The Value of Bioenergy Sequestration

Moving toward Net-Zero Emissions Requires New Alliances for Carbon Dioxide Removal

Cutting through the noise on negative emissions

ABSTRACTStudies show that the ‘well below 2°C’ target from the Paris Agreement will be hard to meet without large negative emissions from mid-century onwards, which means removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing the carbon dioxide in biomass, soil, suitable geological formations, deep ocean sediments, or chemically bound to certain minerals. Biomass energy combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is the negative emission technology (NET) given most attention in a number of integrated assessment model studies and in the latest IPCC reports. However, less attention has been given to governance aspects of NETs. This study aims to identify pragmatic ways forward for BECCS, through synthesizing the literature relevant to accounting and rewarding BECCS, and its relation to the Paris Agreement. BECCS is divided into its two elements: biomass and CCS. Calculating net negative emissions requires accounting for sustainability and resource use related to biomass energy production, processing and use, and interactions with the global carbon cycle. Accounting for the CCS element of BECCS foremost relates to the carbon dioxide capture rate and safe underground storage. Rewarding BECCS as a NET depends on the efficiency of biomass production, transport and processing for energy use, global carbon cycle feedbacks, and safe storage of carbon dioxide, which together determine net carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. Sustainable biomass production is essential, especially with regard to trade-offs with competing land use. Negative emissions have an added value compared to avoided emissions, which should be reflected in the price of negative emission ‘credits’, but must be discounted due to global carbon cycle feedbacks. BECCS development will depend on linkages to carbon trading mechanisms and biomass trading.Key policy insightsA standardized framework for sustainable biomass should be adopted.Countries should agree on a standardized framework for accounting and rewarding BECCS and other negative emission technologies.Early government support is indispensable to enable BECCS development, scale-up and business engagement.BECCS projects should be designed to maximize learning across various applications and across other NETs.BECCS development should be aligned with modalities of the Paris Agreement and market mechanisms.

Most 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.

Quantifying the global warming potential of carbon dioxide emissions from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

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

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.

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based on purpose‐grown lignocellulosic crops can provide negative CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change, but its land requirements present a threat to biodiversity. Here, we analyse the implications of crop‐based BECCS for global terrestrial vertebrate species richness, considering both the land‐use change (LUC) required for BECCS and the climate change prevented by BECCS. LUC impacts are determined using global‐equivalent, species–area relationship‐based loss factors. We find that sequestering 0.5–5 Gtonne of CO2 per year with lignocellulosic crop‐based BECCS would require hundreds of Mha of land, and commit tens of terrestrial vertebrate species to extinction. Species loss per unit of negative emissions decreases with: (i) longer lifetimes of BECCS systems, (ii) less overall deployment of crop‐based BECCS and (iii) optimal land allocation, that is prioritizing locations with the lowest species loss per negative emission potential, rather than minimizing overall land use or prioritizing locations with the lowest biodiversity. The consequences of prevented climate change for biodiversity are based on existing climate response relationships. Our tentative comparison shows that for crop‐based BECCS considered over 30 years, LUC impacts on vertebrate species richness may outweigh the positive effects of prevented climate change. Conversely, for BECCS considered over 80 years, the positive effects of climate change mitigation on biodiversity may outweigh the negative effects of LUC. However, both effects and their interaction are highly uncertain and require further understanding, along with the analysis of additional species groups and biodiversity metrics. We conclude that factoring in biodiversity means lignocellulosic crop‐based BECCS should be used early to achieve the required mitigation over longer time periods, on optimal biomass cultivation locations, and most importantly, as little as possible where conversion of natural land is involved, looking instead to sustainably grown or residual biomass‐based feedstocks and alternative strategies for carbon dioxide removal.

Carbon removals from nature restoration are no substitute for steep emission reductions

Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a key negative emissions technology that has the potential to substantially reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration and limit global warming to below 2°C. Among the available negative emission technologies, BECCS is projected to produce 50 TWh/yr of power generation, thereby removing 47 MtCO2/yr in 2050 in the UK, as suggested by the Committee for Climate Change. Important indicators when considering the deployment of BECCS is to ensure BECCS has 1) a negative carbon balance, 2) a positive energy balance, and 3) and does not compete for food for agricultural land use. Recovering energy from waste wood and municipal solid waste (MSW) has the potential to generate electricity, deliver negative emissions, whilst minimising land use and biomass import. This study optimises the design of a UK BECCS value chain with a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model. The fuels considered for this work include MSW derived fuel, waste wood (grade A and B), indigenous miscanthus, indigenous poplar, and imported pine pellets from the US. CO2 emissions and costs associated with the entire supply chain are explicitly accounted for. The BECCS supply chain optimisation results indicate that MSW and waste wood are consumed as the basic material supplies, which can provide low-cost alternative to imported biomass. By using MSW and waste wood, the total system cost would be reduced ~12%. Miscanthus is preferred over poplar as the virgin biomass supply and the farms are mostly located in the south of the UK, which has higher production yield and land availability. The selection of BECCS plant locations tends to be near cities where waste wood and MSW are more readily available and then expand to port area. Biomass feedstock derived from wastes are therefore likely to play an important role in BECCS deployment in the UK, in both biomass supply and locations of BECCS facilities.

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is considered a potential source of net negative carbon emissions and, if deployed at sufficient scale, could help reduce carbon dioxide emissions and concentrations. However, the viability and economic consequences of large-scale BECCS deployment are not fully understood. We use the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) integrated assessment model to explore the potential global and regional economic impacts of BECCS. As a negative-emissions technology, BECCS would entail a net subsidy in a policy environment in which carbon emissions are taxed. We show that by mid-century, in a world committed to limiting climate change to 2 °C, carbon tax revenues have peaked and are rapidly approaching the point where climate mitigation is a net burden on general tax revenues. Assuming that the required policy instruments are available to support BECCS deployment, we consider its effects on global trade patterns of fossil fuels, biomass, and agricultural products. We find that in a world committed to limiting climate change to 2 °C, the absence of CCS harms fossil-fuel exporting regions, while the presence of CCS, and BECCS in particular, allows greater continued use and export of fossil fuels. We also explore the relationship between carbon prices, food-crop prices and use of BECCS. We show that the carbon price and biomass and food crop prices are directly related. We also show that BECCS reduces the upward pressure on food crop prices by lowering carbon prices and lowering the total biomass demand in climate change mitigation scenarios. All of this notwithstanding, many challenges, both technical and institutional, remain to be addressed before BECCS can be deployed at scale.

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.

Global Negative Emission Land Use Scenarios and Their Ecological Implications

Projections of the pathways that reduce carbon emission to the levels consistent with limiting global average temperature increases to 1.5°C or 2°C above پاره-p990industrial levels often require negative emission technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), it involves the conversion of biomass to energy, producing CO2 which is sequestered, transported and then permanently stored in a suitable geological formation. The potential of BECCS to remove CO2 from the atmosphere makes it an attractive approach to help achieving the ambitious global warming targets of COP 21. BECCS has a range of variables such as the type of biomass resource, the conversion technology, the CO2 capture process used and storage options. Each of the pathways to connect these options has its own environmental, economic and social impacts. This study gives an overview of Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage for the purpose of carbon mitigation while the challenges associated with using biomaterial was assessed, such as land use, water consumption and its economic constraints. The more certain way forward to underpin BECCS deployment, is to ensure that there is strong social support and integrated policy schemes that recognize, support and reward negative emission, for without negative emissions delivered through BECCS and perhaps other technologies, there is little prospect of the global targets agreed to at Paris, being met.

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.