Providing adequate economic incentives for bioenergies with CO2 capture and geological storage

Abstract

Knowing that carbon capture and storage (CCS) could play an important role in reducing CO2 emissions, it is important to have a good understanding of this role and the importance of environmental policies to support carbon capture and geological storage from bioenergies (BECCS). To date CCS technologies are not deployed on a commercial level, and policy instruments should be used to provide incentives to firms to use these technologies to reduce pollution. The aim of this paper is to compare the cost-efficiency of several incentive-based instruments (a fossil fuel tax, an emissions tax, a cap and trade system that recognize negative emissions, and a subsidy on captured emissions) needed to spur the adoption of CCS of the emissions from fossil fuel as well as from biomass, using a dynamic general equilibrium model. The study shows that BECCS will be deployed only if a specific subsidy per unit of biomass emissions captured with a CCS technology is available. We show also that the two most cost-efficient instruments for achieving a given emissions reduction target are a specific subsidy that rewards captured emissions and a carbon tax whose revenues are recycled to subsidize BECCS. Keywords:Bioenergies with carbon capture and storage, dynamic computable general equilibrium model, policy instruments efficiency. RésuméLa capture et le stockage du carbone (CCS) à un rôle important à jouer dans la réduction des émissions de CO2. Elle peut s'appliquer aux énergies fossiles et aux bioénergies (BECCS). A l'heure actuelle, ces technologies ne sont pas encore au stade de la commercialisation. Il existe donc une nécessité de mettre en place des incitations économiques claires et crédibles pour faciliter leur développement. L'objectif de ce papier est de comparer l'efficacité-économique de plusieurs instruments économiques (une taxe fossile, une taxe sur les émissions, un système de permis négociable qui reconnait les émissions négatives et une subvention à la capture des émissions) capables de stimuler le CCS et le BECCS. Cette analyse est conduite grâce à un modèle dynamique d'équilibre général calculable. Les résultats montrent que la technologie BECCS, compte tenu de sa singularité, sera développée uniquement si une subvention à la capture des émissions issues de la biomasse est mise en place. De plus, les deux instruments les plus efficace-économiquement pour atteindre un niveau donné de réduction d'émissions sont la subvention à la capture des émissions et la taxe carbone dont les revenus sont recyclés sous forme de subvention au BECCS. Mots-clés :Capture et Stockage du Carbone, bioénergies, modèle d'équilibre général calculable, efficacité-économique, incitation-économique.3

Rewarding of extra-avoided GHG emissions in thermochemical biorefineries incorporating Bio-CCS

“…However, such an incorporation would not be of interest in thermochemical biorefineries, unless some economic benefit were provided. The idea of rewarding biorefineries for their reduction of GHG emissions has been previously proposed in the literature, especially in the case of biorefineries incorporating Bio-CCS [30][31][32][33][34]. Nevertheless, previous studies have not analyzed rewarding in terms of current and/ or future regulation.…”

“…kind of biomass feedstock were neglected) [33]. Ricci proposed the rewarding of CO 2 allowances from Bio-CCS incorporation [34]. Therefore, the GHG balance is not considered, even if it involves GHG savings above the minimum target.…”

Carbon Capture and Storage Development Trends from a Techno-Paradigm Perspective

“…According to Obersteiner et al [80], BECCS not only removes carbon from the natural carbon cycle, but it also provides low-carbon energy products through combustion and photosynthesis. Because this is likely to significantly reduce the mitigation costs of CO 2 in the atmosphere, it is destined to become one of the future energy mixes [79]. However, as BECCS also has specific regional compatibilities, some countries and regions will be more suitable for large BECCS applications than others.…”

“…To overcome this barrier, it is strongly recommended that a compromise policy based on a carbon tax and a subsidy for BECCS be considered. Specific subsidies for emissions reductions are important to stimulate the technological development of CCS and BECCS [79].…”

“…If the CO 2 emitted within the closed cycle were to be captured and permanently stored, it could achieve net zero or even negative emissions. As biomass is sustainable because the CO 2 from biomass combustion or transformation is neutral, BECCS can make a significant contribution to a net removal of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions worldwide [79]. Table 4 shows a schematic representation that compares the lifecycle emissions of conventional CCS and BECCS, as well as highlighting the conceptual differences between them [12].…”