Carbon management technology pathways for reaching a U.S. Economy-Wide net-Zero emissions goal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Carbon Management Study Group of the 37 th Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 37) designed seven scenarios to explore the role of three potentially key technology suites – point source carbon dioxide capture and storage (PSCCS), direct air capture of carbon dioxide (DACCS), and hydrogen systems (H 2 ) – in shaping the broader technology pathways to reaching net-zero carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions in United States by 2050. Each scenario was run by up to 13 models participating in the EMF 37 study. Results show that carbon dioxide removal technologies were consistently a major part of successful pathways to net-zero U.S. CO 2 emissions in 2050. Achieving this net-zero CO 2 goal without any form of carbon dioxide capture and storage was found to be impossible for most models; some models also found it impossible to reach net-zero without DACCS. The marginal cost of achieving net-zero CO 2 emissions in 2050 was between two and 10 times higher without PSCCS and/or DACCS available. The carbon price at which DACCS was deployed as a backstop technology depended upon the assumed cost at which DACCS was available at scale. Carbon prices were between $250 and $500 per ton CO 2 when DACCS deployed as a backstop. The average CO 2 capture rate across all models in 2050 in the central net-zero scenario was 1.3 GtCO 2 /year, which implies a substantial upscaling of capacity to move and store CO 2 . Hydrogen sensitivity scenarios showed that H 2 typically constituted a relatively small share of the overall U.S. energy system ; however, H 2 deployed in applications that are considered hard to decarbonize, facilitating transition towards net-zero emissions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".