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

• W. Yao
• T. M. Morganti
• J. Wu
• M. Borchers
• A. Anschütz
• L.‐K. Bednarz
• A. Bhaumik
• M. Böttcher
• K. Burkhard
• T. Cabus
• A. S. Chua
• I. Diercks
• M. Esposito
• M. Fink
• Mondane Fouqueray
• F. Gasanzade
• S. Geilert
• J. Hauck
• F. Havermann
• I. Hellige
• S. Hoog
• M. Jürchott
• H. T. Kalapurakkal
• J. Kemper
• I. Kremin
• I. Lange
• J. M. Lencina‐Avila
• M. Liadova
• F. Liu
• S. Mathesius
• N. Mehendale
• T. Nagwekar
• M. Philippi
• G. L. N. Luz
• Murugan Ramasamy
• F. Stahl
• L. Tank
• M.‐E. Vorrath
• L. Westmark
• H.‐W. Wey
• R. Wollnik
• Mirco Wölfelschneider
• W. Bach
• K. Bischof
• M. Boersma
• U. Daewel
• M. Fernández‐Méndez
• J. K. Geuer
• D. P. Keller
• A. Kopf
• C. Merk
• Nils Moosdorf
• N. Oppelt
• A. Oschlies
• J. Pongratz
• A. Proelss
• G. J. Rehder
• L. Rüpke
• N. Szarka
• D. Thraen
• K. Wallmann
• N. Mengis

Departments

Land-Ocean Fluxes and Transformation Ecosystem Co-Design Global Change Impacts and Adaptation

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 CO2 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.

• DOI: 10.1029/2024EF004902

Cite this activity

@article{Yao2025,
  Title = {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},
  Author = {Yao, W. and Morganti, T. M. and Wu, J. and Borchers, M. and Anschütz, A. and Bednarz, L.‐K. and Bhaumik, A. and Böttcher, M. and Burkhard, K. and Cabus, T. and Chua, A. S. and Diercks, I. and Esposito, M. and Fink, M. and Fouqueray, Mondane and Gasanzade, F. and Geilert, S. and Hauck, J. and Havermann, F. and Hellige, I. and Hoog, S. and Jürchott, M. and Kalapurakkal, H. T. and Kemper, J. and Kremin, I. and Lange, I. and Lencina‐Avila, J. M. and Liadova, M. and Liu, F. and Mathesius, S. and Mehendale, N. and Nagwekar, T. and Philippi, M. and Luz, G. L. N. and Ramasamy, Murugan and Stahl, F. and Tank, L. and Vorrath, M.‐E. and Westmark, L. and Wey, H.‐W. and Wollnik, R. and Wölfelschneider, Mirco and Bach, W. and Bischof, K. and Boersma, M. and Daewel, U. and Fernández‐Méndez, M. and Geuer, J. K. and Keller, D. P. and Kopf, A. and Merk, C. and Moosdorf, Nils and Oppelt, N. and Oschlies, A. and Pongratz, J. and Proelss, A. and Rehder, G. J. and Rüpke, L. and Szarka, N. and Thraen, D. and Wallmann, K. and Mengis, N.},
  Editor = {},
  Journal = {Earth s Future},
  Year = {2025},
  Pages = {e2024EF004902},
  Volume = {13},
  Doi = {10.1029/2024EF004902},
  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 CO2 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.},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Yao, W.
AU  - Morganti, T. M.
AU  - Wu, J.
AU  - Borchers, M.
AU  - Anschütz, A.
AU  - Bednarz, L.‐K.
AU  - Bhaumik, A.
AU  - Böttcher, M.
AU  - Burkhard, K.
AU  - Cabus, T.
AU  - Chua, A. S.
AU  - Diercks, I.
AU  - Esposito, M.
AU  - Fink, M.
AU  - Fouqueray, Mondane
AU  - Gasanzade, F.
AU  - Geilert, S.
AU  - Hauck, J.
AU  - Havermann, F.
AU  - Hellige, I.
AU  - Hoog, S.
AU  - Jürchott, M.
AU  - Kalapurakkal, H. T.
AU  - Kemper, J.
AU  - Kremin, I.
AU  - Lange, I.
AU  - Lencina‐Avila, J. M.
AU  - Liadova, M.
AU  - Liu, F.
AU  - Mathesius, S.
AU  - Mehendale, N.
AU  - Nagwekar, T.
AU  - Philippi, M.
AU  - Luz, G. L. N.
AU  - Ramasamy, Murugan
AU  - Stahl, F.
AU  - Tank, L.
AU  - Vorrath, M.‐E.
AU  - Westmark, L.
AU  - Wey, H.‐W.
AU  - Wollnik, R.
AU  - Wölfelschneider, Mirco
AU  - Bach, W.
AU  - Bischof, K.
AU  - Boersma, M.
AU  - Daewel, U.
AU  - Fernández‐Méndez, M.
AU  - Geuer, J. K.
AU  - Keller, D. P.
AU  - Kopf, A.
AU  - Merk, C.
AU  - Moosdorf, Nils
AU  - Oppelt, N.
AU  - Oschlies, A.
AU  - Pongratz, J.
AU  - Proelss, A.
AU  - Rehder, G. J.
AU  - Rüpke, L.
AU  - Szarka, N.
AU  - Thraen, D.
AU  - Wallmann, K.
AU  - Mengis, N.
TI  - 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
T2  - Earth s Future
PY  - 2025
SP  - e2024EF004902
VL  - 13
DO  - 10.1029/2024EF004902
AB  - 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 CO2 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.
ER  - 

Details

Research Spectrum