Decarbonising Industry via BECCS: Promising Sectors, Challenges, and Techno-economic Limits of Negative Emissions

Abstract

Purpose of Review This paper reviews recent literature on the combined use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in the industries of steel, cement, paper, ethanol, and chemicals, focusing on estimates of potential costs and the possibility of achieving “negative emissions”. Recent Findings Bioethanol is seen as a potential near-term source of negative emissions, with CO2 transport as the main cost limitation. The paper industry is a current source of biogenic CO2, but complex CO2 capture configurations raise costs and limit BECCS potential. Remuneration for stored biogenic CO2 is needed to incentivise BECCS in these sectors. BECCS could also be used for carbon–neutral production of steel, cement, and chemicals, but these will likely require substantial incentives to become cost-competitive. While negative emissions may be possible from all industries considered, the overall CO2 balance is highly sensitive to biomass supply chains. Furthermore, the resource intensity of biomass cultivation and energy production for CO2 capture risks burden-shifting to other environmental impacts. Summary Research on BECCS-in-industry is limited but growing, and estimates of costs and environmental impacts vary widely. While negative emissions are possible, transparent presentation of assumptions, system boundaries, and results is needed to increase comparability. In particular, the mixing of avoided emissions and physical storage of atmospheric CO2 creates confusion of whether physical negative emissions occur. More attention is needed to the geographic context of BECCS-in-industry outside of Europe, the USA, and Brazil, taking into account local biomass supply chains and CO2 storage siting, and minimise burden-shifting.

Marine carbon dioxide removal by alkalinization should no longer be overlooked

“…in the cement industry. Fossil heat could be replaced by biogenic fuels or hydrogen [31,32]. However, concerns have been raised that the caloric density of biogenic fuels alone might be too low to provide a high enough temperature in the kiln [31,33].…”

Toward Carbon-Neutral Concrete through Biochar–Cement–Calcium Carbonate Composites: A Critical Review

“…Another benefit of the widespread use of carbon-neutral concrete is its ability to help create a cleaner cement and construction industry without a dependence on the simultaneous growth of the carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) industry. Tanzer et al [73] describe how direct CO 2 emissions from the cement industry from fossil sources were 2.3 gigatonnes in 2019, while the status of CO 2 capture in that industry was still in demonstration stage, only capturing up to 75 kilotonnes/year. Demonstration plants capturing 400-600 kilotonnes CO 2 /year were under development, but clearly there is a shortfall in CCUS capability.…”

Promises and Pitfalls of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage : Actors' Perspectives, Challenges, and Mitigation Deterrence in Sweden

“…Due to a lack of practical experiences with BECCS, IAMs are a way to understand BECCS' possible role in sustainability transitions. A common result based on IAMs is that large point sources of biogenic emissions such as energy utilities could implement BECCS on a large-scale globally in the coming decades (IPCC, 2018;Rogelj et al, 2018a), but the industrial sector (e.g., steel, cement, paper, ethanol, and chemicals) is also a strong contender for BECCS as well as a source of residual emissions (Tanzer et al, 2021). However, there are concerns about trade-offs between the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and large-scale deployment of BECCS, such as using arable land for bioenergy crops impacting biodiversity, water, forests, and food security (Hansson et al, 2021;Rogelj et al, 2018b;United Nations, 2015).…”