The BECCS Implementation Gap–A Swedish Case Study

Abstract

The IPCC has assessed a variety of pathways that could still lead to achievement of the ambitious climate targets set in the Paris Agreement. However, the longer time that climate action is delayed, the more the achievement of this goal will depend on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies and practices. In the models behind these pathways, the main CDR technology is Bioenergy combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). We review the role that BECCS could play in reaching net-zero targets based on the existing 1.5°C scenarios. Such scenarios presented in the literature typically have BECCS at a GtCO2 per year scale. We also assess the potentials and obstacles for BECCS implementation at the national level, applying Sweden as a case study. Given that BECCS deployment has scarcely started and, thus, is far from capturing 1 GtCO2 per year, with lead times on the scale of multiple years, we conclude that there will be a large implementation gap unless BECCS development is immediately intensified, emissions are reduced at a much faster pace or removals realized through other CDR measures. In the national case study, we show that Sweden has favorable conditions for BECCS in that it has large point sources of biogenic emissions, and that BECCS has been identified as one potential “supplementary measure” for reaching the Swedish target of net-zero emissions in 2045. Yet, work on planning for BECCS implementation has started only recently and would need to be accelerated to close the implementation gap between the present advancement and the targets for BECCS proposed in a recent public inquiry on the roles of supplementary measures. An assessment of two ramp-up scenarios for BECCS demonstrates that it should in principle be possible to reach the currently envisaged deployment scales, but this will require prompt introduction of political and economic incentives. The main barriers are thus not due to technological immaturity, but are rather of a socio-economic, political and institutional nature.

Incentivizing BECCS—A Swedish Case Study

“…However, there has been little actual implementation of BECCS-even less than for CCS. Fuss and Johnsson (2021) have concluded that there is an obvious gap between the need for BECCS as identified in global IAM scenarios and its actual implementation. This type of implementation gap is also evident in Sweden, where no BECCS has yet been implemented, despite the favorable conditions for BECCS.…”

“…Considering the explicit targets proposed in the above mentioned public inquiry (Swedish Government, 2020), there is a need for prompt introduction of economic incentives, in the form of demand-pull incentives, to support the commercialization and deployment of BECCS (Fridahl et al, 2020, Fuss andJohnsson, 2021). However, it is not obvious how incentives for BECCS can and should be introduced and ramped up over time and concluded that that public support for BECCS is linked to attitudes toward the policies through which it is incentivized.…”

“…The authors argue that CDR should primarily be regarded as a tool for hedging against climaterelated uncertainties. Fuss and Johnsson (2021) have argued that a balance must be established between valuing negative emissions achieved through BECCS and the cost of fossil fuelrelated emissions.…”

“…As an indicator of the required level of financing, the target of up to 2 Mt/year BECCS by Year 2030 for Sweden, proposed in the abovementioned government inquiry would entail a cost of 200 million e per year (Fuss and Johnsson, 2021), assuming a total BECCS cost of 100 e/tCO 2 (i.e., the costs estimated in Johnsson et al, 2020).…”

“…Thus, the first projects at commercial scale will require a high up-front investment and result in a higher operating cost (i.e., the product from the plant will be more expensive, albeit with no or negative carbon emissions). It will also be a challenge to ramp-up the technology in line with the Year 2030 target set in the public inquiry of supplementary measures (Swedish Government, 2020) as pointed out by Fuss and Johnsson (2021). In Sweden, projects are underway on biochar (char from the pyrolysis or gasification of biomass, which will be used as a soil additive), as well as initial projects using biomass waste fractions that are available for free (such as public gardening residues).…”