Mathilde Fajardy

Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) in general and bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage (BECCS) in particular are commonly regarded as vital yet controversial to meeting our climate goals. In this contribution we present a whole-systems analysis of the BECCS value chain associated with cultivation, harvesting, transport and conversion in dedicated biomass power stations in conjunction with CCS, of a range of biomass resources – both dedicated energy crops (miscanthus, switchgrass, short rotation coppice willow), and agricultural residues (wheat straw). We explicitly consider the implications of sourcing the biomass from different regions, climates and land types. The water, carbon and energy footprints of each value chain were calculated, and their impact on the overall system water, carbon and power efficiencies was evaluated. An extensive literature review was performed and a statistical analysis of the available data is presented. In order to describe the dynamic greenhouse gas balance of such a system, a yearly accounting of the emissions was performed over the lifetime of a BECCS facility, and the carbon “breakeven time” and lifetime net CO2 removal from the atmosphere were determined. The effects of direct and indirect land use change were included, and were found to be a key determinant of the viability of a BECCS project. Overall we conclude that, depending on the conditions of its deployment, BECCS could lead to both carbon positive and negative results. The total quantity of CO2 removed from the atmosphere over the project lifetime and the carbon breakeven time were observed to be highly case specific. This has profound implications for the policy frameworks required to incentivise and regulate the widespread deployment of BECCS technology. The results of a sensitivity analysis on the model combined with the investigation of alternate supply chain scenarios elucidated key levers to improve the sustainability of BECCS: (1) measuring and limiting the impacts of direct and indirect land use change, (2) using carbon neutral power and organic fertilizer, (3) minimising biomass transport, and prioritising sea over road transport, (4) maximising the use of carbon negative fuels, and (5) exploiting alternative biomass processing options, e.g., natural drying or torrefaction. A key conclusion is that, regardless of the biomass and region studied, the sustainability of BECCS relies heavily on intelligent management of the supply chain.

Correction: Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions?

Correction for ‘Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions?’ by Mathilde Fajardy et al., Energy Environ. Sci., 2017, 10, 1389–1426.

Investigating the BECCS resource nexus: delivering sustainable negative emissions

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and other negative emissions technologies (NETs), are integral to all scenarios consistent with meeting global climate ambitions. BECCSs ability to promptly remove CO2 from the atmosphere in a resource efficient manner, whilst being a net energy generator to the global economy, remains controversial. Given the large range of potential outcomes, it is crucial to understand how, if at all, this technology can be deployed in a way which minimises its impact on natural resources and ecosystems, while maximising both carbon removal and power generation. In this study, we present a series of thought experiments, using the Modelling and Optimisation of Negative Emissions Technologies (MONET) framework, to provide insight into the combinations of biomass feedstock, origin, land type, and transport route, to meet a given CO2 removal target. The optimal structure of an international BECCS supply chain was found to vary both quantitatively and qualitatively as the focus shifted from conserving water, land or biomass, to maximising energy generated, with the water use in particular increasing threefold in the land and biomass use minimisation scenario, as compared to the water minimisation scenario. In meeting regional targets, imported biomass was consistently chosen over indigenous biomass in the land and water minimisation scenarios, confirming the dominance of factors such as yield, electricity grid carbon intensity, and precipitation, over transport distance. A pareto-front analysis was performed and, in addition to highlighting the strong trade-offs between BECCS resource efficiency objectives, indicated the potential for tipping points. An analysis of the sensitivity to the availability of marginal land and agricultural residues showed that (1) the availability of agricultural residues had a great impact on BECCS land, and that (2) water use and land use change, two critical sustainability indicators for BECCS, were negatively correlated. Finally, we showed that maximising energy production increased water use and land use fivefold, and land use change by two orders of magnitude. It is therefore likely that an exclusive focus on energy generation and CO2 removal can result in negative consequences for the broader environment. In spite of these strong trade-offs however, it was found that BECCS could meet its electricity production objective without compromising estimated safe land use boundaries. Provided that the right choices are made along BECCS value chain, BECCS can be deployed in a way that both satisfies its resource efficiency and technical performance objectives.