scholarly journals Technoeconomic Analysis of Negative Emissions Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage through Pyrolysis and Bioenergy District Heating Infrastructure

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Chao Lim ◽  
Amanda Cuellar ◽  
Kyle Langseth ◽  
Jefferson L. Waldon
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
District Heating ◽  
Technoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Negative Emissions ◽  
And Storage

scholarly journals The Potential for Ocean-Based Climate Action: Negative Emissions Technologies and Beyond

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Pierre Gattuso ◽  
Phillip Williamson ◽  
Carlos M. Duarte ◽  
Alexandre K. Magnan
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Coastal Vegetation ◽  
Ocean Productivity ◽  
Negative Emissions ◽  
Climate Action ◽  
Nationally Determined Contributions ◽  
And Storage

The effectiveness, feasibility, duration of effects, co-benefits, disbenefits, cost effectiveness and governability of four ocean-based negative emissions technologies (NETs) are assessed in comparison to eight other ocean-based measures. Their role in revising UNFCCC Parties' future Nationally Determined Contributions is discussed in the broad context of ocean-based actions for both mitigation and ecological adaptation. All measures are clustered in three policy-relevant categories (Decisive, Low Regret, Concept Stage). None of the ocean-based NETs assessed are identified as Decisive at this stage. One is Low Regret (Restoring and increasing coastal vegetation), and three are at Concept Stage, one with low to moderate potential disbenefits (Marine bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) and two with potentially high disbenefits (Enhancing open-ocean productivity and Enhancing weathering and alkalinization). Ocean-based NETs are uncertain but potentially highly effective. They have high priority for research and development.

The 1.5°C Target, Political Implications, and the Role of BECCS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Fuss
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Carbon Budget ◽  
Agricultural Sector ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Direct Air Capture ◽  
Prime Concern ◽  
Negative Emissions ◽  
Air Capture ◽  
And Storage

The 2°C target for global warming had been under severe scrutiny in the run-up to the climate negotiations in Paris in 2015 (COP21). Clearly, with a remaining carbon budget of 470–1,020 GtCO2eq from 2015 onwards for a 66% probability of stabilizing at concentration levels consistent with remaining below 2°C warming at the end of the 21st century and yearly emissions of about 40 GtCO2 per year, not much room is left for further postponing action. Many of the low stabilization pathways actually resort to the extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere (known as negative emissions or Carbon Dioxide Removal [CDR]), mostly by means of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): if the biomass feedstock is produced sustainably, the emissions would be low or even carbon-neutral, as the additional planting of biomass would sequester about as much CO2 as is generated during energy generation. If additionally carbon capture and storage is applied, then the emissions balance would be negative. Large BECCS deployment thus facilitates reaching the 2°C target, also allowing for some flexibility in other sectors that are difficult to decarbonize rapidly, such as the agricultural sector. However, the large reliance on BECCS has raised uneasiness among policymakers, the public, and even scientists, with risks to sustainability being voiced as the prime concern. For example, the large-scale deployment of BECCS would require vast areas of land to be set aside for the cultivation of biomass, which is feared to conflict with conservation of ecosystem services and with ensuring food security in the face of a still growing population.While the progress that has been made in Paris leading to an agreement on stabilizing “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C” was mainly motivated by the extent of the impacts, which are perceived to be unacceptably high for some regions already at lower temperature increases, it has to be taken with a grain of salt: moving to 1.5°C will further shrink the time frame to act and BECCS will play an even bigger role. In fact, aiming at 1.5°C will substantially reduce the remaining carbon budget previously indicated for reaching 2°C. Recent research on the biophysical limits to BECCS and also other negative emissions options such as Direct Air Capture indicates that they all run into their respective bottlenecks—BECCS with respect to land requirements, but on the upside producing bioenergy as a side product, while Direct Air Capture does not need much land, but is more energy-intensive. In order to provide for the negative emissions needed for achieving the 1.5°C target in a sustainable way, a portfolio of negative emissions options needs to minimize unwanted effects on non–climate policy goals.

scholarly journals Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): Finding the win–wins for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services—size matters

GCB Bioenergy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 586-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caspar Donnison ◽  
Robert A. Holland ◽  
Astley Hastings ◽  
Lindsay‐Marie Armstrong ◽  
Felix Eigenbrod ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Negative Emissions ◽  
And Storage

scholarly journals BECCS and DACCS as Negative Emission Providers in an Intermittent Electricity System: Why Levelized Cost of Carbon May Be a Misleading Measure for Policy Decisions

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariliis Lehtveer ◽  
Anna Emanuelsson
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Total System ◽  
Solar Pv ◽  
Levelized Cost Of Electricity ◽  
Electricity System ◽  
Levelized Cost ◽  
Negative Emissions ◽  
Negative Emission ◽  
And Storage

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere is likely to be needed to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2°C and thereby for meeting the Paris Agreement. There is a debate which methods are most suitable and cost-effective for this goal and thus deeper understanding of system effects related to CDR are needed for effective governance of these technologies. Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) are two CDR methods, that have a direct relation to the electricity system—BECCS via producing it and DACCS via consuming. In this work, we investigate how BECCS and DACCS interact with an intermittent electricity system to achieve net negative emissions in the sector using an energy system model and two regions with different wind and solar resource conditions. The analysis shows that DACCS has a higher levelized cost of carbon (LCOC) than BECCS, implying that it is less costly to capture CO2 using BECCS under the assumptions made in this study. However, due to a high levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) produced by BECCS, the total system cost is lower using DACCS as negative emission provider as it is more flexible and enables cheaper electricity production from wind and solar PV. We also find that the replacement effect outweighs the flexibility effect. Since variations in solar-based systems are more regular and shorter (daily cycles), one could assume that DACCS is better suited for such systems, whereas our results point in the opposite direction showing that DACCS is more competitive in the wind-based systems. The result is sensitive to the price of biomass and to the amount of negative emissions required from the electricity sector. Our results show that the use of the LCOC as often presented in the literature as a main indicator for choosing between different CDR options might be misleading and that broader system effects need to be considered for well-grounded decisions.

scholarly journals Negative emissions technologies and carbon capture and storage to achieve the Paris Agreement commitments

2018 ◽  
Vol 376 (2119) ◽  
pp. 20160447 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Stuart Haszeldine ◽  
Stephanie Flude ◽  
Gareth Johnson ◽  
Vivian Scott
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Climate Mitigation ◽  
Emission Rates ◽  
Negative Emissions ◽  
Warming World ◽  
And Storage

How will the global atmosphere and climate be protected? Achieving net-zero CO 2 emissions will require carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reduce current GHG emission rates, and negative emissions technology (NET) to recapture previously emitted greenhouse gases. Delivering NET requires radical cost and regulatory innovation to impact on climate mitigation. Present NET exemplars are few, are at small-scale and not deployable within a decade, with the exception of rock weathering, or direct injection of CO 2 into selected ocean water masses. To keep warming less than 2°C, bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) has been modelled but does not yet exist at industrial scale. CCS already exists in many forms and at low cost. However, CCS has no political drivers to enforce its deployment. We make a new analysis of all global CCS projects and model the build rate out to 2050, deducing this is 100 times too slow. Our projection to 2050 captures just 700 Mt CO 2  yr −1 , not the minimum 6000 Mt CO 2  yr −1 required to meet the 2°C target. Hence new policies are needed to incentivize commercial CCS. A first urgent action for all countries is to commercially assess their CO 2 storage. A second simple action is to assign a Certificate of CO 2 Storage onto producers of fossil carbon, mandating a progressively increasing proportion of CO 2 to be stored. No CCS means no 2°C. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.

scholarly journals Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 6851-6875 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Hansson ◽  
Mathias Fridahl ◽  
Simon Haikola ◽  
Pius Yanda ◽  
Noah Pauline ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Point Sources ◽  
Biomass Energy ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Climate Mitigation ◽  
Mitigation Scenarios ◽  
Negative Emissions ◽  
And Storage

AbstractMost mitigation scenarios compatible with a likely change of holding global warming well below 2 °C rely on negative emissions technologies (NETs). According to the integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to produce mitigation scenarios for the IPCC reports, the NET with the greatest potential to achieve negative emissions is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Crucial questions arise about where the enormous quantities of biomass needed according to the IAM scenarios could feasibly be produced in a sustainable manner. Africa is attractive in the context of BECCS because of large areas that could contribute biomass energy and indications of substantial underground CO2 storage capacities. However, estimates of large biomass availability in Africa are usually based on highly aggregated datasets, and only a few studies explore future challenges or barriers for BECCS in any detail. Based on previous research and literature, this paper analyses the pre-conditions for BECCS in Tanzania by studying what we argue are the applications of BECCS, or the components of the BECCS chain, that are most feasible in the country, namely (1) as applied to domestic sugarcane-based energy production (bioethanol), and (2) with Tanzania in a producer and re-growth role in an international BECCS chain, supplying biomass or biofuels for export to developed countries. The review reveals that a prerequisite for both options is either the existence of a functional market for emissions trading and selling, making negative emissions a viable commercial investment, or sustained investment through aid programmes. Also, historically, an important barrier to the development of production capacity of liquid biofuels for export purposes has been given by ethical dilemmas following in the wake of demand for land to facilitate production of biomass, such as sugarcane and jatropha. In these cases, conflicts over access to land and mismanagement have been more of a rule than an exception. Increased production volumes of solid biomass for export to operations that demand bioenergy, be it with or without a CCS component, is likely to give rise to similar conflicts. While BECCS may well play an important role in reducing emissions in countries with high capacity to act combined with existing large point sources of biogenic CO2 emissions, it seems prudent to proceed with utmost caution when implicating BECCS deployment in least developed countries, like Tanzania.The paper argues that negative BECCS-related emissions from Tanzania should not be assumed in global climate mitigation scenarios.

scholarly journals Techno-Economic and Partial Environmental Analysis of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCU/S): Case Study from Proposed Waste-Fed District-Heating Incinerator in Sweden

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (15) ◽  
pp. 5922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Mikhelkis ◽  
Venkatesh Govindarajan
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
District Heating ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Waste To Energy ◽  
Carbon Taxes ◽  
And Storage

Sweden aspires to become totally carbon dioxide-neutral by 2045. Indisputably, what is needed is not just a reduction in the emissions of CO2 (greenhouse gases in general) from the technosphere, but also a manipulated diversion of CO2 from the atmosphere to ‘traps’ in the lithosphere, technosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. The case study in this paper focused on Stockholm Exergi’s proposed waste-to-energy incineration plant in Lövsta, which is keen on incorporating carbon capture and storage (CCS), but is also interested in understanding the potential of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCU/S) in helping it to achieve ‘carbon-dioxide-negativity’. Waste-to-energy incineration plants (in cases where the petro-plastics in the waste mix can be substantially reduced) are a key component of a circular bio-economy, though the circularity here pertains to recovering energy from materials which may or may not be recyclable. CCS (storage in the North Sea) was compared with CCU/S (CO2 sintered into high-quality building blocks made of recycled slag from the steel sector) from techno-economic and environmental perspectives. The comparative analysis shows, inter alia, that a hybridized approach—a combination of CCS and CCU/S—is worth investing in. CCU/S, at the time of writing, is simply a pilot project in Belgium, a possible creatively-destructive technology which may or may not usurp prominence from CCS. The authors believe that political will and support with incentives, subsidies, and tax rebates are indispensable to motivate investments in such ground-breaking technologies and moving away from the easier route of paying carbon taxes or purchasing emission rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document