The role of renewables in achieving net-zero in China's electricity sector: An environmental assessment from a life cycle perspective

Chapter 17 - Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

Delivering negative emissions with BECCS – A Life Cycle Assessment of coal-waste co-firing with CO2 transport and storage

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) holds promise for achieving negative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while generating electricity. When using forestry or agricultural residues as feedstock, BECCS may also avoid or reduce land‐use based impacts compared to dedicated energy crops. It is, however, unclear how negative emissions from residue‐based BECCS compare to alternative uses (bioenergy with no CCS, 2G ethanol, paper and boards, animal feed and decomposition) and how quickly BECCS can achieve climate benefits compared to these other uses. In this study, we used life‐cycle assessment (LCA) to quantify supply chain emissions of BECCS for two power plants in the Netherlands, using residue‐based wood pellets from Louisiana, USA, and sugarcane bagasse pellets from Louisiana and São Paulo, Brazil, as feedstock. Using an attributional LCA approach, we showed that the two BECCS plants combined use 7.5 Mt of biomass dry per year. This system generates between 10.3 and 11.1 TWh of electricity and provides 11.0 and 11.3 Mt CO 2 ‐eq. of negative emissions annually, for wood or bagasse, respectively. This results in a footprint of −0.63 (wood) and −0.65 (bagasse) t CO 2 ‐eq./t wet biomass . Following a consequential approach, we contrasted the GHG emissions per tonne of biomass residue used for BECCS with those associated with alternative uses, accounting for the (avoided) emissions from any substituted products and electricity. Here, BECCS negative emissions of approximately −0.6 t CO 2 ‐eq./t wet biomass compare favourably to emissions of alternative uses, which range from −0.3 to +0.12 t CO 2 ‐eq./t wet biomass . This study showed BECCS' potential for achieving negative emissions and climate benefits compared to other biomass uses.

In response to the climate crisis, the United States has embarked on an ambitious program to achieve 100% carbon‐free electricity generation by 2035 and net‐zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The implementation of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) systems is an essential component of that strategy. BECCS is broadly defined as the utilization of biomass energy (from the processing of solids, liquids, or vapors) with the capture of carbon dioxide and subsequent permanent storage in a deep geological formation. There are numerous potential technologies and flowsheets for implementing BECCS, and the supply chains rely upon support from the agricultural, forestry, and solid waste industries. Inherent in BECCS systems are the hazards associated with combustible dusts, spontaneous ignition and smoldering of combustible solids, flammable liquids, flammable vapors and gases, toxic gases, and more. For BECCS to be deployed commercially across the United States, it is imperative that process safety risks are controlled. A risk‐based process safety (RBPS) program can help manage the risks of a BECCS facility and minimize process safety incidents. In this paper, we present two representative bioenergy technologies as mini‐case studies to illustrate the range of process hazards encountered. Process safety strategies required by regulation are briefly reviewed and potential gaps are identified. We then demonstrate how RBPS can be implemented in a practical and effective manner to fill the gaps.

Governance of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): accounting, rewarding, and the Paris agreement

In terms of climate mitigation options, the theoretical potential of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is substantial; introducing the prospect of negative emissions, it offers the vision of drawing atmospheric CO2 concentrations back down to pre‐industrial levels. This paper reviews issues raised at a workshop on BECCS, convened in Scotland in late 2009. Presentations by bioenergy and CCS specialists covered topics including the climate policy rationale for BECCS, global biomass CCS potential, the UK potential for BECCS, the risk of fossil fuel lock‐in via coal co‐firing, and carbon market issues. In practice, the scale of the forestry and accessible CCS infrastructure required are among the obstacles to the large‐scale deployment of BECCS in the near term. While biomass co‐firing with coal offers an early route to BECCS, a quite substantial (>20%) biomass component may be necessary to achieve negative emissions in a co‐fired CCS system. Smaller scale BECCS, through co‐location of dedicated or co‐combusted biomass on fossil CCS CO2 transport pipeline routes, is easier to envisage and would be potentially less problematic. Hence, we judge that BECCS can, and likely will, play a role in carbon reduction, but care needs to be taken not to exaggerate its potential, given that (i) there are few studies of the cost of connecting bio‐processing (combustion, gasification or other) infrastructure with CO2 storage sites and (ii) that scenarios of global bioenergy potential remain contentious. © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) technology is expected to support net-zero targets by supplying low carbon energy while providing carbon dioxide removal (CDR). BECCS is estimated to deliver 20 to 70 MtCO2 annual negative emissions by 2050 in the UK, despite there are currently no BECCS operating facility. This research is modelling and demonstrating the flexibility, scalability and attainable immediate application of BECCS. The CDR potential for two out of three BECCS pathways considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios were quantified (i) modular-scale CHP process with post-combustion CCS utilising wheat straw and (ii) hydrogen production in a small-scale gasifier with pre-combustion CCS utilising locally sourced waste wood. Process modelling and lifecycle assessment were used, including a whole supply chain analysis. The investigated BECCS pathways could annually remove between −0.8 and −1.4 tCO2e tbiomass−1 depending on operational decisions. Using all the available wheat straw and waste wood in the UK, a joint CDR capacity for both systems could reach about 23% of the UK's CDR minimum target set for BECCS. Policy frameworks prioritising carbon efficiencies can shape those operational decisions and strongly impact on the overall energy and CDR performance of a BECCS system, but not necessarily maximising the trade-offs between biomass use, energy performance and CDR. A combination of different BECCS pathways will be necessary to reach net-zero targets. Decentralised BECCS deployment could support flexible approaches allowing to maximise positive system trade-offs, enable regional biomass utilisation and provide local energy supply to remote areas.

Can bioenergy with carbon capture and storage deliver negative emissions? A critical review of life cycle assessment

This paper compares the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of natural gas (NG)- based fuels to the GHG emissions of electric vehicles (EVs) powered with NG-to-electricity in China. A life-cycle model is used to account for full fuel cycle and use-phase emissions, as well as vehicle cycle and battery manufacturing. The reduction of life-cycle GHG emissions of EVs charged by electricity generated from NG, without utilizing carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology can be 36%–47% when compared to gasoline vehicles. The large range change in emissions reduction potential is driven by the different generation technologies that could in the future be used to generate electricity in China. When CCS is employed in power plants, the GHG emission reductions increase to about 71%–73% compared to gasoline vehicles. It is found that compressed NG (CNG) and liquefied NG (LNG) fuels can save about 10% of carbon as compared to gasoline vehicles. However, gas-to-liquid (GTL) fuel made through the Fischer-Tropsch method will likely lead to a life-cycle GHG emissions increase, potentially 3%–15% higher than gasoline, but roughly equal to petroleum-based diesel. When CCS is utilized, the GTL fueled vehicles emit roughly equal GHG emissions to petroleum-based diesel fuel high-efficient hybrid electric vehicle from the life-cycle perspective.

This paper explores the potential role of bioenergy coupled to carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (BECCS) in long-term global scenarios. We first validate past insights regarding the potential use of BECCS in achieving climate goals based on results from 11 integrated assessment models (IAMs) that participated in the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33). As found in previous studies, our results consistently project large-scale cost-effective BECCS deployment. However, we also find a strong synergistic nexus between CCS and biomass, with bioenergy the preferred fuel for CCS as the climate constraint increases. Specifically, the share of bioenergy that is coupled to CCS technologies increases since CCS effectively enhances the emissions mitigation capacity of bioenergy. For the models that include BECCS technologies across multiple sectors, there is significant deployment in conjunction with liquid fuel or hydrogen production to decarbonize the transportation sector. Using a wide set of scenarios, we find carbon removal to be crucial to achieving goals consistent with 1.5 °C warming. However, we find earlier BECCS deployment but not necessarily greater use in the long-term since ultimately deployment is limited by economic competition with other carbon-free technologies, especially in the electricity sector, by land-use competition (especially with food) affecting biomass feedstock availability and price, and by carbon storage limitations. The extent of BECCS deployment varies based on model assumptions, with BECCS deployment competitive in some models below carbon prices of 100 US$/tCO2. Without carbon removal, 2 °C is infeasible in some models, while those that solve find similar levels of bioenergy use but substantially greater mitigation costs. Overall, the paper provides needed transparency regarding BECCS’ role, and results highlight a strong nexus between bioenergy and CCS, and a large reliance on not-yet-commercial BECCS technologies for achieving climate goals.

Climate change poses an imminent threat, necessitating innovative and sustainable strategies for mitigation. This paper explores the potential of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) as a promising approach. The introductory section sets the stage by elucidating the urgency of climate action. The background section surveys existing climate mitigation strategies, introducing bioenergy and carbon capture technologies. The paper delves into the distinctive contributions of bioenergy to carbon emission reduction and assesses the viability of various bioenergy sources. Simultaneously, the discussion on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) provides insight into the technological aspects of carbon capture. An integral focus is the integration of bioenergy and carbon capture technologies in BECCS, exploring synergies that enhance their combined efficacy. Real-world examples and case studies illustrate successful BECCS projects. Environmental and social impacts are critically examined, considering sustainability and ethical dimensions. Challenges and criticisms associated with BECCS are discussed comprehensively, addressing concerns and proposing potential solutions. The paper concludes by outlining future prospects for BECCS, offering recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders. It also suggests avenues for further research and development in this evolving field. Keywords: Bioenergy, Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Climate Mitigation.

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has been identified as the most viable and cost-effective technology to achieving the 1.5°C targets set down in the 2015 Paris Agreement. It is essential to understand the impact of BECCS on carbon dioxide removal at a commercial scale. As such, this research presents an extensive life cycle analysis and optimisation of BECCS. To ensure the proposed methodology is appropriate for this research, case study of three cases is performed. In the case study, an existing coal-fired power plant is used as a base case for comparison between 2 different BECCS configurations. A regional assessment of the BECCS configurations from various critical performance aspects is then performed. This consists of assessing the system effectiveness, environmental impacts, energy efficiency, and cost optimisation from a life cycle perspective.

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) features heavily in the energy scenarios designed to meet the Paris Agreement targets, but the models used to generate these scenarios do not address environmental and social implications of BECCS at the regional scale. We integrate ecosystem service values into a land‐use optimization tool to determine the favourability of six potential UK locations for a 500 MW BECCS power plant operating on local biomass resources. Annually, each BECCS plant requires 2.33 Mt of biomass and generates 2.99 Mt CO2of negative emissions and 3.72 TWh of electricity. We make three important discoveries: (a) the impacts of BECCS on ecosystem services are spatially discrete, with the most favourable locations for UK BECCS identified at Drax and Easington, where net annual welfare values (from the basket of ecosystems services quantified) of £39 and £25 million were generated, respectively, with notably lower annual welfare values at Barrow (−£6 million) and Thames (£2 million); (b) larger BECCS deployment beyond 500 MW reduces net social welfare values, with a 1 GW BECCS plant at Drax generating a net annual welfare value of £19 million (a 50% decline compared with the 500 MW deployment), and a welfare loss at all other sites; (c) BECCS can be deployed to generate net welfare gains, but trade‐offs and co‐benefits between ecosystem services are highly site and context specific, and these landscape‐scale, site‐specific impacts should be central to future BECCS policy developments. For the United Kingdom, meeting the Paris Agreement targets through reliance on BECCS requires over 1 GW at each of the six locations considered here and is likely, therefore, to result in a significant welfare loss. This implies that an increased number of smaller BECCS deployments will be needed to ensure a win–win for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services.

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.

A Sustainability Framework for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) Technologies