Cover
List of Contributors
Foreword
Preface
List of Abbreviations/Acronyms
Part I: BECCS Technologies
1. Chapter 1: Understanding Negative Emissions From BECCS
  1. 1.1 Introduction
  2. 1.2 Climate‐Change Mitigation
  3. 1.3 Negative Emissions Technologies
  4. 1.4 Why BECCS?
  5. 1.5 Structure of the Book
  6. References
2. Chapter 2: The Supply of Biomass for Bioenergy Systems
  1. 2.1 Introduction
  2. 2.2 Biomass Resource Demand
  3. 2.3 Resource Demand for BECCS Technologies
  4. 2.4 Forecasting the Availability of Biomass Resources
  5. 2.5 Methods for Forecasting the Availability of Energy Crop Resources
  6. 2.6 Forecasting the Availability of Wastes and Residues From Ongoing Processes
  7. 2.7 Forecasting the Availability of Forestry Resources
  8. 2.8 Forecasting the Availability of Waste Resources
  9. 2.9 Biomass Resource Availability
  10. 2.10 Variability in Biomass Resource Forecasts
  11. 2.11 Biomass Supply and Demand Regions, and Key Trade Flows
  12. 2.12 Global Biomass Trade Limitations and Uncertainty
  13. 2.13 Sustainability of Global Biomass Resource Production
  14. 2.14 Conclusions – Biomass Resource Potential and BECCS
  15. References
3. Chapter 3: Post‐combustion and Oxy‐combustion Technologies
  1. 3.1 Introduction
  2. 3.2 Air Firing with Post‐combustion Capture
  3. 3.3 Oxy‐Fuel Combustion
  4. 3.4 Challenges Associated with Biomass Utilisation Under BECCS Operating Conditions
  5. 3.5 Summary and Conclusions: Synopsis of Technical Knowledge and Assessment of Deployment Potential
  6. References
4. Chapter 4: Pre‐combustion Technologies
  1. 4.1 Introduction
  2. 4.2 The Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
  3. 4.3 Gasification of Solid Fuels
  4. 4.4 Carbon Dioxide Separation Technologies
  5. 4.5 Chemical Looping Processes
  6. 4.6 Existing Schemes
  7. 4.7 Modelling of IGCC Plant Thermal Efficiency With and Without Pre‐combustion CCS
  8. 4.8 Summary and Research Challenges
  9. References
5. Chapter 5: Techno‐economics of Biomass‐based Power Generation with CCS Technologies for Deployment in 2050*
  1. 5.1 Introduction
  2. 5.2 Case Study Analysis
  3. Acknowledgements
  4. References
Part II: BECCS System Assessments
1. Chapter 6: Life Cycle Assessment
  1. 6.1 Introduction
  2. 6.2 Rationale for Supply‐Chain Life‐Cycle Assessment
  3. 6.3 Variability in Life‐Cycle Assessment of Bioenergy Systems
  4. 6.4 Published LCAs of BECCS
  5. 6.5 Sensitivity Analysis of Reported Carbon Savings to Key System Parameters
  6. 6.6 Conclusions
  7. References
2. Chapter 7: System Characterisation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Systems
  1. 7.1 Introduction
  2. 7.2 CCS Process Characterisation, Innovation and Deployment
  3. 7.3 CCS Options for the United Kingdom
  4. 7.4 The Sustainability Assessment Context
  5. 7.5 CCS Performance Metrics
  6. 7.6 CCS System Characterisation
  7. 7.7 Concluding Remarks
  8. Acknowledgments
  9. References
3. Chapter 8: The System Value of Deploying Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) in the United Kingdom
  1. 8.1 Background
  2. 8.2 Context
  3. 8.3 Progressing our Understanding of the Key Uncertainties Associated with BECCS
  4. 8.4 Conclusion: Completing the BECCS Picture
  5. References
Part III: BECCS in the Energy System
1. Chapter 9: The Climate‐Change Mitigation Challenge
  1. 9.1 Introduction
  2. 9.2 Cumulative Emissions and Atmospheric CO₂ Concentration for 2 °C Commitments
  3. 9.3 The Role of BECCS for Climate‐Change Mitigation – A Summary of BECCS within Integrated Assessment Modelling
  4. 9.4 Implications and Consequences of BECCS
  5. 9.5 Conclusions: Can BECCS Deliver what's Expected of it?
  6. References
2. Chapter 10: The Future for Bioenergy Systems: The Role of BECCS?
  1. 10.1 Introduction
  2. 10.2 Methodology
  3. 10.3 Results and Discussions
  4. 10.4 Discussion and Conclusions
  5. References
3. Chapter 11: Policy Frameworks and Supply‐Chain Accounting
  1. 11.1 Introduction
  2. 11.2 The Origin and Use of Supply‐Chain Analysis in Bioenergy Systems
  3. 11.3 Policy Options
  4. 11.4 Ensuring Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability of a BECCS System
  5. 11.5 Governance of BECCS Systems
  6. 11.6 Conclusions: The Future of BECCS Policy and Governance
  7. References
4. Chapter 12: Social and Ethical Dimensions of BECCS
  1. 12.1 Introduction
  2. 12.2 Fossil Fuels and BECCS
  3. 12.3 Alternative Approaches
  4. 12.4 Sustainable Decarbonisation
  5. 12.5 Societal Responses
  6. 12.6 Justice
  7. 12.7 Summary
  8. References
5. Chapter 13: Unlocking Negative Emissions
  1. 13.1 Introduction
  2. 13.2 Summary of Chapters
  3. 13.3 Unlocking Negative Emissions: System‐Level Challenges
  4. 13.4 Can Negative Emissions be Unlocked?
  5. 13.5 Summing Up
  6. References
Index
End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 1
1. Table 1.1 Negative emissions approaches, classified according to the type of capture and storage processes involved.
Chapter 2
1. Table 2.1 Forecast global bioenergy demand by 2030.
2. Table 2.2 Global biomass resource and bioenergy estimates.
3. Table 2.3 Summary and characteristics of existing biomass resource modelling studies.
4. Table 2.4 Summary of key supply chain drivers influencing the availability of biomass resource for the bioenergy sector.
5. Table 2.5 Evaluation of the influence of key drivers on determining the availability of biomass resource for the UK bioenergy section.
Chapter 4
1. Table 4.1 Composition percentage of gasified coal including water‐gas shift for CO₂ removal (CCS in this table).
2. Table 4.2 Biomass gasification syngas composition.
3. Table 4.3 Comparison of the thermal efficiency penalty for the IGCC plant relative to the NG CCGT plant and the thermal efficiency penalty for pre‐combustion CO₂ removal (with one comparison with post‐combustion CCS). Pre‐combustion CO₂ separation by MEA solvent absorption for all except where membrane separators are indicated.
Chapter 5
1. Table 5.1 Information gathered on each component technology.
2. Table 5.2 Power‐capture technology combinations proposed for progression/rejection.
3. Table 5.3 An overview of the eight selected technology combinations, studied in detail.
4. Table 5.4 Summary of economic parameters for technology combinations 1–4 at base‐case capacities.
5. Table 5.5 Summary of economic parameters for technologies 5–8 at base‐case capacities.
Chapter 7
1. Table 7.1 Global state‐of‐the‐art of CCS technologies.
2. Table 7.2 Potential UK CCS options for contemporary power plants. Source: Hammond et al. (2011).
3. Table 7.3 The declining long‐term UK Test Discount Rate. Source: HMT (2003).
4. Table 7.4 Upstream GHG emissions from UK coal‐fired generation.
5. Table 7.5 UK power technologies in ranked order by whole‐systems GHG (upstream plus operational or ‘stack’) emissions.
Chapter 8
1. Table 8.1 Estimates of feedstock requirements to meet 2050 pathways.
Chapter 9
1. Table 9.1 Summary of the key uncertainties in future BECCS scenarios.
Chapter 10
1. Table 10.1 Solid biomass and energy crops availability in 2050 in TIAM‐UCL (high biomass scenario).
2. Table 10.2 Scenario descriptions.

List of Illustrations

Chapter 1
1. Figure 1.1 Schematic illustrating terminology for negative emissions from BECCS. (a) CO₂stored, which can be calculated at a project, national or global level. (b) Negative emissions, which can be calculated at a project or national level, are achieved when the CO₂ removed from the atmosphere during biomass growth is greater than the CO₂ emissions from all the other processes in the supply chain. (c) Global negative emissions, the global sum of all negative emissions activity, this removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and can be used to ‘offset’ other anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. (d) Global net negative emissions occur when the global amount of negative emissions exceeds the CO₂ emissions from all other human sources, e.g. energy, transport and agriculture.
2. Figure 1.2 The role of negative emissions in relation to global CO₂ scenarios. Note that ‘realised negative emissions’ correspond to ‘negative emissions described in Figure 1.1b and that ‘net negative emissions in this figure correspond to ‘global net negative emissions’ described in Figure 1.1d.
Chapter 2
1. Figure 2.1 Ratio of global fossil fuel consumption to years of remaining reserve.
2. Figure 2.2 Biomass modelling resolution potentials.
3. Figure 2.3 Example of the analysis boundaries and developed approach for evaluating forestry system and industry dynamics, as modelled for biomass resource assessment research (Welfle, 2014). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
4. Figure 2.4 Range of global biomass resource estimates.
5. Figure 2.5 Indicative global ranges of different categories of biomass resource in 2050, from varying land uses.
6. Figure 2.6 Typical assumptions driving variations in outputs from biomass resource assessments.
7. Figure 2.7 Biomass supply and demand regions and key biomass trade flows for energy end uses.
Chapter 3
1. Figure 3.1 Overview of post‐combustion carbon capture from biomass, showing the key stages and processes used to separate the CO₂ from the remaining flue gas components that go to the atmosphere.
2. Figure 3.2 Simplified flow diagram of solvent scrubbing for post‐combustion carbon capture from biomass. The solvent is added initially from a separate system and then recirculated upon regeneration in the stripper column.
3. Figure 3.3 Steam turbine configuration of a thermal steam plant retrofitted with a post‐combustion capture and compression process; the grey lines indicate the additions to the steam cycle when capture is implemented. HP, IP and LP are the high‐, intermediate‐ and low‐pressure steam turbines, respectively.
4. Figure 3.4 Overview of oxy‐fuel combustion for carbon capture from biomass, showing the key processes and stages; some purification is also likely to be required at the dehydration stage.
Chapter 4
1. Figure 4.1 Generic oxygen‐based gasification processes for solid fuels mixed with water as slurry feed with CO₂ separation.
Chapter 5
1. Figure 5.1 Estimated plant LHV efficiencies with capture, and CO₂ capture rates, for each technology combination (error bars are quantified in the detailed analysis).
2. Figure 5.2 Initial rough cut of risk versus reward in the first stage of the project. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
3. Figure 5.3 Estimated capital costs versus TRL for all eight technology combinations at their base‐case scale (40–461 MW_e), accounting for uncertainties. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
4. Figure 5.4 Costs of CO₂ avoided for the eight technologies assessed, harmonised to 50 MW_e scale. All biomass as pellets.
5. Figure 5.5 Costs of CO₂ avoided for the eight technologies assessed, harmonised to 250 MW_e scale. All biomass as pellets.
6. Figure 5.6 Costs of CO₂ captured for the eight technologies assessed, harmonised to 50 MW_e scale. All biomass as pellets.
7. Figure 5.7 Costs of CO₂ captured for the eight technologies assessed, harmonised to 250 MW_e scale. All biomass as pellets.
Chapter 7
1. Figure 7.1 The innovation chain and its actors.
2. Figure 7.2 S‐curve of technology development and policy categories.
3. Figure 7.3 Sustainability assessment Venn diagram.
4. Figure 7.4 Illustrative contemporary power plant efficiencies with and without (w/o) carbon capture on an LHV basis.
5. Figure 7.5 Illustrative energy penalties of contemporary power plant associated with carbon capture.
6. Figure 7.6 Illustrative contemporary power plant CO₂ emissions with and without (w/o) carbon capture.
7. Figure 7.7 CO₂ emissions avoided by adopting CCS technologies compared to conventional (non‐CCS) power plants.
8. Figure 7.8 Illustrative power plant LCOE with and without (w/o) carbon capture {£(2005)}.
9. Figure 7.9 Illustrative distribution of CO₂ point sources and CCS cluster regions in the United Kingdom.
10. Figure 7.10 Illustrative estimates of CO₂ transport costs {£(2005)}_.
11. Figure 7.11 Illustrative costs of CO₂ gas storage {£(2005)}.
12. Figure 7.12 Illustrative costs of CO₂ avoided by CCS plants on a whole chain basis {£(2005)}
13. Figure 7.13 Illustrative costs of CO₂ captured by CCS plants on a whole chain basis {£(2005)}.
14. Figure 7.14 Illustrative levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) on a whole chain basis {£(2005)}
Chapter 8
1. Figure 8.1 Overview of the Energy System Modelling Environment (ESME). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
2. Figure 8.2 Typical decarbonisation pathway modelled in ESME, needed to meet the United Kingdom’s 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
3. Figure 8.3 Typical (average) energy flows in 2050: Sankey diagram from ESME. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
4. Figure 8.4 2015 biomass and waste feedstock sources. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
5. Figure 8.5 Schematic representation of components of soil carbon and soil GHG emissions changes measured and modelled in the ELUM project.
6. Figure 8.6 Estimates derived from the ELUM model on mean soil GHG emissions over 40 years (relative to counterfactual land use), expressed as net GHG emissions per hectare across the United Kingdom. The model was validated using empirical data collected during the ELUM project (Smith et al., 2010). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
7. Figure 8.7 Capital costs of building a 50 Mt/year CO₂ (~10 GWe) CCS network (£bn 2014 undiscounted). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
8. Figure 8.8 Quantifying the impact of dLUC emissions and CCS on UK bio‐electricity value chains (life‐cycle GHG emissions: gCO₂e/MJ). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
9. Figure 8.9 Selected potential CO₂ storage sites in the United Kingdom.
10. Figure 8.10 Autonomous marine vehicle prototype being developed through the ETI MMV project (The Autosub Long Range AUV, Stephen McPhail, National Oceanography Centre, the United Kingdom).
11. Figure 8.11 Core elements of the BECCS value chain.
Chapter 9
1. Figure 9.1 Trends in global energy use for (a) baseline scenario and (b) RCP2.6 scenario. Note in (b) BECCS use (bright green) from 2020, non‐CCS bioenergy use (dark green) and fossil fuel with CCS use (blue, pale orange and grey). (See insert for colour representation of this figure.)
Chapter 10
1. Figure 10.1 TIAM‐UCL energy‐system structure (for more information refer to Anandarajah et al., 2011).
2. Figure 10.2 Global CO₂ emissions (dashed lines, left axis, GtCO₂) and marginal CO₂ abatement costs (solid lines, right axis, $/tCO₂) under 2D (with BECCS; black lines) and 2D‐NoBECCS (grey lines) scenarios.
3. Figure 10.3 Sectoral emissions to 2050 in the 2D (a) and 2D‐NoBECCS (b) scenarios generated using TIAM‐UCL.
4. Figure 10.4 Electricity generation mix (PJ) under 2D (a) and 2DNoBECCS (b) scenarios.
5. Figure 10.5 Primary energy production under 2D (a) and 2D‐NoBECCS (b) scenarios.
6. Figure 10.6 CO₂ emissions until 2070 under different scenarios for the 2 °C target (for the list of scenarios see Table 10.2).
7. Figure 10.7 Year 2035 annual mean reduction in global CO₂ emissions between the peaking year (2015, 2020 and 2025) for the four families of scenarios incorporating the amount of biomass and the availability of BECCS.
8. Figure 10.8 Carbon prices until 2070 (in $/t(CO₂)) under different scenarios as in Figure 10.6.
9. Figure 10.9 Difference in carbon prices between no‐BECCS and BECCS scenarios for the year 2050, as a function of emissions peaking year (2015 to 2025) under low and high biomass availability.
10. Figure 10.10 Change in bioenergy use in 2 °C scenarios until 2070: high biomass vs low biomass availability.
11. Figure 10.11 Change in bioenergy use in 2 °C scenarios until 2070: no‐BECCS versus with BECCS scenarios.
12. Figure 10.12 Difference in electricity generation by technology under 2 °C scenarios between high‐ and low‐biomass scenarios. Only 2035 and 2050 results are presented from the pathways with no delaying in mitigation policies (peak emissions 2015); negative values convey a reduction and positive values an increase in the use of technology under high biomass availability.
13. Figure 10.13 Difference in total discounted system cost between no‐BECCS and BECCS scenarios to meet 2 °C targets as a function of biomass availability (black line = absolute change; grey line = relative change).
14. Figure 10.14 Emissions (GtCO₂) under different 1.5 °C scenarios.
15. Figure 10.15 Marginal CO₂ prices ($/tCO₂) under different 1.5 °C scenarios.
16. Figure 10.16 Installed capacity of BECCS (GW) under different 1.5 °C scenarios.
Chapter 11
1. Figure 11.1 Scope of a typical BECCS system.
2. Figure 11.2 Radar diagram showing overall sustainability assessment of biodiesel from Argentinean soy compared with mineral diesel (light grey = reference level; dark grey = scores for Argentinean soy system).
Chapter 13
1. Figure 13.1 Schematic illustrating terminology for negative emissions from BECCS. (a) CO₂stored, which can be calculated at a project, national or global level. (b) Negative emissions, which can be calculated at a project or national level and are achieved when the CO₂ removed from the atmosphere during biomass growth is greater than the CO₂ emissions from all the processes in the supply chain. (c) Global negative emissions, the global sum of all negative emissions activity; this removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and can be used to 'offset' other anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. (d) Global net negative emissions occur when the global amount of negative emissions exceeds the CO₂ emissions from all other human sources, e.g. energy, transport and agriculture (Gough et al., 2018).

Copyright

This edition first published 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Clair Gough, Patricia Thornley, Sarah Mander, Naomi Vaughan and Amanda Lea-Langton to be identified as the author(s) of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office(s)

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Office

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Gough, Clair, editor. | Thornley, Patricia, editor. | Mander, Sarah, editor. | Vaughan, Naomi, editor. | Lea-Langton, Amanda, editor.

Title: Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) : unlocking negative emissions / edited by Clair Gough, Patricia Thornley, Sarah Mander, Naomi Vaughan, Amanda Lea-Langton.

Description: First edition. | Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. |

Identifiers: LCCN 2018001038 (print) | LCCN 2018007091 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119237631 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119237686 (epub) | ISBN 9781119237723 (cloth)

Subjects: LCSH: Carbon sequestration. | Biomass energy-Climatic factors. | Climate change mitigation.

Classification: LCC SD387.C37 (ebook) | LCC SD387.C37 B555 2018 (print) | DDC 577/.144-dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018001038

Cover design by Wiley

Cover images © Pobytov/Getty Images

Gabrial Anandarajah
UCL Energy Institute University College London
UK

Kevin Anderson
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering University of Manchester
UK

Gordon Andrews
School of Chemical and Process Engineering University of Leeds
UK

Amit Bhave
CMCL Innovations Castle Park, Cambridge
UK

Bill Buschle
Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering University of Edinburgh
UK

Hannah Chalmers
Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering University of Edinburgh
UK

Olivier Dessens
UCL Energy Institute University College London
UK

Temitope Falano
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering The University of Manchester
UK

Paul Fennell
Bone Building Imperial College London
UK

Karen N. Finney
Energy 2050, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Sheffield
UK

Dennis Gammer
Energy Technologies Institute Holywell Building
Loughborough
UK

Clair Gough
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering The University of Manchester
UK

Geoffrey P. Hammond
Department of Mechanical Engineering Institute for Sustainable Energy and the Environment (ISEE) University of Bath
UK

Alice Larkin
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering The University of Manchester
UK

Amanda Lea‐Langton
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering The University of Manchester
UK

Mathieu Lucquiaud
Institute for Energy Systems, School of Engineering University of Edinburgh
UK

Leslie Mabon
Robert Gordon University Aberdeen
UK

Niall Mac Dowell
Centre for Environmental Policy Imperial College London
UK

Sarah Mander
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering The University of Manchester
UK

Will McDowall
UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources University College London
UK

Alison Mohr
School of Sociology and Social Policy University of Nottingham
UK

Geraldine Newton‐Cross
Energy Technologies Institute Loughborough
UK

Juan Riaza
Institute for Energy Systems, School of Engineering University of Edinburgh
UK

Nilay Shah
Bone Building Imperial College London
UK

Raphael Slade
Centre for Environmental Policy Imperial College
London
UK

János Szuhánszki
Energy 2050, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Sheffield
UK

Richard H.S. Taylor
Bone Building Imperial College London
UK

Patricia Thornley
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering The University of Manchester
UK

Naomi Vaughan
School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia
Norwich
UK

Andrew Welfle
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering The University of Manchester
UK

Unlocking Negative Emissions