Schlagwort: BECCS

Nature – Zhou et al., (2025): Contributions of countries without a carbon neutrality target to limit global warming

Jiaxin Zhou, Wei Li, Philippe Ciais, Thomas Gasser, Jingmeng Wang, Zhao Li, Lei Zhu, Mengjie Han, Jiaying He, Minxuan Sun, Li Liu, Xiaomeng Huang IN: Nature Communications, 16,  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55720-x

Some countries have made no commitment to carbon neutrality but are viewed as potential Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) candidates (hereafter, non-CN countries). Here the authors analyze contributions of these countries to global climate mitigation with respect to BECCS using an Earth system model with explicit representations of bioenergy crops.

LINK

Nature – Zhou et al. (2025): Contributions of countries without a carbon neutrality target to limit global warming

Jiaxin Zhou, Wei Li, Philippe Ciais, Thomas Gasser, Jingmeng Wang, Zhao Li, Lei Zhu, Mengjie Han, Jiaying He, Minxuan Sun, Li Liu, Xiaomeng Huang IN: Nature Communications 16, 468, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55720-x

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a key negative emission technology for climate mitigation. Some countries have made no commitment to carbon neutrality but are viewed as potential BECCS candidates. Here the authors analyze contributions of these countries to global climate mitigation with respect to BECCS using an Earth system model with explicit representations of bioenergy crops.

LINK

Xing et al. (2024): A review of influencing factors for policy interventions in the deployment of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

Xiaofan Xing, Yuankang Xiong, Rong Wang, Yuan Gao, Siqing Xu, Philippe Ciais, Thomas Gasser, Josep Penuelas, Jordi Sardans, Jianmin Chen, Tang Xu, Renhe Zhang IN: Next Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nxsust.2024.100040

This paper reviews the latest understanding of BECCS. The key findings reveal the limitations of current models in projecting the capacity and costs of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), mainly due to insufficient consideration of ecological consequences, including availabilities of biomass and difficulties in the transportation of biomass and CO2. To reduce uncertainties in the capacity and costs of BECCS, it is urgently needed to apply spatially explicit method for estimating the life-cycle emissions and the complete cost items when deploying BECCS, optimize the network of biomass acquisition, power plants retrofitting and transportation of biomass and CO2, and represent the changes in the availability of biomass (for different types of bioenergy plants) under the impacts of climate change.

LINK

Desport et al. (2025): Feasibility, conditions, and opportunities for achieving net-negative emissions in the global cement industry

Lucas Desport, Carlos Andrade, Damien Corral, Sandrine Selosse IN: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 141, 104280, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2024.104280

The cement industry possesses multiple options to decarbonize its operations, including material efficiency, energy efficiency, clinker content reduction, hydrogen utilization, bioenergy, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). By integrating bioenergy and CCS (BECCS), the industry could produce net-negative cement, surpassing the 2050 carbon neutrality pledge of the Global Cement and Concrete Association. In TIAM-FR, a bottom-up optimization model of the global energy system, the authors developed an explicit model of the global cement industry to analyze the potential contribution of BECCS to producing cleaner cement. The authors investigated the technical and policy conditions favorable to BECCS deployment and sustainability, considering different future biomass potentials, yields, rotation periods, and management costs. 

LINK

Xie et al. (2024): Negative emissions technologies in energy system models and mitigation scenarios – a systematic review

Weipeng Xie, Vahid Aryanpur, Paul Deane, Hannah E. Daly IN: Applied Energy 380, 125064, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.125064

Modelled scenarios within Integrated Assessment Models and Energy Systems Models indicate that limiting global temperature rise to safe levels will require some dependence on negative emissions technologies. However, the representation of NETs varies significantly across models, leading to differences in their roles across mitigation scenarios. BECCS and DACCS are two possible solutions that are directly related to the energy system. Here, we perform a systematic review of the representation of BECCS and DACCS within ESMs and IAMs, exploring their roles in decarbonisation scenarios and identifying how NETs contribute to energy system transition pathways.

LINK

Ogle et al. (2024): Process safety in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage systems (BECCS)

Russell A. Ogle, Sean J. Dee, Isaac Mastalski IN: Process Safety Progress, https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.12657

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.

LINK

Egerer et al. (2024): How to measure the efficiency of bioenergy crops compared to forestation

Sabine Egerer, Stefanie Falk, Dorothea Mayer, Tobias Nützel, Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia Pongratz IN: Biogeosciences, 21, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5005-2024

In this study, the authors introduce different measures of efficiency to evaluate the carbon removal potential of afforestation and reforestation (AR) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) under the low-emission scenario SSP1-2.6 and in the same area. They define efficiency as the potential to sequester carbon in the biosphere in a specific area or store carbon in geological reservoirs or woody products within a certain time. In addition to carbon capture and storage (CCS), they consider the effects of fossil fuel substitution (FFS) through the usage of bioenergy for energy production, which increases the efficiency through avoided CO2 emissions. These efficiency measures reflect perspectives regarding climate mitigation, carbon sequestration, land availability, spatiotemporal dynamics, and the technological progress in FFS and CCS. They use the land component JSBACH3.2 of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM) to calculate the carbon sequestration potential in the biosphere using an updated representation of second-generation bioenergy plants such as Miscanthus.

LINK

Egerer et al. (2024): How to measure the efficiency of bioenergy crops compared to forestation

Sabine Egerer, Stefanie Falk, Dorothea Mayer, Tobias Nützel, Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia Pongratz IN: Biogeosciences, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5005-2024

In our study, the authors introduce different measures of efficiency to evaluate the carbon removal potential of afforestation and reforestation (AR) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) under the low-emission scenario SSP1-2.6 and in the same area. They define efficiency as the potential to sequester carbon in the biosphere in a specific area or store carbon in geological reservoirs or woody products within a certain time. In addition to carbon capture and storage (CCS), we consider the effects of fossil fuel substitution (FFS) through the usage of bioenergy for energy production, which increases the efficiency through avoided CO2 emissions.

LINK

Titus et al. (2024): Techno-economic analysis of geothermal combined with direct and biomass-based carbon dioxide removal for high-temperature hydrothermal systems

K.A. Titus, David Dempsey, Rebecca A.M. Peer, Rosalind Archer IN: Geothermics, 125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.103159

Here, the authors present a techno-economic comparison of renewable electricity generation coupled with either BECCS or DACCS at high-temperature, low-gas hydrothermal systems. They use a systems model that quantifies energy, carbon and financial flows through a generic hybrid power plant.

LINK

Bunya et al. (2024): Optimization and Tradeoff Analysis for Multiple Configurations of Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage Systems in Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol Sector

Bruno Bunya, César A. R. Sotomonte, Alisson Aparecido Vitoriano Julio, João Luiz Junho Pereira, Túlio Augusto Zucareli de Souza, Matheus Brendon Francisco, Christian J. R. Coronado IN: Entropy, 26(8), 698, https://doi.org/10.3390/e26080698

This study seeks to carry out a thermodynamic optimization and analysis of a BECCS technology for a typical Brazilian cogeneration plant. To maximize generated net electrical energy (MWe) and carbon dioxide CO2 capture (Mt/year), this study evaluated six cogeneration systems integrated with a chemical absorption process using MEA. A key performance indicator (gCO2/kWh) was also evaluated.

LINK