Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: how carbon storage and biomass resources potentials can impact the development of the BECCS

Abstract

The challenges of climate change involve rethinking the world's energy system. In particular, carbon capture and storage technologies are still presented as a solution to reach ambitious decarbonization targets, and particularly when associated with bioenergy resources due to the negative emission they allow. However, avoiding the required Gt of CO 2 emissions by investing in CCS technologies supposes the development of carbon storage capacities and, when associated with bioenergy, a plausible and sustainable potential of biomass resources. This analysis, conducted with the optimization model TIAM-FR (TIMES Integrated Assessment Model, a bottom-up, long-term and multiregional model), highlights the role of these elements in the future development of the BECCS option. More precisely, based, on the one hand, on an advanced methodology of biomass potential assessment, and, on the other hand, on detailed data of storage potential, including onshore and offshore classification, this study shows how such potentials may be a limit to the development of (bioenergy with) carbon capture and storage technologies. This analysis was performed through various scenarios investigated with different levels of potentials and different climate targets on the long-term. As a complement, we also discuss carbon transport costs variation effects and implement a scenario allowing the exclusion of onshore storage due to a hypothetic policy considering public resistance to onshore storage.

Reconfiguring European industry for net-zero: a qualitative review of hydrogen and carbon capture utilization and storage benefits and implementation challenges

“…Others have contested the efficiency of CCS by indicating that although carbon capture technologies aim to stop at least 90% of CO 2 emissions in most applications, as the technology evolves to reach nearly full efficiency (100%), costs will increase significantly, and it will demand more energy to capture more CO 2 . 229 Dalla Longa and colleagues 230 corroborate this point and report that 35% of power generation from natural gas could go towards energizing industrial CCS facilities in the future. The environmental concerns of CCUS are even contested in the deployment of blue hydrogen, a primary emissions mitigation technology for the UK government.…”

Trade-off between CO2 utilization and CO2 transport and storage in the global energy transition

“…Its technology-rich representation enables to include more than 1000 processes including CCU and CCS technologies, which are described in the next section. TIAM-FR has been used to assess technology contribution to the decarbonization of the global energy system [2,25], policy assessments [26], and water management constraints [27].…”

“…Prospective energy models exploring the future of the world energy system driven by cost-optimal investment choices in energy carriers and technologies help draw pathways in compliance with the climate goals. These energy models have proven and emphasized the need for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies to decarbonize our societies [1][2][3][4][5]. In the meantime, poor insights have been delivered concerning the utilization of CO2.…”

Chemical Looping Combustion and Gasification: A Review and a Focus on European Research Projects

“…At the halfway point of the 21st century, the removal contribution of BECCS is estimated between 2.2 and 12 Gt CO2 , a significant fraction of all CO 2 sequestrable by CCS (4–15 Gt CO2 ) . On the other hand, authoritative criticisms about projections of BECCS effectiveness and quantifications of the actual CO 2 contribution from a process claimed to be a NET (e.g., by proper life cycle assessments) must be taken into due account.…”