Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: Carbon removal efficiency and energy requirement of engineered carbon removal technologies
Daniel L.
Sanchez
*abc,
Peter
Psarras
ad,
Hannah K.
Murnen
b and
Barclay
Rogers
b
aCarbon Direct, USA. E-mail: sanchezd@berkeley.edu
bGraphyte, USA
cUniversity of California-Berkeley, USA
dUniversity of Pennsylvania, USA
First published on 17th February 2025
Abstract
Correction for ‘Carbon removal efficiency and energy requirement of engineered carbon removal technologies’ by Daniel L. Sanchez et al., RSC Sustain., 2025, https://doi.org/10.1039/d4su00552j.
The authors regret that there was an error in the caption of Fig. 2 in the original article. The original caption suggested that all data points on the scatter plot were taken from the baseline figures as reported in Fig. 3 when the points labelled “DAC” were taken from the “sensitivity scenario” numbers.
Fig. 2 is given again here with the corrected caption:
 | ||
| Fig. 2 Scatter plot of energy use and carbon efficiency for each technology’s most likely embodiment. Ideal CDR technologies have low energy use and high carbon removal efficiency. | ||
Additionally, there was also an error in ref. 10, the details of which were the same as ref. 7. The correct details for ref. 7 and 10 are given here as ref. 1 and 2, respectively.
The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.
References
- D. W. Keith and J. S. Rhodes, Bury, burn or both: a two-for-one deal on biomass carbon and energy, Clim. Change, 2002, 54, 375 CrossRef CAS.
- D. W. Keith, G. Holmes, D. S. Angelo and K. Heidel, A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, Joule, 2018, 2(8), 1573–1594 CrossRef CAS.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |