If We Don’t Cut Emissions, Creating Carbon Sinks is Irrelevant

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is already high so it must be reduced to save the earth. Efforts to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere apparently cannot simply absorb CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon capture and storage). Maximizing the absorption of atmospheric CO2 but on the other hand CO2 emissions continue to increase, it will be very difficult (read: impossible) to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, let alone to a certain target agreed upon by the global community. So what makes sense is that CO2 emissions are not increased again so that the concentration does not increase further and existing CO2 is reduced to a certain level as targeted.

In practice, the production of wood chips and wood pellets as carbon neutral renewable fuels will complement each other with biochar. Wood chips and wood pellets do not add CO2 emissions and biochar absorbs CO2 as a carbon sink (carbon sequestration) or carbon negative. The application of biochar as part of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is currently developing the fastest compared to other CO2 reduction efforts (CDR / Carbon Dioxide Removal). Biochar leads in CDR credits in the voluntary carbon market (VCM), namely with more than 90% globally in 2023 as stated in the cdr.fyi database. From this data, it is estimated that at least 350 thousand tons of biochar have been produced globally in 2023 with an estimated 600,000 units or more of CDR credits (Carbon Credit).

And as in Europe, namely in 2023 there are a total of 48 new biochar plants, installed and operating, although 7 plants are closed, but a total of 41 biochar plants or an estimated total of 171 biochar plants are operating. And in 2024 there are an estimated 51 new biochar plants in Europe or in 2024 the total number of biochar plants is estimated to grow to more than 220 units. In terms of biochar volume, there is an estimated increase of 75,000 tons in 2023 and in 2024 the increase in production to 115,000 tons. Electricity production with 100% biomass fuel and equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) devices will also absorb CO2 or carbon negative, but this method is expensive and slow to develop. While biomass and coal cofiring because the cofiring ratio is small, efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are not too significant but cofiring is indeed the easiest entry point for using renewable energy in , especially in the energy or power generation sector (coal power plants). And in the end, creating a carbon sink, but the emission source is not reduced (cut), then it is the same as a lie or an irrelevant effort.

Green Economy in the Cement Industry Part 5 : Increasing Production and Reducing Emissions

Increasing production capacity but simultaneously reducing CO2 emissions (carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas) sounds contradictory / paradoxical. It is indeed like that in passing. However, with a decarbonization or CO2 removal (CDR) program, efforts to reduce emissions can be done while increasing cement production. How big the target of reducing emissions and increasing cement production will depend on how much decarbonization efforts are made. The greater the reduction in emissions, the more expensive it will usually be. This is why efforts to reduce emissions while increasing production must also be carried out in stages with certain strategies.

Cement plant is an industry that contributes to an increase in CO2 of more than 6% globally. However, there is something unique about this cement industry, namely that most of the CO2 emissions produced do not come from fuel use, but from the calcination process. The percentage of CO2 produced from the calcination process reaches around 60%, while from fuel use it is only around 40%. The fossil fuels commonly used in cement industries are coal and petcoke, both of which are the two fossil fuels that pollute the air the most. In fact, in a number of areas cement plants are the largest coal users. Cement plants close to oil refineries will use more petcoke.

Decarbonization programs or efforts to reduce CO2 emissions that can be carried out in cement plants include increasing energy efficiency, using clinker substitute materials, using alternative/renewable energy, and using CCUS (Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage). With these characteristics, total decarbonization in the cement industry cannot be carried out by using only the best efficiency technology or by simply replacing the fuel. Meanwhile, the use of clinker substitutes and CCUS is very important among other technologies to achieve near-zero emissions in cement production.

The best scenario for increasing production and reducing emissions can be done by using much higher energy efficiency improvements using commercially available technology, using more aggressive fuels to low carbon or even carbon neutral fuels, using higher rates of clinker substitute materials. and adopting a higher portion of commercially available CCUS technologies.

And it's worth noting that all suggested improvements in these best-case scenarios can be achieved by implementing technologies that are already commercially available and most of them should also be cost-effective. As for CCUS, while the technology is commercially available, implementation requires large investments that demand higher financial incentives or carbon prices. However, on the other hand, CCUS has the largest contribution to CO2 reduction, followed by the use of clinker substitutes and the switch to low-carbon or even carbon-neutral fuels. And the use of efficiency-enhancing technology has the smallest contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. This is mainly because process-related emissions from calcination account for around 60% of total CO2 emissions and are not related to energy use.

Reducing Emissions or Increasing Electric Vehicles?

The photo from here

Basically the main background of the two things above is climate problem due to greenhouse gases, especially CO2 (carbon dioxide), so of course the fundamental answer or priority is to reduce these emissions (greenhouse gases). Electric vehicles can reduce these emissions if the prerequisites are met. The main prerequisite, of course, is where the source of the electrical energy used comes from. If the source of electricity is from fossil energy sources such as oil, coal and natural gas which produce greenhouse gas emissions, in essence the electric vehicle is not environmentally friendly, even though the power plants is far from the use of the electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles should use electricity from renewable energy sources so they don't increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, one of which can be read here. Production of electricity from renewable energy should be encouraged and supported first so that the amount is sufficient and after that only proceed with these electric vehicles. If this is not done, then no matter how many electric vehicles (buses, cars, and electric motorcycles) it will still not have a positive effect on the climate. A comprehensive understanding of the climate problem including its solutions and especially in the field of transportation with electric vehicles is something important, before moving on to the implementation stage.

Carbon capture and storage technology (Carbon Capture and Storage / CCS) has indeed been introduced, but its implementation is still very minimal and expensive so this technology has not been applied in Indonesia, especially in fossil-fuel power plants, the majority of which are coal. A number of CCS technologies that are being tested are amine-based adsorption (organic compounds and functional groups whose contents consist of lone-paired nitrogen atoms) are the most advanced carbon capture technologies. But apart from technical factors, economic factors are still the main obstacle.

So the best choice is to encourage and support as much as possible the use of renewable energy sources as a source of energy for these electric vehicles. If the electric vehicle operates with a renewable energy source that is environmentally friendly because it does not increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere or is an effort to decarbonize the transportation sector, then that is essentially a program that is perfectly successful according to the intent and purpose of developing the electric vehicle.