IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v162y2020i1d10.1007_s10584-020-02686-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A specialised delivery system for stratospheric sulphate aerosols (part 2): financial cost and equivalent CO2 emission

Author

Listed:
  • I. E. Vries

    (Stockholm University)

  • M. Janssens

    (Delft University of Technology)

  • S. J. Hulshoff

    (Delft University of Technology)

Abstract

Temporary stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) using sulphate compounds could help avoid some of the adverse and irreversible impacts of global warming, but comprises many risks and uncertainties. Among these, the direct financial cost and carbon emissions of potential SAI delivery systems have hitherto received only modest attention. Therefore, this paper quantifies the initial and operating financial costs and initial and operating equivalent CO2 (CO2eq) emissions of the specialised aircraft-based SAI delivery system developed with relatively high-fidelity tools in part 1 of this series. We analyse an interval of operating conditions, within which we devote special attention to four injection scenarios outlined in part 1: Three scenarios where H2SO4 vapour is directly injected at several dispersion rates and one SO2 injection scenario. We estimate financial cost through Raymer’s adjustment of Rand Corporation’s Development and Production Costs for Aircraft (DAPCA) model, augmented by additional data. CO2eq emission is computed from existing data and the computed fuel consumption for each of the scenarios. The latter estimates include an emission weighting factor to account for non-CO2 aircraft combustion products at altitude. For direct H2SO4 injection, both financial cost and CO2eq emission are sensitive to the design dispersion rate. For scenarios where higher dispersion rates are achieved, the delivery system’s cost and CO2eq are relatively small compared with the presumed benefits of SAI. The most optimistic H2SO4 scenario is found to have a financial cost and CO2eq emission similar to that of SO2 injection, while potentially allowing for reductions in the annual mass of sulphur injected to achieve a target negative radiative forcing. The estimates of financial cost and CO2eq emission were subjected to sensitivity analyses in several key parameters, including aircraft operational empty weight, engine specific fuel consumption, fuel price and aerosol price. The results indicate that the feasibility of the considered scenarios is robust.

Suggested Citation

  • I. E. Vries & M. Janssens & S. J. Hulshoff, 2020. "A specialised delivery system for stratospheric sulphate aerosols (part 2): financial cost and equivalent CO2 emission," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 87-103, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:162:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-020-02686-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02686-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-020-02686-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-020-02686-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian Azar & Daniel Johansson, 2012. "Valuing the non-CO 2 climate impacts of aviation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 559-579, April.
    2. Peter J. Irvine & Ben Kravitz & Mark G. Lawrence & Helene Muri, 2016. "An overview of the Earth system science of solar geoengineering," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(6), pages 815-833, November.
    3. F. D. Pope & P. Braesicke & R. G. Grainger & M. Kalberer & I. M. Watson & P. J. Davidson & R. A. Cox, 2012. "Stratospheric aerosol particles and solar-radiation management," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 713-719, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam Michael Bauer & Cristian Proistosescu & Gernot Wagner, 2023. "Carbon Dioxide as a Risky Asset," CESifo Working Paper Series 10278, CESifo.
    2. Ryo Moriyama & Masahiro Sugiyama & Atsushi Kurosawa & Kooiti Masuda & Kazuhiro Tsuzuki & Yuki Ishimoto, 2017. "The cost of stratospheric climate engineering revisited," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 1207-1228, December.
    3. Helmers, Viola & van der Werf, Edwin, 2022. "Did the German Aviation Tax Affect Passenger Numbers? New Evidence Employing Difference-in-differences," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264118, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Frédéric Dobruszkes & Didier Peeters, 2019. "The magnitude of detours faced by commercial flights: A global assessment," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/293811, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Khara Grieger & Jonathan B. Wiener & Jennifer Kuzma, 2024. "Improving risk governance strategies via learning: a comparative analysis of solar radiation modification and gene drives," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1054-1067, December.
    6. Patrick Moriarty & Damon Honnery, 2019. "Energy Accounting for a Renewable Energy Future," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    7. Andersson, David & Nässén, Jonas & Larsson, Jörgen & Holmberg, John, 2014. "Greenhouse gas emissions and subjective well-being: An analysis of Swedish households," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-82.
    8. Joshua B. Horton & Penehuro Lefale & David Keith, 2021. "Parametric Insurance for Solar Geoengineering: Insights from the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 97-107, April.
    9. Logan Thrasher Collins, 2024. "CyberGaia: Earth as cyborg," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-7, December.
    10. Alberto Gago & Xavier Labandeira & José M. Labeaga & Xiral López Otero, 2021. "Transport Taxes and Decarbonization in Spain: Distributional Impacts and Compensation," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 238(3), pages 101-136, September.
    11. repec:wsr:ecbook:2021:i:vii-007 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Todd L. Cherry & Stephan Kroll & David M. McEvoy & David Campoverde, 2024. "Solar Geoengineering, Free-Driving and Conflict: An Experimental Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(4), pages 1045-1060, April.
    13. Dobruszkes, Frédéric & Peeters, Didier, 2019. "The magnitude of detours faced by commercial flights: A global assessment," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Yaghoub Abdi & Xiaoni Li & Xavier Càmara-Turull, 2023. "Firm value in the airline industry: perspectives on the impact of sustainability and Covid-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Fageda, Xavier & Teixidó, Jordi J., 2022. "Pricing carbon in the aviation sector: Evidence from the European emissions trading system," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Jutta Wieding & Jessica Stubenrauch & Felix Ekardt, 2020. "Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-23, October.
    17. Scheelhaase, Janina D., 2019. "How to regulate aviation's full climate impact as intended by the EU council from 2020 onwards," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 68-74.
    18. Disa Asplund, 2017. "The temporal aspects of the social cost of greenhouse gases," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(3), pages 25-39.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:162:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-020-02686-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.