Merging Climate Action with Energy Security through CCS—A Multi-Disciplinary Framework for Assessment

Abstract

Combining biomass-fired power generation with CO2 capture and storage leads to so-called negative CO2 emissions. Negative CO2 emissions can already be obtained when coal is co-fired with biomass in a power plant with CCS technology. The need for bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage has been identified as one of the key technologies to keep global warming below 2 °C, as this is one of the large-scale technologies that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. According to the definition of bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage, capturing and storing the CO2 originating from biomass, along with the biomass binding with carbon from the atmosphere as it grows, will result in net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Another technology option for CO2 removal from the atmosphere is direct air capture. The idea of a net carbon balance for different systems (including bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage, and direct air capture) has been presented in the literature. This paper gives a background on carbon dioxide removal solutions—with a focus on ecology, economy, and policy-relevant distinctions in technology. As presented in this paper, the bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage is superior to direct air capture for countries like Poland in terms of ecological impact. This is mainly due to the electricity generation mix structure (highly dependent on fossil fuels), which shifts the CO2 emissions to upstream processes, and relatively the low environmental burden for biomass acquisition. Nevertheless, the depletion of non-renewable natural resources for newly built bioenergy power plant with CO2 capture and storage, and direct air capture with surplus wind energy, has a similar impact below 0.5 GJ3x/t of negative CO2 emissions. When the economic factors are a concern, the use of bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage provides an economic justification at current CO2 emission allowance prices of around 90 EUR/t CO2. Conversely, for direct air capture to be viable, the cost would need to be from 3 to 4.5 times higher.