Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Substantial carbon drawdown potential from enhanced rock weathering in the United Kingdom

Nature Geoscience volume 15, pages 382–389 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Achieving national targets for net-zero carbon emissions will require atmospheric carbon dioxide removal strategies compatible with rising agricultural production. One possible method for delivering on these goals is enhanced rock weathering, which involves modifying soils with crushed silicate rocks, such as basalt. Here we use dynamic carbon budget modelling to assess the carbon dioxide removal potential and agricultural benefits of implementing enhanced rock weathering strategies across UK arable croplands. We find that enhanced rock weathering could deliver net carbon dioxide removal of 6–30 MtCO2 yr−1 for the United Kingdom by 2050, representing up to 45% of the atmospheric carbon removal required nationally to meet net-zero emissions. This suggests that enhanced rock weathering could play a crucial role in national climate mitigation strategies if it were to gain acceptance across national political, local community and farm scales. We show that it is feasible to eliminate the energy-demanding requirement for milling rocks to fine particle sizes. Co-benefits of enhanced rock weathering include substantial mitigation of nitrous oxide, the third most important greenhouse gas, widespread reversal of soil acidification and considerable cost savings from reduced fertilizer usage. Our analyses provide a guide for other nations to pursue their carbon dioxide removal ambitions and decarbonize agriculture—a key source of greenhouse gases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Net CDR by ERW deployed on UK arable croplands.
Fig. 2: Mapped fine-scale decadal average UK net CDR.
Fig. 3: Costs of CDR by ERW deployed on UK arable croplands.
Fig. 4: Mapped fine-scale decadal average UK net CDR costs.
Fig. 5: Agricultural ecosystem co-benefits of ERW.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Soil pH data were obtained from https://daac.ornl.gov/SOILS/guides/HWSD.html and http://www.ukso.org/. The high-resolution monthly fields of soil temperature and precipitation data were obtained from https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets/FLDAS_NOAH01_C_GL_M_001/summary. Additional environmental and climate drivers were acquired through simulations of CLM5 available at https://github.com/ESCOMP/ctsm. The UK crop cover map was obtained from https://www.ceh.ac.uk/ukceh-land-cover-maps, annual time series of crop yields from https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data and UK fertilizer usage data from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fertiliser-usage. UK national border data were obtained from https://thematicmapping.org/downloads/world_borders.php. The GLiM v1.0 dataset used to identify rock sources is available at https://www.geo.uni-hamburg.de/en/geologie/forschung/aquatische-geochemie/glim.html. Datasets with 5 min resolution on global crop production and yield area to identify cropland are available at http://www.earthstat.org/harvested-area-yield-175-crops/. Datasets on road and rail vector data used for transport network analysis are available at http://www.diva-gis.org/gdata. Datasets on LCA impact factors used for K and P fertilizers are available within Ecoinvent 3.6 at https://ecoinvent.org/. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The weathering model was developed in MATLAB v.R2019a, and data processing was conducted in both MATLAB v.R2019a and Python v.3.7. MATLAB and Python codes developed for this study belong to the Leverhulme Centre for Climate Change Mitigation. These codes, and the modified codes in CLM5 developed in this study, are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Global Climate Action Portal (UNFCCC, accessed 2021); https://climateaction.unfccc.int

  2. Hansen, J. et al. Assessing “dangerous climate change”: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature. PLoS ONE 8, e81648 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Greenhouse Gas Removals—Call for Evidence (HM Government, 2020).

  4. The Sixth Carbon Budget: The UK’s Path to Net Zero (Committee on Climate Change, 2019).

  5. Hartmann, J. et al. Enhanced chemical weathering as a geoengineering strategy to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, supply nutrients, and mitigate ocean acidification. Rev. Geophys. 51, 113–149 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beerling, D. J. et al. Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands. Nature 583, 242–248 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kohler, P., Hartman, J. & Wolf-Gladrow, D. A. Geoengineering potential of artificially enhanced silicate weathering of olivine. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20228–20233 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor, L. L. et al. Enhanced weathering strategies for stabilizing climate and averting ocean acidification. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 402–406 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beerling, D. J. et al. Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants 4, 138–147 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kantola, I. B. et al. Potential of global croplands and bioenergy crops for climate change mitigation through deployment for enhanced weathering. Biol. Lett. 13, 20160714 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kelland, M. E. et al. Increased yield and CO2 sequestration potential with the C4 cereal Sorghum bicolor cultivated in basaltic rock dust-amended agricultural soil. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3658–3676 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vakilifard, N. et al. The role of enhanced weathering deployment with agriculture in limiting future warming and protecting coral reefs. Environ. Res. Lett. 19, 094005 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cox, E. & Edwards, N. R. Beyond carbon pricing: policy levers for negative emissions technologies. Clim. Policy 19, 1144–1156 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blanc-Betes, E. et al. In silico assessment of the potential of basalt amendments to reduce N2O emissions from bioenergy crops. Glob. Change Biol. Bioen. 13, 224–241 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Reay, D. S. et al. Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 410–416 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bhunnoo, R. & Poppy, G. M. A national approach for transformation of the UK food system. Nat. Food 1, 6–8 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Holden, P. B. et al. Climate-carbon cycle uncertainties and the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 609–613 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Renforth, P. The potential of enhanced weathering in the UK. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Cont. 10, 229–243 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith, P., Haszeldine, R. S. & Smith, S. M. Preliminary assessment of the potential for, and limitations to, terrestrial negative emissions technologies in the UK. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 18, 1400–1405 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Royal Academy of Engineering Greenhouse Gas Removal Technologies (The Royal Society, 2018).

  21. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  22. Moosdorf, N., Renforth, P. & Hartmann, J. Carbon dioxide efficiency of terrestrial weathering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 4809–4816 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hartmann, J. & Amann, T. Limits of weathering potentials—deductions from column experiments. In Goldschmidt 2021 (European Geophysical Union, 2021); https://2021.goldschmidt.info/goldschmidt/2021/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/6179

  24. Fletcher, T. I. et al. The carbon sequestration potential of Scottish native woodland. Environ. Res. Commun. 3, 041003 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Friggens, N. L. et al. Tree planting in organic soils does not result in net carbon sequestration on decadal timescales. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 5178–5188 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bradfer-Lawrence, T. et al. The potential contribution of terrestrial nature-based solutions to a national ‘net zero’ climate target. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14003 (2021).

  27. Powlson, D. S. et al. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 678–683 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ostle, N. J., Levy, P. E., Evans, C. D. & Smith, P. UK land use and soil carbon sequestration. Land Use Policy 26S, S274–S283 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Poeplau, C. & Don, A. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops—a meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 33–41 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zamanian, K., Pustovoytov, K. & Kuzyakov, Y. Pedogenic carbonates: forms and formation processes. Earth Sci. Rev. 157, 1–17 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. GB Fertiliser Prices (Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 2020); https://ahdb.org.uk/GB-fertiliser-prices

  32. Schenuit, F. et al. Carbon dioxide removal policy in the making: assessing developments in 9 OECD cases. Front. Clim. 3, 638805 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Clements, J. et al. How can academic research on UK agri-environmental schemes pivot to meet the addition of climate mitigation aims? Land Use Policy 106, 105441 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Goulding, K. W. T. Soil acidification and the importance of liming, agricultural soils with particular reference to the United Kingdom. Soil Use Manag. 32, 390–399 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Holland, J. E. et al. Liming impacts on soils, crops and biodiversity in the UK: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 610-611, 316–332 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Alves, L. A. et al. Biological N2 fixation by soybeans grown with and without liming on acid soils in a no-till integrated crop-livestock system. Soil Till. Res. 209, 104923 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lynch, J. P. & Wojciechowski, T. Opportunities and challenges in the subsoil: pathways to deeper rooted crops. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 2199–2210 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lerhmann, J. & Possinger, A. Atmospheric CO2 removal by rock weathering. Nature 583, 205–205 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Amundson, R. et al. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 348, 126107-1 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Guenet, B. et al. Can N2O emissions offset the benefits from soil organic carbon storage?. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 237–256 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rees, R. M. et al. Nitrous oxide mitigation in UK agriculture. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 59, 3–15 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cox, E., Spence, E. & Pidgeon, N. Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 744–749 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Department for Communities and Local Government Survey of Arisings and Use of Alternatives to Primary Aggregates in England: Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (Crown Estates, 2007).

  44. Moffat, K. et al. in Mining and Sustainable Development: Current Issues (ed. Lodhia, S.) 45–62 (Routledge, 2018).

  45. Cox, E., Pidgeon, N. F., Spence, E. M. & Thomas, G. Blurred lines: the ethics and policy of greenhouse gas removal at scale. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 38 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bradshaw, A. Restoration of mined lands—using natural processes. Ecol. Eng. 8, 255–269 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Novak, J. & Prach, K. Vegetation succession in basalt quarries: pattern on a landscape scale. Appl. Veg. Sci. 6, 111–116 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Herrington, R. Mining our green future. Nat. Rev. Mater. 6, 456–458 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wolske, K. S. et al. Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions. Climatic Change 152, 345–361 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Edwards, D. P. et al. Climate change mitigation: potential benefits and pitfalls of enhanced rock weathering in tropical agriculture. Biol. Lett. 13, 20160715 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Palandri, J. L. & Kharaka, Y. K. A Compilation of Rate Parameters of Water-Mineral Interaction Kinetics for Application to Geochemical Modelling (USGS, 2004).

  52. Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Community Land Model version 5: description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty. Adv. Model. Earth Sys. 11, 4245–4287 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lawrence, D. M. et al. Technical Description of Version 5.0 of the Community Land Model (CLM) (National Center for Atmospheric Research, 2020).

  54. Wieder, W. R. et al. Beyond static benchmarking: using experimental manipulations to evaluate land model assumptions. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 1289–1309 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lombardozzi, D. L. et al. Simulating agriculture in the Community Land Model Version 5. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 125, e2019JG005529 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design. Geosci. Mod. Dev. 9, 2973–2998 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Thomson, A. et al. Quantifying the Impact of Future Land Use Scenarios to 2050 and Beyond (Rothamsted Research, 2018).

  58. British Survey of Fertiliser Practice: Fertiliser Use on Farm for the 2018 Crop Year (DEFRA, 2019); https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/806642/fertiliseruse-statsnotice2018-06jun19.pdf

  59. Fung, K. M., Val Martin, M. & Tai, A. P. K. Modeling the interinfluence of fertilizer-induced NH3 emission, nitrogen deposition, and aerosol radiative effects using modified CESM2. Biogeosciences 19, 1635–1655 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. IPCC IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (eds Eggleston, H. S. et al.) (IGES, 2006).

  61. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (eds Calvo Buendia, E. et al.) (IPCC, 2019).

  62. Hartmann, J. & Kempe, S. What is the maximum potential for CO2 sequestration by “stimulated” weathering on the global scale? Naturwissenschaften 95, 1159–1164 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Taylor, L. L. et al. Increased carbon capture by a silicate-treated forested watershed affected by acid deposition. Biogeosciences 18, 169–199 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Banwart, S. A., Berg, A. & Beerling, D. J. Process-based modelling of silicate mineral weathering responses to increasing atmospheric CO2 and climate change. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB4013 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nelson, P. N. & Su, N. Soil pH buffering capacity: a descriptive function and its application to some acidic tropical soils. Aust. J. Soil Sci. 48, 201–207 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cerling, T. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: evidence from Cenozoic and Mesozoic paleosols. Am. J. Sci. 291, 377–400 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Holland, J. E. et al. Yield responses of arable crops to liming – an evaluation of relationships between yields and soil pH from a long-term liming experiment. Eur. J. Agron. 105, 176–188 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Holden, P. B., Edwards, N. R., Gerten, D. & Schaphoff, S. A model-based constraint on CO2 fertilisation. Biogeosciences 10, 339–355 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Holden, P. B. et al. Controls on the spatial distribution of oceanic δ13C DIC. Biogeosciences 10, 1815–1833 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Foley, A. M. et al. Climate model emulation in an integrated assessment framework: a case study on mitigation policies in the electricity sector. Earth Syst. Dynam. 7, 119–132 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Brown, T. J. et al. Underground Mining of Aggregates Main Report ASRP Project No. 7 (British Geological Survey, 2010).

  72. Van Vuuren, D. P., Bouwman, A. F. & Beusen, A. H. W. Phosphorus demand for the 1970-2100 period: a scenario analysis of resource depletion. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 428–439 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Alewell, C. et al. Global phosphorus shortage will be aggravated by soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 11, 4546 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Gilbert, N. The disappearing nutrient. Nature 461, 716–718 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ciceri, D., Manning, D. A. C. & Allanore, A. Historical and technical developments of potassium resources. Sci. Total Environ. 502, 590–601 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Wernet, G. et al. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1218–1230 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Hartmann, J. & Moosdorf, N. The new global lithological map database GLiM: a representation of rock properties at the Earth surface. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13, Q12004 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Strategy, Road and Rail Vector Data (Ordnance Survey, 2016).

  79. Maguire, D. J. in Encyclopedia of GIS (eds Shekhar, S. & Xiong, H.) 25–31 (Springer, 2008).

  80. Wilkins, J. Transport Statistics Great Britain 2017 79 (Department for Transport, 2017).

  81. The Future of Rail: Opportunities for Energy and the Environment (International Energy Agency, 2019).

  82. Delgado, O., Rodríguez, F. & Moncrieff, R. Fuel Efficiency Technology in European Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Baseline and Potential for the 2020–2030 Time Frame (International Council of Clean Transportation, 2017).

  83. SMMT Truck Specification for Best Operational Efficiency Guide (Department for Transport, 2010).

  84. Analysis of Road and Rail Costs Between Coal Mines and Power Stations (MDS Transmodal Limited, 2012).

  85. Rail Freight Market Share: Freight Rail Usage and Performance 2020-21 Quarter 3 10 (Office of Rail and Road, UK National Statistics, 2021).

  86. Beeson, R. The Rail Central Rail Freight Interchange Appendix 21.2 (National Infrastructure Planning, 2018).

  87. Liimatainen, H., van Vliet, O. & Aplyn, D. The potential of electric trucks—an international commodity-level analysis. Appl. Energy 236, 804–814 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Mercure, J. F. et al. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 588–593 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. E3ME Manual: Version 6.1 (Cambridge Econometrics, 2019); https://www.e3me.com/what/e3me/

  90. Mercure, J.-F. et al. Environmental impact assessment for climate change policy with the simulation-based integrated assessment model E3ME-FTT-GENIE’. Energy Strat. Rev. 20, 195–208 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. The Energy White Paper: Powering Our Net Zero Future (HM Government, 2020).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Le Quéré, A. Collins, R. Freckleton, J. Leake and J. Scurlock for comments on an earlier draft. We gratefully acknowledge funding of this research under a Leverhulme Research Centre Award (RC-2015–029; D.J.B.) from the Leverhulme Trust. D.J.B. and P.R. acknowledge UKRI funding under the UK Greenhouse Gas Removal Programme (BB/V011359/1, D.J.B.; NE/P019943/1, NE/P019730/1, P.R.). M.V.M. acknowledges funding from the UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship Programme (MR/T019867/1). We to acknowledge high-performance computing support from Cheyenne (doi: 10.5065/D6RX99HX) provided by NCAR’s Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, sponsored by the National Science Foundation. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling responsible for CMIP and thank the climate modelling groups for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP, the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leverhulme Centre for Climate Change Mitigation, School of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Euripides P. Kantzas, Maria Val Martin, Mark R. Lomas, Amy L. Lewis, Lyla L. Taylor & David J. Beerling

  2. Advanced Resource Efficiency Centre, Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Rafael M. Eufrasio & Lenny Koh

  3. School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

    Phil Renforth

  4. Global Systems Institute, Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Jean-Francois Mecure & Pim V. Vercoulen

  5. Cambridge Centre for Energy, Environment and Natural Resource Governance, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Jean-Francois Mecure, Hector Pollitt & Neil R. Edwards

  6. Cambridge Econometrics Ltd, Cambridge, UK

    Hector Pollitt & Pim V. Vercoulen

  7. Environment, Earth and Ecosystems, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Negar Vakilifard, Philip B. Holden & Neil R. Edwards

  8. Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Nick F. Pidgeon

  9. Global Food and Environment Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Steven A. Banwart

  10. School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Steven A. Banwart

Authors
  1. Euripides P. Kantzas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Val Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark R. Lomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rafael M. Eufrasio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Phil Renforth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Amy L. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lyla L. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean-Francois Mecure
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hector Pollitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Pim V. Vercoulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Negar Vakilifard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Philip B. Holden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Neil R. Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Lenny Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Nick F. Pidgeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Steven A. Banwart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. David J. Beerling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.J.B., E.P.K., M.V.M., M.R.L., P.R. and S.A.B. designed the study. E.P.K., M.V.M and M.R.L. undertook model development, simulations and coding, with input from L.L.T., S.A.B. and D.J.B. E.P.K. undertook data analysis and synthesis. R.M.E. undertook the UK transport analyses with input from L.K. P.R. developed the silicate supply scenarios, A.L.L. undertook the X-ray diffraction analyses of UK basalts and N.F.P. wrote sections on public perception. N.V. and P.B.H. undertook the GENIE analyses. J.-F.M., H.P., P.V.V., N.R.E. and P.B.H. provided analyses and data on UK national economics, energy production and CO2 emissions. L.L.T. led the drafting of the Supplementary Information. D.J.B. and S.A.B. wrote the manuscript with input from co-authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Beerling.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks Thorben Amann and Ward Smith for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Kyle Frischkorn and Tom Richardson, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Coupled climate-C-N cycle modelling framework.

Schematic overview of coupled climate-carbon-nitrogen modelling strategy for simulating carbon dioxide removal (CDR) with enhanced rock weathering (ERW). CESM, the Community Earth System Model v.2; CLM5, the Community Land Model v.5. Abbreviations. m = monthly time step, y = yearly time step, z = depth.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Logistical CO2 emissions and costs of ERW modelling framework.

Annual (y) energy, economic and transport outputs from E3ME, together with road and rail network analyses, are used to calculate CO2 emissions from ERW logistical operations and costs. The resulting CO2 emissions are subtracted from gross CDR to estimate net CDR and costs of net CDR.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Representation of nitrogen cycle transformations on soil acidity.

Nitrogen cycle transformations represented by the CLM5 land surface model coupled to our soil profile ERW modelling. Indicated is the proton gain or loss associated with each reaction.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Resource extraction scenarios compared with the historical record.

Resource extraction scenarios compared with the historical record. Estimated basalt rock extraction (grey line) and three basalt extraction scenarios (S1-low): ‘maintain 2018 number of mines (+32 Mt yr−1)’, (S2-medium): ‘total rock extraction equivalent to previous 1990 maximum rate (+97 Mt yr−1)’, and S3-high ‘total capacity increase equivalent to 1945 to 1990 (166 Mt yr−1)’) to provide material for ERW simulations reported here. S2 essentially diverts the 100 Mt yr−1 drop in production since 1990 into basalt extraction for CDR, and S3 adopts a rock extraction rate (+166 Mt yr−1) comparable to that reported for 1945–1990 (~180 Mt yr-1). These historical constraints underpin the plausibility of S2 and S3.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 UK energy production and demand for rock grinding.

UK energy production and demand for rock grinding. (a) Energy mix and total annual UK supply modelled by E3ME, (b) absolute energy requirement for rock grinding for three scenarios and (c) percentage of annual UK energy required for rock grinding for the three scenarios.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Uncertainty in ocean CDR with ERW.

Uncertainty in ocean CDR with ERW. Results show ocean CDR simulated by the intermediate complexity Earth System Model, Genie (blue line), and an empirical function accounting CO2, ocean temperature and salinity6 (red dashed line). Panels display results for simulations of scenario 1 for rock grain (a) p80 = 10 µm and (b) p80 =100 µm, scenario 2 for rock grain (c) p80 = 10 µm and (d) p80 =100 µm, and scenario 3 for rock gain (e) p80 = 10 µm and (f) p80 =100 µm. Genie uncertainties represent 90% confidence limits based on ensemble simulations with 84 different parameter sets. The difference the result of Earth system feedbacks in Genie whereby atmospheric CO2 lowered by ERW causes oceanic outgassing, and sediment CaCO3 uptake reduces alkalinity. Simulations use annual alkalinity fluxes generated by the 1-D soil profile weathering with three UK basalts.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Seasonal variations in soil CDR pathway time-series.

Seasonal variations in soil CDR pathway time-series. Illustrative time-series of model dynamics of the two CDR pathways (soil export of alkalinity and formation/dissolution of carbonates) and pH. Simulations were undertaken for Cragmill basalt mineralogy with p80 particle diameter of 100 µm. Left-hand site: winter barley (midlands), right hand site: winter wheat (south east).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 8 Simulated UK energy and economic drivers (2020–2070).

Simulated UK energy and economic drivers (2020–2070). (a) modelled evolution of UK energy supply and mix consistent with specific policies in the 1.5 °C scenario, (b) life cycle CO2 emissions of energy production, (c) median wage rates, (d) industrial electricity tariff with the rapid transition to renewable generation, (e) diesel fuel prices and (f) modelled transitional uptake of electric heavy goods transportation.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 9 Potential mineral nutrient release rates from ERW.

Modelled mineral nutrient release rates from ERW. P- and K-mass transfer from rocks to soil are the mean of simulations for three UK-specific basalts and two p80 values (10 µm and 100 µm diameter). Shaded envelopes show the 95% confidence limits. Dashed lines indicate upper and lower range of major UK tillage crops. Scenario 1 has fewest grid cells but ERW deployment starts early and average release rate increases with repeated rock dust applications. Scenarios 2 and 3 add more grid cells with initial lower release rates causing the average release rate to remain constant. Elements are likely to be retained in the soil column on ion exchange clays (K), and sorbed on secondary minerals (P), for example iron oxides.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–6, Tables 1–7, Methods and references.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

x–y data with uncertainties for all panels.

Source Data Fig. 2

Zipped file of mapped datasets.

Source Data Fig. 3

x–y data with uncertainties for all panels.

Source Data Fig. 4

Zipped file of mapped datasets.

Source Data Fig. 5

x–y data with uncertainties for all panels.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

x–y data with uncertainties for all panels.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

x–y data with uncertainties for all panels.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

x–y data with uncertainties for all panels.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7

x–y data with uncertainties for all panels.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 8

x–y data with uncertainties for all panels.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 9

x–y data with uncertainties for all panels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kantzas, E.P., Val Martin, M., Lomas, M.R. et al. Substantial carbon drawdown potential from enhanced rock weathering in the United Kingdom. Nat. Geosci. 15, 382–389 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00925-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00925-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Microbiology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Microbiology newsletter — what matters in microbiology research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Microbiology