from any CDR project that incorporates <a href="https://www.energy.gov/fecm/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/enhanced-oil-recovery">enhanced oil recovery</a> (EOR) or otherwise facilitates the extraction or other production of fossil carbon (sec 76-0103(2)b). All CDR projects procured under the CDRLA must be located in New York state. This provision is designed to enhance the industrial development benefits of the policy.
The CDRLA could also effectively address environmental justice issues that have been raised in the context of carbon removal. For example, some justice groups have criticized offset mechanisms, which permit polluters to purchase credits generated by carbon removal approaches, as well as approaches that avoid or reduce emissions, from other entities. They contend this <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Oppose-GCSA-2021_Final-2.pdf">could prolong the lifetime of polluting sources, and thus the suffering of vulnerable communities in proximity to such facilities</a>. Others have <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629618309605">expressed concerns about the potential environmental impacts of siting carbon removal facilities in vulnerable communities</a>.
The CDRLA contains several provisions designed to further principles of justice. Before procurement begins under the program, the legislation directs the state to conduct a techno-economic survey of all CDR pathways in the state with a potential scale of 0.1Mt or greater (along the lines of California’s excellent 2019 “<a href="https://www-gs.llnl.gov/content/assets/docs/energy/Getting_to_Neutral.pdf">Getting To Neutral</a>” report). The bill further directs the state to perform a parallel survey assessing the community and social benefits and potential harms of each pathway (sec. 76-0102), with particular attention to New York’s “disadvantaged communities,” as defined in the CLCPA (which definition is currently <a href="https://grist.org/equity/new-york-environmental-justice-leaders-propose-new-definition-for-disadvantaged-communities/">under revision</a>). The legislation includes a clear “do no harm” standard, and every CDR project submitted for procurement must complete an “environmental justice and equity community engagement and assessment report,” which requires direct consultation with local communities (sec. 76-0105).
One of the benefits of climate policy that leverages public procurement – over, for example, a compliance mechanism – is the opportunity to incorporate non-price factors into the state’s purchasing decisions. The CDRLA explicitly directs the state to create a procurement “scorecard” (sec. 76-0107) that factors, in addition to price, “bid preferences” for equity considerations such as benefits to “disadvantaged communities,” job creation, the employment of union labor, and agricultural or ecosystem co-benefits. The scorecard also factors in techno-economic considerations such as energy and land-use efficiency, speed of delivery, durability in excess of one hundred years, and scale potential of the CDR pathway.
It bears repeating that climate policy at every level of government must strongly prioritize reducing emissions – as has been done in New York with the state’s landmark CLCPA. However, to reach our climate goals of limiting warming to 1.5°C or even 2.0°C, billions of tons of CDR will be required as well. This gigaton-scale CDR will not be possible without significant public sector support, and the CDRLA policy framework is an innovative initial step in this direction. Passing legislation is a significant, complicated challenge at any level of government. It will be interesting to watch in the coming years as the CDRLA advances in New York and perhaps other jurisdictions. States, as is often emphasized, are <a href="https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2015/08/states-as-laboratories-of-democracy.html">laboratories for democracy</a> – and perhaps for effective climate policy as well.

Energy Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

You can’t miss it!

Toby Bryce

Toby Bryce

Offshore Wind: A Platform Opportunity for Carbon Removal

A Bid to Provide Market Support to Scale Durable Carbon Removal: New York’s Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?