Unlocking the potential of BECCS with indigenous sources of biomass at a national scale

Zhang, D.; Bui, Mai; Fajardy, Mathilde; Patrizio, Piera; Kraxner, Florian; Dowell, Niall Mac

doi:10.1039/c9se00609e

Cited by 28 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other biomass resources (such as municipal solid waste) have much lower quality and would require alternative conversion mechanisms outside the scope of this study. While the conversion parameters for the considered biomass are similar, they do show some differences arising due to differences in moisture content-as estimated by Zhang et al 27 The heating value for crop residues, forest residues, and urban wood are 18.7, 15.1, and 18.7 MJ kg −1 while the corresponding efficiencies are 28.5, 29.6, and 28.3%, respectively. Accordingly, once the biomass provision is allocated to each power plant, the overall efficiency and heating values are estimated as the weighted average of the three forms of biomass ( Fig.…”

Section: Power Plant Operationssupporting

confidence: 55%

“…Regarding feedstock, input values for carbon content and heating value correspond to the values of crop residues, forest residues and urban wood as mentioned in references. 26,27 The biomass availability data for each county in the United States is available via the NREL Biomass Atlas, 29 as described in the T-BECCS section In continuation of Baik et al, 13 we only consider crop residuals, forest residues and urban wood to be fit for direct T-BECCS conversion. Other biomass resources (such as municipal solid waste) have much lower quality and would require alternative conversion mechanisms outside the scope of this study.…”

Section: Power Plant Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, forest residues have a heating value of 15 120 MJ/dry ton with a slightly higher efficiency of 29.5%. 27 This leads to around 19% higher costs of biomass transport per functional unit transport for the same hypothetical distance. It is also noteworthy that most counties considered in our model as biomass hotspots have a dominant supply of crop residues and urban wood (Fig.…”

Section: Identifying Regional Trends In Tands Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accounting for the role of transport and storage infrastructure costs in carbon negative bioenergy deployment

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deployment of bioenergy with CO 2 capture and storage (BECCS) is projected to be crucial in reducing the United States' CO 2 emissions intensity. In this paper, we utilize a spatially explicit costing model to evaluate how regional biophysical factors and geography affect BECCS viability. We find that the cost of biomass provision and CO 2 transport and storage are an average of $20/t-CO 2 and $16/t-CO 2 for aquatic and terrestrial BECCS, respectively. Assuming rapid technological development in the CO 2 capture domain, this corresponds to 40-72% of land area in the conterminous United States exhibiting systems integration costs compatible with 2030 carbon prices (median $90/t-CO 2). Results are strongly influenced by the cost of geologic sequestration, in particular storage quality (as driven by depth, permeability, etc.) and available capacity, rather than simply proximity to nearby CO 2 sources. For this reason, the Southeast presents appealing BECCS readiness owing to high biomass productivity (several counties with yield >100 000 dry ton of biomass per year) interspersed with well-explored sinks with large sequestration potential and optimal reservoir quality with permeability >500 mD. We also find that geologic storage capacity is unlikely to be a major biophysical constraint, as sink utilization in most states would likely remain below 10% at the projected rates of BECCS deployment to achieve the 2°C target and as low as 1% in Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama. The analysis also reveals subtle secondary outcomes; for example, to what extent different regions may be well poised to adopt different, complementary negative emissions technologies based on specific confluences of circumstances.

show abstract

Section: Power Plant Operationssupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Power Plant Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identifying Regional Trends In Tands Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accounting for the role of transport and storage infrastructure costs in carbon negative bioenergy deployment

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, a comparison between the different NET options to provide negative emissions services can identify cost-effective opportunities. 79 At lower CO 2 removal targets, natural gas is used as the principal heating fuel with ATRs dispensing H 2 in favourable locations to achieve lower overall total system costs. In addition to the ATRs, SMRs with syngas capture contribute significantly towards overall H 2 supply as evidenced by almost 14 GW of capacity via this technology under a CO 2 reduction level of 50%.…”

Section: Which H 2 Production Technologies To Deploy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What is needed to deliver carbon-neutral heat using hydrogen and CCS?

Sunny

Dowell

Shah

2020

Energy Environ. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The former would contribute less to mitigation as secondary biomass supply is limited and there are risks of disrupting nutrient cycles and soil degradation, which can cause carbon emissions. The latter could ramp up mitigation, but would entail landuse change (Zhang et al, 2020). The level of participation in policy implementation could determine the social impact of such land-use change (Dooley & Kartha, 2018).…”

Section: Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage (Beccs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential implications of carbon dioxide removal for the sustainable development goals

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the international community's best expression of a collective vision of a desirable future, the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present a framework against which to assess the broader impact of emerging technologies. Implications of technologies and practices for removing CO 2 from the atmosphere (CDR) are not fully understood and have not yet been mapped against the full range of SDGs. CDR is widely seen as necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement's global goal of limiting warming to 1.5-2°C, yet local geographical, socioeconomic , and political interdependencies are often overlooked. This review synthesizes the best available understandings of potential implications of CDR options aiming to complement emissions reductions. It seeks to identify effects on and interactions between specific social, environmental, and policy environments, in which various CDR options could be pursued. Climate change mitigation and co-benefits from CDR could significantly benefit SDGs, yet poorly designed CDR policies could also challenge SDGs. Specific CDR options could generate conflicts over land, water, biomass, or electric power resources, and exclude communities from policy benefits with negative cascading effects for a range of SDGs. In the literature, implications of CDR activities on sustainable development are derived from current pilot activities, inferred from similar practices already operational or model outputs regarding land, energy, or material requirements. Important gaps remain. We identify questions for further disciplinary and inter-or transdisciplinary work strengthening understanding of how CDR could either support or threaten the achievement of the SDGs. Key policy insights. CO 2 removal (CDR) appears essential for limiting warming to well below 2°C; such stabilization of global climate is a precondition for at least partially achieving the SDGs.. CDR options can generate positive and negative local/regional impacts on various SDGs via physical, social, economic, and political channels. None of these options are universally 'good' or 'bad'.. The scale of implementation of CDR and related impacts are highly dependent on policy design and national planning processes.. More research is needed to clarify how policy design can allow CDR options to generate synergies between, and prevent harm across, multiple SDGs.

show abstract

Unlocking the potential of BECCS with indigenous sources of biomass at a national scale

Abstract: Secondary sources of biomass (forest residue, crop residue, MSW and waste wood) will play an important role in improving the negative emissions potential of BECCS by reducing carbon emissions along the biomass supply chain.

Cited by 28 publications

References 65 publications

Accounting for the role of transport and storage infrastructure costs in carbon negative bioenergy deployment

Accounting for the role of transport and storage infrastructure costs in carbon negative bioenergy deployment

What is needed to deliver carbon-neutral heat using hydrogen and CCS?

Potential implications of carbon dioxide removal for the sustainable development goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About