Search

Limiting global warming to under 2 °C would require stringent mitigation and likely additional carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to compensate for otherwise unabated emissions. Because of its technology readiness, relatively low cost, and potential co-benefits, the application of biochar to soils could be an effective CDR strategy. We use the Global Change Analysis Model, a global multisector model, to analyze biochar deployment in the context of energy system uses of biomass with CDR under different carbon price trajectories. We find that biochar can create an annual sink of up to 2.8 GtCO _2 per year, reducing global mean temperature increases by an additional 0.5%–1.8% across scenarios by 2100 for a given carbon price path. In our scenarios, biochar’s deployment is dependent on potential crop yield gains and application rates, and the competition for resources with other CDR measures. We find that biochar can serve as a competitive CDR strategy, especially at lower carbon prices when bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is not yet economical.

Scenarios for deep decarbonization involve biomass for biofuels, biopower, and bioproducts, and they often include negative emissions via carbon capture and storage or utilization. However, critical questions remain about the feasibility of rapid growth to high levels of biomass utilization, given biomass and land availability as well as historical growth rates of the biofuel industry. We address these questions through a unique coordinated analysis and comparison of carbon pricing effects on biomass utilization growth in the United States using a multisectoral integrated assessment model, the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), and a biomass-to-biofuels system dynamics model, the Bioenergy Scenario Model (BSM). We harmonized and varied key factors—such as carbon prices, vehicle electrification, and arable land availability—in the two models. We varied the rate of biorefinery construction, the fungibility of feedstock types across conversion processes, and policy incentives in BSM. The rate of growth in biomass deployment under a carbon price in both models is within the range of current literature. However, the reallocation of land to biomass feedstocks would need to overcome bottlenecks to achieve growth consistent with deep decarbonization scenarios. Investments as a result of near-term policy incentives can develop technology and expand capacity—reducing costs, enabling flexibility in feedstock use, and improving stability—but if biomass demand is high, these investments might not overcome land reallocation bottlenecks. Biomass utilization for deep decarbonization relies on extraordinary growth in biomass availability and industrial capacity. In this paper, we quantify and describe the potential challenges of this rapid change.