http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ee/c7ee00465f#!divAbstract
[image: CrossMark] <http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1039/C7EE00465F&domain=html&date_stamp=2017-04-06> Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions? Mathilde Fajardy and Niall Mac Dowell *Energy Environ. Sci.*, 2017, Accepted Manuscript DOI: 10.1039/C7EE00465F, Paper To gain access to this content please Log in via your home Institution. <http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/federatedaccess?msid=c7ee00465f&doi=10.1039%2Fc7ee00465f&journalcode=ee&printyear=2017&contenttype=article> Log in with your member or subscriber username and password. <http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/subscriberlogin?type=article&msid=c7ee00465f&pubyear=2017&sercode=ee&doi=10.1039%2Fc7ee00465f&publicationdate=2017-04-06&pubstatus=jac&ispdfexist=True> Download PDF Rich HTML Abstract | Cited by <http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ee/c7ee00465f?iscitedby=True#cited> Negative emissions technologies (NETs) in general and Bioenergy with CO2 Capture and Storage (BECCS) in particular are commonly regarded as vital yet controversial to meeting our climate goals. In this contribution we present a whole-systems analysis of the BECCS value chain associated with the cultivation, harvesting, transport and conversion in dedicated biomass power stations in conjunction with CCS, of a range of biomass resources – both dedicated energy crops (miscanthus, switchgrass, short rotation coppice willow), and agricultural residues (wheat straw). We explicitly consider the implications of sourcing the biomass from different regions, climates and land types. The water, carbon and energy footprints of each value chain were calculated, and their impact on the overall system water, carbon and power efficiencies were evaluated. Anextensive literature review was performed and a statistical analysis of the available data is presented. In order to describe the dynamic greenhouse gas balance of such as system, a yearly accounting of the emissions was performed over the lifetime of a BECCS facility, and the "breakeven time" and lifetime net CO2 removal from the atmosphere were determined. The effects of direct and indirect land use change were included, and were found to be a key determinant of the viability of a BECCS project. Overall we conclude that, depending on the conditions of its deployment, BECCS could lead to both carbon positive and negative results. The total quantity of CO2 removed from the atmosphere over the project lifetime and the time required to start removing CO2 from the atmosphere were observed to be highly case specific. This has profound implications for the policy frameworks required to incentivise and regulate the widespread deployment of BECCS technology. The results of a sensitivity analysis on the model combined with the investigation of alternate supply chain scenarios elucidated four key levers to improve the sustainability of BECCS: 1) measuring and limiting the impacts of direct and indirect land use changes, 2) using carbon neutral power and organic fertilizers, 3) prioritizing sea over road transport, while increasing the use of carbon negative fuels, and, 4) exploiting alternative biomass processing options, e.g., natural drying or torrefaction -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
