Periodic Reporting for period 2 - REPAIR (Removing non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions to support ambitious climate transitions)
Reporting period: 2024-04-01 to 2025-09-30
The ambition of the REPAIR project is to develop a proof-of-concept for technologies to remove CH4 (and possibly N2O) from dilute (<1 %-vol) non-fossil sources and evaluate its impact on the environment. Stakeholder feedback is considered at an early stage in developing technologies and identifying the plausibility of upscaling in real conditions. Proposed technologies are evaluated for techno-economic, environmental, social and policy compatibility.
These technologies have the potential to abate and remove >50% of CH4 emissions from dilute non-fossil sources (mainly originating from agricultural sources) in the EU by 2035, to be in line with the scenarios to limit warming between 1-1.9 °C. It directly contributes to the objectives of the European Green Deal. In addition, in the “Fit for 55” proposal, the EC aims to remove 310 million tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030 in the LULUCF sector. From 2031, the LULUCF sector will include the non-CO2 GHG emissions from agriculture. The agricultural sector has been identified to be the first adopter of these technologies since it contributes to nearly ~50% of methane emissions in the EU, and methane concentration is higher than in ambient air. In REPAIR, we are also actively working on raising awareness on the effects of non-CO2 greenhouse gases on earth warming.
A systematic approach is followed to achieve the objectives of REPAIR. This includes (i) develop and validate technological options to remove non-CO2 GHGs (ii) evaluate techno-economic and environmental potential of application of technologies (iii) assess potential for upscaling with input from stakeholders. To develop the envisioned technologies, firstly suitable materials are identified and tested for either converting or capturing methane at low concentrations (<1%-vol) in air. The thermodynamic and kinetic data generated is utilised to develop reactor scale and process models enabling design of process technologies and optimizing design conditions. The process models are used to establish a mass and energy flows within the process, which helps in evaluating the techno-economic and environmental potential (via LCA) of the processes. These results feed into the integrated assessment models to identify the potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement/removal technologies in future energy scenarios. Stakeholder feedback is taken continuously to design and optimize the technological solutions and their potential upscaling and implementation.
These technologies have the potential to abate and remove >50% of CH4 emissions from dilute non-fossil sources (mainly originating from agricultural sources) in the EU by 2035, to be in line with the scenarios to limit warming between 1-1.9 °C. It directly contributes to the objectives of the European Green Deal. In addition, in the “Fit for 55” proposal, the EC aims to remove 310 million tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030 in the LULUCF sector. From 2031, the LULUCF sector will include the non-CO2 GHG emissions from agriculture. The agricultural sector has been identified to be the first adopter of these technologies since it contributes to nearly ~50% of methane emissions in the EU, and methane concentration is higher than in ambient air. In REPAIR, we are also actively working on raising awareness on the effects of non-CO2 greenhouse gases on earth warming.
A systematic approach is followed to achieve the objectives of REPAIR. This includes (i) develop and validate technological options to remove non-CO2 GHGs (ii) evaluate techno-economic and environmental potential of application of technologies (iii) assess potential for upscaling with input from stakeholders. To develop the envisioned technologies, firstly suitable materials are identified and tested for either converting or capturing methane at low concentrations (<1%-vol) in air. The thermodynamic and kinetic data generated is utilised to develop reactor scale and process models enabling design of process technologies and optimizing design conditions. The process models are used to establish a mass and energy flows within the process, which helps in evaluating the techno-economic and environmental potential (via LCA) of the processes. These results feed into the integrated assessment models to identify the potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement/removal technologies in future energy scenarios. Stakeholder feedback is taken continuously to design and optimize the technological solutions and their potential upscaling and implementation.
During the second reporting period, WP1 focused on evaluating Co₃O₄ catalyst performance under various feed conditions, including different methane concentrations (10-10000 ppm) and the presence of CO2 and H2O. Water was found to inhibit activity, while CO2 showed minimal effect. Kinetic analysis indicated an activation energy of 71.23 kJ mol⁻¹ and a reaction order of 0.97. Testing for N2O decomposition was initiated. In the case of photo-catalysts, TiO2-based photocatalysts demonstrated effective VOC removal but were inactive for methane oxidation and are being developed as a pre-treatment stage to enhance thermal catalyst stability. Lithium-based zeolite adsorbents, particularly Li₁₃X₃ and Li-SAPO34-5, exhibited high methane adsorption capacities of 1.54 ± 0.12 mmol g⁻¹ and 1.76 ± 0.07 mmol g⁻¹, respectively, maintaining good performance even in the presence of CO2, thus confirming their suitability for methane capture under realistic agricultural conditions.
Work Package 2 has focused on translating the knowledge gathered in the first reporting period regarding sorbent and methods to simulate CH4 adsorption from diluted sources into an optimal process. This process can be used to evaluate the technical challenges and devise solutions for the separation at hand. More specifically: the isotherm modelling work has focused on improving the representation of multi-component mixtures; the process modelling work identified of an optimal process configuration for different objective functions (recovery-purity and energy-productivity), , including design and operation characteristics; sensitivity analyses of the process and material parameters have identified the most important characteristics (mass transfer) and the knowledge gap for further work; the improved simulation technique (acceleration) sped up computation and made optimization easier and faster. Additionally, following discussions on the barn case studies, a possible integration between separation and conversion was investigated, thereby unveiling advantages and disadvantages of the integration, and enabling WP3 to undertake a comparative techno-economic assessment.
WP3 advanced significantly during the last review period, developing a coherent framework to assess the techno-economic performance and the global potential of GHG removal technologies. Task 3.1 defined the structure and scope of a harmonised TEA framework covering bio-CCS, DAC for CO2 and non-CO2 gases, and ocean-based removal, establishing collaboration between several project partners. Efforts were also targeted on understanding when does methane mitigation/removal can be defined as mitigation or removal measure. Task 3.2 performed a first cost assessment of methane and CO2 co-capture from dairy farms, combining process modelling with preliminary techno-economic evaluation. The analysis revealed that methane mitigation from dairy farms is only viable if the co-captured CO2 is permanently stored, yet the total GHG avoidance cost remains very high (> 1350 €/tCO2 eq), primarily due to energy-intensive upgrading and conversion steps. Task 3.3 initiated the integration of non-CO2 removal options into the WITCH model framework, representing methane removal and wetland restoration processes while improving the climate feedback representation.
In WP4, during this period, new farm visits were conducted in Spain, providing updated data on barn design as well as understanding of the real conditions in farms that can suit the implementation of the technology in the future. Also, the Life Cycle Assessment was updated with real farm data, showing refined emission values and including an evaluation of the methane capture technology’s mitigation potential. Energy use for methane mitigation/removal remains the main component in the analysis, and therefore, a lower emission intensity linked with the energy use in the process will enable better life cycle performance. Finally, the validation of the plausibility has advanced with a preliminary study on market trends and social acceptance, integrating insights into consumer behaviour and positioning REPAIR technologies as promising future solutions.
Work Package 2 has focused on translating the knowledge gathered in the first reporting period regarding sorbent and methods to simulate CH4 adsorption from diluted sources into an optimal process. This process can be used to evaluate the technical challenges and devise solutions for the separation at hand. More specifically: the isotherm modelling work has focused on improving the representation of multi-component mixtures; the process modelling work identified of an optimal process configuration for different objective functions (recovery-purity and energy-productivity), , including design and operation characteristics; sensitivity analyses of the process and material parameters have identified the most important characteristics (mass transfer) and the knowledge gap for further work; the improved simulation technique (acceleration) sped up computation and made optimization easier and faster. Additionally, following discussions on the barn case studies, a possible integration between separation and conversion was investigated, thereby unveiling advantages and disadvantages of the integration, and enabling WP3 to undertake a comparative techno-economic assessment.
WP3 advanced significantly during the last review period, developing a coherent framework to assess the techno-economic performance and the global potential of GHG removal technologies. Task 3.1 defined the structure and scope of a harmonised TEA framework covering bio-CCS, DAC for CO2 and non-CO2 gases, and ocean-based removal, establishing collaboration between several project partners. Efforts were also targeted on understanding when does methane mitigation/removal can be defined as mitigation or removal measure. Task 3.2 performed a first cost assessment of methane and CO2 co-capture from dairy farms, combining process modelling with preliminary techno-economic evaluation. The analysis revealed that methane mitigation from dairy farms is only viable if the co-captured CO2 is permanently stored, yet the total GHG avoidance cost remains very high (> 1350 €/tCO2 eq), primarily due to energy-intensive upgrading and conversion steps. Task 3.3 initiated the integration of non-CO2 removal options into the WITCH model framework, representing methane removal and wetland restoration processes while improving the climate feedback representation.
In WP4, during this period, new farm visits were conducted in Spain, providing updated data on barn design as well as understanding of the real conditions in farms that can suit the implementation of the technology in the future. Also, the Life Cycle Assessment was updated with real farm data, showing refined emission values and including an evaluation of the methane capture technology’s mitigation potential. Energy use for methane mitigation/removal remains the main component in the analysis, and therefore, a lower emission intensity linked with the energy use in the process will enable better life cycle performance. Finally, the validation of the plausibility has advanced with a preliminary study on market trends and social acceptance, integrating insights into consumer behaviour and positioning REPAIR technologies as promising future solutions.
We have identified and validated suitable materials for the conversion (achieving 90% methane conversion at temperatures below 400°C) and capture of methane. We have also developed a new process that integrates upgrading and conversion of methane from low-concentration sources.