Bioenergy With Carbon Capture And Storage Deployment Research Articles

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), along with Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), feature heavily in climate mitigation scenarios. Nevertheless, the technologies remain controversial within the broader mitigation discourse, in part for their potential to excuse delay in more ambitious emissions reductions in the short term. Sweden has included BECCS and CCS as proposed “supplementary measures” to enable the country to meet its ambitious target of achieving net negative emissions by 2045. Hajer’s Argumentative Approach to Discourse Analysis is applied to Swedish parliamentary speeches, motions, and written questions and answers, to uncover the storylines and attendant assumptions constituting Swedish policy deliberation regarding CCS and BECCS. This study finds that by problematizing climate change as an issue of emissions, actors position CCS and BECCS within a dominant neoliberal discourse and characterize them as tools to facilitate a green transition centering on industrial and economic competitiveness. This discourse lacks detail, and risks delay by oversimplifying the needs and requirements for CCS and BECCS deployment. Meanwhile, a CCS-critical discourse acknowledges the need for negative emissions but challenges storylines portraying the technology as inexpensive or easy to deploy rapidly. If pursued, this discourse could serve to sharpen the debate about the technologies and bring planning in line with aspirations, helping to avert risks of delay.

Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization: EMF37 MARKAL–NETL modeling results

Land-based carbon removals, specifically afforestation/reforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), vary widely in 1.5 °C and 2 °C scenarios generated by integrated assessment models. Because underlying drivers are difficult to assess, we use a well-known integrated assessment model, GCAM, to demonstrate that land-based carbon removals are sensitive to the strength and scope of land-based mitigation policies. We find that while cumulative afforestation/reforestation and BECCS deployment are inversely related, they are both typically part of cost-effective mitigation pathways, with forestry options deployed earlier. While the CO2 removal intensity (removal per unit land) of BECCS is typically higher than afforestation/reforestation over long time horizons, the BECCS removal intensity is sensitive to feedstock and technology choices whereas the afforestation/reforestation removal intensity is sensitive to land policy choices. Finally, we find a generally positive relationship between agricultural prices and removal effectiveness of land-based mitigation, suggesting that some trade-offs may be difficult to avoid.

The most recent IPCC report considers Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) as an unavoidable climate change mitigation measure, although controversial discussions about CDR have taken place in the past. This study contributes to the ongoing debate by providing insights into academic expert opinions about Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS). An online survey was conducted to examine how academic experts (N = 172) perceive and to what extent they support BECCS and DACCS. Overall, the results show rather high expert support for research on and the deployment of BECCS and DACCS. Perceived feasibility of the technologies consistently predicted support for BECCS and DACCS, with means in the upper medium range. Further significant predictors were the extent to which experts perceived the technologies to be necessary, the experts’ amount of academic experience, the associated moral hazard, and the perceived tampering with nature.

Evolution patterns of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) from a science mapping perspective

The role of BECCS in deep decarbonization of China's economy: A computable general equilibrium analysis

To reach the reduced carbon emission targets proposed by the Paris agreement, one of the widely proposed decarbonizing strategies, referred to as negative emissions technologies (NETs), is the production and combustion of bioenergy crops in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). However, concerns have been increasingly raised that relying on the potential of BECCS to achieve negative emissions could result in delayed reductions in gross CO2 emissions, with consequent high risk of overshooting global temperature targets. We focus on two particular issues: the carbon efficiency and payback time of bioenergy use in BECCS and the potential constraints on the supply of bioenergy. The simplistic vision of BECCS is that 1tonne of CO2 captured in the growth of biomass equates to 1tonne of CO2 sequestered geologically, but this cannot be the case as CO2 is emitted by variable amounts during the lifecycle from crop establishment to sequestration below ground in geological formations. The deployment of BECCS is ultimately reliant on the availability of sufficient, sustainably sourced, biomass. The two most important factors determining this supply are land availability and land productivity. The upper bounds of the area estimates required correspond to more than the world's harvested land for cereal production. To achieve these estimates of biomass availability requires the rapid evolution of a multitude of technological, social, political and economic factors. Here, we question whether, because of the limited sustainable supply of biomass, BECCS should continue to be considered the dominant NET in IPCC and other scenarios achieving the Paris targets, or should it be deemed no longer fit for purpose?

Natural gas and BECCS: A comparative analysis of alternative configurations for negative emissions power generation

Optimal Deployment of Bioenergy with Ccs (Beccs) in the UK

Assessing the performance or the implications of climate change mitigation options (CCMOs) is instrumental in achieving research and innovation efficiency in the field of climate change and becomes more imperative considering the Paris Agreement (‘the Agreement’). Many climate scientists already believe that meeting the Agreement’s goals and stabilizing “well-below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels” signals the deployment of currently undetermined and contentious mitigation technologies, such as bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). BECCS is considered one of the most promising negative emissions technologies (NETs) with many scenarios already exhibiting its mitigation potential. However, stakeholders and policymakers remain skeptical about widespread reliance on BECCS questioning its unproven credibility. In this article, we aim at identifying research priorities and assessment needs to intensify the further deployment of BECCS, considering relevant technology associations’ and platforms’ perspectives and insights raised by scientific literature. The main outcome of our study is a list of 10 research priorities along with more specific assessment needs for each priority area. We also focus attention on several implications for potential end-users involved in the field of policy and practice. Overall, our work seeks to bridge the gap between market/industry and academia and to assist policymakers to make better-informed decisions.

Opportunities for application of BECCS in the Australian power sector

Achieving negative emissions with BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) in the power sector: New insights from the TIAM-FR (TIMES Integrated Assessment Model France) model