BibTex format

author = {Babacan, O and De, Causmaecker S and Gambhir, A and Fajardy, M and Rutherford, AW and Fantuzzi, A and Nelson, J},
doi = {10.1038/s41560-020-0646-1},
journal = {Nature Energy},
pages = {720--728},
title = {Assessing the feasibility of carbon dioxide mitigation options in terms of energy usage},
url = {},
volume = {5},
year = {2020}

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

AB - Measures to mitigate the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) can vary substantially in terms of the energy required. Some proposed CO2 mitigation options involve energy-intensive processes that compromise their viability as routes to mitigation, especially if deployed at a global scale. Here we provide an assessment of different mitigation options in terms of their energy usage. We assess the relative effectiveness of several CO2 mitigation routes by calculating the energy cost of carbon abatement (kilowatt-hour spent per kilogram CO2-equivalent, or kWh kgCO2e–1) mitigated. We consider energy efficiency measures, decarbonizing electricity, heat, chemicals and fuels, and also capturing CO2 from air. Among the routes considered, switching to renewable energy technologies (0.05–0.53 kWh kgCO2e–1 mitigated) offer more energy-effective mitigation than carbon embedding or carbon removal approaches, which are more energy intensive (0.99–10.03 kWh kgCO2e–1 and 0.78–2.93 kWh kgCO2e–1 mitigated, respectively), whereas energy efficiency measures, such as improving building lighting, can offer the most energy-effective mitigation.
AU - Babacan,O
AU - De,Causmaecker S
AU - Gambhir,A
AU - Fajardy,M
AU - Rutherford,AW
AU - Fantuzzi,A
AU - Nelson,J
DO - 10.1038/s41560-020-0646-1
EP - 728
PY - 2020///
SN - 2058-7546
SP - 720
TI - Assessing the feasibility of carbon dioxide mitigation options in terms of energy usage
T2 - Nature Energy
UR -
UR -
UR -
VL - 5
ER -