Bio-energy with carbon storage BECCS

Industry

The concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere will have to be stabilized or lowered to mitigate or even reverse current global warming. To achieve this, current GHG emissions need to be reduced. Such mitigation strategies will however take time to deploy, and some emission sources will be difficult to mitigate. Moreover, since current atmospheric levels are already having a major warming effect, negative emission or Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) measures that reduce the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere are an active topic of research.

Bio-Energy with Carbon Storage (BECCS) offers a nature-based way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere by consuming biomaterial and removing the remaining carbon residues from the carbon cycle. The biomass can be turned into energy through various ways, such as burning it, gasification, or fermentation. The CO2 released from consumption of the biomass would preferably be captured to a large degree if the net positive effects of the biomass capture would not be negated. This could be done through similar methods already in use for Carbon Capture and Storage by the fossil fuel industry.

Technological Readiness Level (TRL)

Medium 2

The use of biomass for energy is already quite developed, and a 2022 study by Almena et al reported six operational BECCS facilities worldwide.The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report gives it a potential readiness level of 5-6 (Smith et al, 2023). However, several key issues remain around the capture and storage of the carbon released when biomass is consumed (See carbon capture and storage), the sustainability of the sourcing of materials and its scalability, and the overall net effects of the entire BECCS process continue to pose serious issues. As with biochar application (see Biochar) there is also great variability between the sustainability and ultimate climate effect of individual BECCS projects (Fajardy and Dowell, 2017).

Technological Readiness Level (TRL)

A technology with a TRL of 4-6: TRL 4 – validated in lab; TRL 5 – validated in relevant environment; TRL 6 – demonstrated in relevant environment

Scalability

Medium 2

Although BECCS play an important part in all negative emission scenarios that aim to keep temperature rises within an acceptable level, serious concerns remain around the potential and effect of its scalability (Ekardt and von Bredow, 2012; Vaughan and Gough, 2016; Mander et al. 2017).

A main downside to BECCS is that it would use large volumes of biomass, and would therefore need space and nutrients that could otherwise be used to produce resources, food, or provide other ecosystem services (RoyalSociety 2018). This large-scale deployment of BECCS and the required amounts of land could also have significant negative climate effects (Newbold et al, 2015) and might affect albedo (See Bio-geoengineering to increase crop albedo), especially at high-latitudes (Fuss et al., 2018). Williamson (2016) also warns that biomass might not be as efficient at capturing CO2 at scale for use in BECCS and that the response of plants to future climate change needs to be taken into consideration. The production sites might furthermore be far removed from the places of energy generation, and might therefore come with significant extra transportation costs. These are now estimated to be around 100 to 200/tCO2 (Fuss et al. 2018). Fridahl and Lehtveer (2018), moreover, find important socio-political constraints to BECCS deployment, and highlight the need for further research into factors such as social acceptance or policy development. Chiquier et al. (2022) notes that while ‘BECCS delivers immediate and permanent CDR’, ‘its CO2 removal efficiency can be significantly impacted by any initial carbon debt associated with (direct and indirect) land use change, and thereby significantly delayed’.

Scalability

Physically somewhat scalable; linear efficiency

Timeliness for near-future effects

High 3

There are already several operational plants, but captured amounts remain minimal, and questions about scalability remain (Smith et al. 2023).

Timeliness for near-future effects

Implemented in time to make a significant difference

Northern + Arctic potential

Medium 2

Although the CDR potential of BECCS in the Arctic and Northern regions is uncertain, higher latitude areas can provide specific kinds of biomatter, like remains from the logging industry or microalgal cultivation. Vogt et al (2022) study on the potential of afforestation in the Nordic region conclude that BECCS ‘has a very high CDR potential due to already existing large point sources of biogenic CO2 (from forest industry and bioenergy production).’

Northern + Arctic potential

Statistically detectable impacts in the Arctic above the global average; no difference between deploying the solution here or elsewhere

Global potential

Medium 2

There is significant uncertainty about the potential of BECCS (Anderson and Peters, 2016; Hanssen et al. 2020), with the IPCC AR6 WG3 (2022) following the estimates of the State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report of a carbon capture potential of 0.5 to 11 GtCO2/yr (Smith et al. 2023). There are many variables that would decide the effectiveness of BECCS, with Vaughan et al’s (2018) model study for instance showing poor governance can significantly reduce the CO2 capture potential.

Global potential

Statistically detectable impacts

Cost - benefit

Medium 2

The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report estimates potential costs of 15 to 400 $/tCO2 (Smith et al. 2023). Yet, as with biochar application (See biochar), significant uncertainties remain about the costs of BECCS deployment as there are major differences between individual projects, and much research is still needed into costs, and designing strategies that could pay for BECCS (Honegger et al. 2021). Möllersten and Naqvi reported in an overview study (2022) that estimated costs of BECCS deployment in the Nordic region would be around 60-135 USD/tCO2.

Cost - benefit

Significant investment costs needed, but still much cheaper than the avoided damage costs (e.g., 30%).

Environmental risks

Medium 2

The environmental effects of large scale BECCS deployment could be significant as unsustainable and large scale biomass harvesting could cause competition for land and water and reduce biodiversity and soil fertility (Smith et al, 2023 IPCC AR6,WG3 2022). Crucially, specific parts of the BECCS chain could be more or less sustainable, and it has to be made sure that the process as a whole has positive effects (Fajardy and Dowell, 2017; Briones-Hidrovo et al. 2022). Briones-Hidrovo et al. (2022) for example note that the use of residual forest biomass had a positive climate impact, but also had significant impact on land and water. The use of contaminated biomass could moreover incur pollution risks (Smith et al. 2023), and Deng et al (2017) point to significant risks of leakage if captured carbon needs to be transported.

Environmental risks

More widespread and possibly regional impacts that extend beyond the immediate solution deployment location

Community impacts

Unknown 0

BECCS could have positive and negative effects on local communities.Small scale bioenergy development could provide extra local income (Almena et al,.2022). And a sound growth process could improve crop growth and health, enhance biodiversity, soil health, and water quality (Smith et al, 2023). However, as large-scale BECCS deployment would require significant amounts of land and water Günther and Ekardt (2022) point out that it can have significant detrimental impacts for communities, and even violate their basic human rights like the rights to food, water, and a healthy environment. The IPCC AR6 (2022) report therefore warns that poorly implemented biomass growth for BECCS could have significant negative effects on ‘local livelihoods and on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially if implemented at large scales and where land tenure is insecure (high confidence).'

Ease of reversibility

Medium 2

Ease of reversibility

Possible with significant investment

Risk of termination shock

Low 3

Risk of termination shock

Low or insignificant termination shock or damage

Legality/governance

High 3

BECCS systems are already operational and will mostly continue to fall under national legislations. Günther and Ekardt (2022) study on the legal aspect of large scale BEECS deployment however find that it could have significant impacts on basic human rights of surrounding communities, for example the right to water and food’.

Legality/governance

Currently legal to deploy, with governance structures in place to facilitate it and/or financial incentives to develop it

Scientific/media attention

High 3

BECCS is one of the main currently considered CDR measures and plays important roles in almost all negative emission strategies. There are many research projects, and several operational plants in existence.

Scientific/media attention

Numerous scientific papers with substantial funding and ongoing research groups; significant media attention and "hype"; many companies exploring commercialization options

References

Almena, A., Thornley, P., Chong, K., & Röder, M. (2022). Carbon dioxide removal potential from decentralised bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the relevance of operational choices. Biomass and Bioenergy, 159, 106406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2022.106406

Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354(6309), 182-183. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah456

C. Azar, K. Lindgren, E. Larson, K. Möllersten Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass – costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere Climatic Change, 74 (1) (2006), pp. 47-79. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-005-3484-7

Briones-Hidrovo, A., Rey, J. R. C., Dias, A. C., Tarelho, L. A., & Beauchet, S. (2022). Assessing a bio-energy system with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) through dynamic life cycle assessment and land-water-energy nexus. Energy Conversion and Management, 268, 116014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116014

Chiquier, S., Patrizio, P., Bui, M., Sunny, N., & Mac Dowell, N. (2022). A comparative analysis of the efficiency, timing, and permanence of CO 2 removal pathways. Energy & Environmental Science, 15(10), 4389-4403. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EE01021F

Deng, H.; Bielicki, J.M.; Oppenheimer, M.; Fitts, J.P.; Peters, C.A. Leakage Risks of Geologic CO2 Storage and the Impacts on the Global Energy System and Climate Change Mitigation. Clim. Change 2017, 144, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2035-8

Ekardt, F.; von Bredow, H. Extended Emissions Trading Versus Sustainability Criteria: Managing the Ecological and Social Ambivalence of Bioenergy. Renew. Energy Law Policy Rev. 2012, 3, 49–64. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281644028_Extended_emissions_trading_versus_sustainability_criteria_Managing_the_ecological_and_social_ambiva-_lences_of_bioenergy [Accessed 22 July 2024]

Fajardy, M., & Mac Dowell, N. (2017). Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions?. Energy & Environmental Science, 10(6), 1389-1426. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EE00465F

Fridahl, M., & Lehtveer, M. (2018). Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers. Energy Research & Social Science, 42, 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.019

Fuss, S.; Lamb, W.F.; Callaghan, M.W.; Hilaire, J.; Creutzig, F.; Amann, T.; Beringer, T.; De Oliveira Garcia, W.; Hartmann, J.; Khanna, T.; et al. Negative Emissions—Part 2: Costs, Potentials and Side Effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

Günther, P., & Ekardt, F. (2022). Human Rights and Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Potential Limits to BECCS and DACCS Deployment. Land, 11(12), 2153. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122153

Hanssen, S. V., Daioglou, V., Steinmann, Z. J. N., Doelman, J. C., Van Vuuren, D. P., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2020). The climate change mitigation potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Nature Climate Change, 10(11), 1023-1029. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0885-y

Honegger, M.; Poralla, M.; Michaelowa, A.; Ahonen, H.M. Who Is Paying for Carbon Dioxide Removal? Designing Policy Instruments for Mobilizing Negative Emissions Technologies. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 672996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.672996

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022. Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/ [Accessed 22 July 2024]

Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., ... & Purvis, A. (2015). Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature, 520(7545), 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324

Pires, J. C. M. (2019). Negative emissions technologies: a complementary solution for climate change mitigation. Science of the Total Environment, 672, 502-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.004

Pruess, K.; García, J. Multiphase Flow Dynamics during CO2 Disposal into Saline Aquifers. Environ. Geol. 2002, 42, 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-001-0498-3

Smith, S. M., Geden, O., Nemet, G., Gidden, M., Lamb, W. F., Powis, C., Bellamy, R., Callaghan, M., Cowie, A., Cox, E., Fuss, S., Gasser, T., Grassi, G., Greene, J., Lück, S., Mohan, A., Müller-Hansen, F., Peters, G., Pratama, Y., Repke, T., Riahi, K., Schenuit, F., Steinhauser, J., Strefler, J., Valenzuela, J. M., and Minx, J. C. (2023). The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal - 1st Edition. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W3B4Z

Vaughan, N. E., & Gough, C. (2016). Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver. Environmental research letters, 11(9), 095003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095003

Vaughan, N. E., Gough, C., Mander, S., Littleton, E. W., Welfle, A., Gernaat, D. E., & Van Vuuren, D. P. (2018). Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios. Environmental Research Letters, 13(4), 044014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa02

Vogt, R. D., de Wit, H., & Koponen, K. (2022). Case study on impacts of large-scale re-/afforestation on ecosystem services in Nordic regions. NEGEM-Quantifying and Deploying Responsible Negative Emissions in Climate Resilient Pathways. Horizon2020, Grant Agreement no. 869192. Available at: https://www.negemproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/D-3.6-Case-study-on-impacts-of-large-scale-reforestation-afforestation-in-Nordic-Countries.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2024]

Williamson, P. (2016). Emissions reduction: scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature, 530(7589), 153-155. https://doi.org/10.1038/530153a

Related ideas

Industry

Polar chimneys

Some have suggested modifying incoming and outgoing radiation budgets in the Arctic to mitigate the warming in the region.

Sea ice melting, North of Dickson, Taymyr, Russia

Sea ice & icebergs

Pykrete usage

Arctic sea ice extent has rapidly decreased over the last few decades, with most multi-year ice disappearing altogether. This has already had major effects on local communities and ecosystems. The disappearance of the relatively reflective sea ice also leads to a dramatic decrease of albedo in the Arctic and subsequent high energy uptakes by the darker water during the Arctic summers.

Oceans & marine

Promoting ocean calcifiers to sequester atmospheric carbon

The oceans are the largest carbon sink for atmospheric carbon and have taken up over 30% of anthropogenic emissions. Carbon uptake occurs abiotically through processes such as ocean-atmosphere interaction and weathering processes. Biotic processes play an important role in oceanic carbon uptake too, with most attention going to carbon-consuming photosynthesising organisms.

Ringed plovers (Charadrius hiaticular) arriving from the Arctic on Tromlingen, Raet National Park

Oceans & marine

Ocean Alkalinity enhancement

The oceans are the largest carbon sink for atmospheric carbon, and have taken up over 30% of anthropogenic emissions. Carbon uptake mainly occurs directly through ocean-atmosphere interaction or through weathering processes. Due to this uptake of carbon the oceans turn more acidic overtime, and since the start of the industrial revolution oceans have become 30% more acidic. This has all sorts of effects, as it for example impacts marine biochemistry, and prevents certain organisms from successfully growing.

Industry

Atmospheric Methane destruction: Tropospheric iron salt aerosol injection

Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas and its reduction is given ever greater priority in international emission reduction policies. Given the increasing, and potentially catastrophic rate of methane release from the thawing Arctic and Northern permafrost, these regions are crucial in this endeavor. Apart from the methane release from microbial activity in thawing permafrost on land, methane also escapes in the form of hydrates which have been formed under sediments beneath the sea.

Coastal Archipelago Park of the South Coast ("Sørlandet") of Norway, colors at the shoreline (1)

Oceans & marine

Artificial downwelling

Oceans play an important role in global heat transfer and carbon storage processes. As global temperatures and atmospheric carbon levels rise, some have suggested artificially modifying the vertical movement of water to enhance these processes.

Land-based measures

Agricultural soil management

Terrestrial carbon can be stored in biomass above or below the ground, and in soils themselves. Soil organic matter can form differently, and have different amounts of plant and microbial components depending on the availability of water (Cotrufo and Lavallee, 2022). The large amounts of the Earth that have been brought under cultivation over the past 12.000 years have significantly degraded soil carbon levels, and have released some 110 billion metric tons of carbon (Sanderman et al. 2017). Soil security and health is increasingly being recognised as essential for planetary health (Kopittke et al. (2022).

Industry

Atmospheric methane removal: Solar chimney and photocatalytic semiconductor technology

Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas and its reduction is given ever greater priority in international emission reduction policies (see, for example, https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/). There are several suggested ways to remove atmospheric methane (see Nisbet Jones et al. 2021; and Ming et al. 2022; see in this report also iron salt aerosols and zeolites). One of the main issues with methane removal is that atmospheric methane concentrations are very low. This means that very large volumes of air, and related energy demands, are required, making the use of ventilators like those used for DACCS (see direct air capture) more complicated (Nisbet-Jones et al. 2021).