Search

The pulp and paper industry (PPI) has several opportunities to contribute to meeting prevailing climate targets. It can cut its own CO2 emissions, which currently account for 2% of global industrial fossil CO2 emissions, and it has an opportunity to produce renewable energy, fuels, and materials for other sectors. The purpose of this study is to improve understanding of the decarbonization prospects of the PPI. The study provides insights on the magnitude of needed annual renewal rates for several possible net-zero target years of industrial fossil CO2 emissions in the PPI and discusses decarbonization opportunities, namely, energy and material efficiency improvement, fuel switching, electrification, renewable energy production, carbon capture, and new products. The effects of climate policies on the decarbonization opportunities are critically evaluated to provide an overview of the current and future business environment of the European PPI. The focus is on Europe, but other regions are analyzed briefly to widen the view. The analysis shows that there are no major technical barriers to the fossil-free operation of the PPI, but the sector renovates slowly, and many new opportunities are not implemented on a large scale due to immature technology, poor economic feasibility, or unclear political environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pulp and paper industry (PPI) has several opportunities to contribute to meeting prevailing climate targets. It can cut its own CO2 emissions, which currently account for 2% of global industrial fossil CO2 emissions, and it has an opportunity to produce renewable energy, fuels, and materials for other sectors. The purpose of this study is to improve understanding of the decarbonization prospects of the PPI. The study provides insights on the magnitude of needed annual renewal rates for several possible net-zero target years of industrial fossil CO2 emissions in the PPI and discusses decarbonization opportunities, namely, energy and material efficiency improvement, fuel switching, electrification, renewable energy production, carbon capture, and new products. The effects of climate policies on the decarbonization opportunities are critically evaluated to provide an overview of the current and future business environment of the European PPI. The focus is on Europe, but other regions are analyzed briefly to widen the view. The analysis shows that there are no major technical barriers to the fossil-free operation of the PPI, but the sector renovates slowly, and many new opportunities are not implemented on a large scale due to immature technology, poor economic feasibility, or unclear political environment.

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has been identified as a possible major contributor to efforts to reach ambitious climate targets through the provision of negative emissions–offsetting residual fossil emissions in “hard-to-abate” sectors and accomplishing net-negative emissions. The pulp and paper industry is the single largest consumer of biomass in Sweden, with many large point sources of biogenic CO2 emissions that could be captured. This work investigates the biomass supply required for large-scale implementation of BECCS in the pulp and paper industry. Logging residues are considered as a fuel to supply the additional energy demand imposed by the capture plant, and the potential of these residues is evaluated in a case study that includes four pulp and paper mills located in regions of Sweden with different conditions for biomass supply. Two of the mills are located in southern Sweden, where there is strong competition for logging residues from the heating sector, and two of the mills are located in northern Sweden, where the competition is weaker. We show that implementing carbon capture at the four pulp and paper mills using regional logging residues to supply the additional heat demand required by the capture process (the reboiler heat demand) has the potential to capture around 4.6 Mt CO2/year. The results also show that the fuel share of the capture cost, i.e., the cost to supply the reboiler heat demand with regional logging residues, is 22–30 €/tCO2 captured, where the lower value corresponds to regions with weaker competition for logging residues (in this study, northern Sweden). In regions that have competition for logging residues, the possibility to increase the regional supply of logging residues to fuel the capture process while maintaining mill production output is limited, which in turn limits the possibilities to generate negative emissions via BECCS. In contrast, in regions with a low level of competition and strong availability of logging residues, there is an additional potential for logging residues to cover the additional heat demand required for CCS implementation.

Limiting global warming to close to 1.5°C by 2100 requires deep and rapid greenhouse gas emission reductions and carbon dioxide removals (CDR) on a massive scale, presenting a remarkable scaling challenge. This paper focuses on the financing of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in Sweden. BECCS is one of the most prominent CDR methods in 1.5°C-compatible global emission scenarios and has been assigned a specific role in Swedish policy for net-zero. A Swedish state support system for BECCS based on results-based payments is planned. Furthermore, demand for CDR-based carbon credits is on the rise on the voluntary carbon markets (VCM) for use towards voluntary mitigation targets. Risks involved with the current Swedish policies are analysed, specifically for the co-financing of BECCS by the planned state support and revenues from the VCM. We find that with the current policies, state support systems will subsidise carbon credit prices on the VCM. We argue that such subsidisation can lower decarbonisation efforts by lowering the internal carbon price set by actors, thus undermining environmental integrity. It is concluded that proportional attribution should be applied, i.e., attributing mitigation outcomes to the state support and VCM revenue in proportion to their financial contribution to the CDR achieved. The attribution analysis should be accompanied by adjustments in national greenhouse gas accounting so that mitigation outcomes that are issued as carbon credits and used for offsetting are not double claimed (i.e., not used by both a nation and a non-state actor on the VCM towards their respective mitigation targets). If proportional attribution and adjustments in national GHG accounting are not implemented, the credibility and environmental integrity of offsetting claims made by carbon credit users are eroded. We recommend that action is taken to operationalise and implement proportional attribution to allow for co-financing of BECCS projects while maintaining environmental integrity. Wider implications for our recommendations beyond the case of Swedish BECCS are also analysed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a rapidly evolving technology, carbon capture and storage (CCS) can potentially lower the levels of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry. This paper provides a comprehensive review of different aspects of CCS technology, including its key components, the methods and stages of carbon storage, implied environmental effects, and its pros and cons. This paper also investigates the utilization of CCS as an alternative method to water injection into oil reservoirs. It also probes the technical and operational challenges of implementing CCS technology in the oil and gas industry. Additionally, this paper examines the regulatory and policy issues associated with CCS, including incentives and frameworks for promoting the deployment of CCS technology. Finally, in this paper the potential benefits of CCS are discussed, including reducing the carbon footprint of the oil and gas industry, enhancing energy security, and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The roles digital media-technologies play in raising public issues relating to emerging technologies and their potential for engaging publics with science and policy assessments is a lively field of inquiry in Science and Technology Studies (STS). This paper presents an analysis of controversies over proposals for the large-scale removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CDR). The study combines a digital method (web-querying) with document analysis to map debates about two CDR approaches: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation. In the first step, we locate actors using the web to engage with BECCS and afforestation and map their alignments in relation to competing framings of CDR. In a second step, we examine the devices deployed by UK-based actors to evidence and contest the feasibility of BECCS and afforestation. Our analysis shows that policy distinctions between "natural" and "engineered" CDR are used flexibly in practice and do not map neatly onto actor engagement with BECCS and afforestation. We highlight the predominance of cross-cutting techno-economic expertise and argue that framings of CDR as a solution to governing climate change may contribute to public disengagement from climate policy processes. The paper reflects on methods for studying controversies, publics, and issues emerging around processes of technoscientific assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Demand for sustainably produced biomass is expected to increase with the need to provide renewable commodities, improve resource security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with COP26 commitments. Studies have demonstrated additional environmental benefits of using perennial biomass crops (PBCs), when produced appropriately, as a feedstock for the growing bioeconomy, including utilisation for bioenergy (with or without carbon capture and storage). PBCs can potentially contribute to Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (2023–27) objectives provided they are carefully integrated into farming systems and landscapes. Despite significant research and development (R&D) investment over decades in herbaceous and coppiced woody PBCs, deployment has largely stagnated due to social, economic and policy uncertainties. This paper identifies the challenges in creating policies that are acceptable to all actors. Development will need to be informed by measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other environmental, economic and social metrics. It discusses interlinked issues that must be considered in the expansion of PBC production: (i) available land; (ii) yield potential; (iii) integration into farming systems; (iv) R&D requirements; (v) utilisation options; and (vi) market systems and the socio‐economic environment. It makes policy recommendations that would enable greater PBC deployment: (1) incentivise farmers and land managers through specific policy measures, including carbon pricing, to allocate their less productive and less profitable land for uses which deliver demonstrable greenhouse gas reductions; (2) enable greenhouse gas mitigation markets to develop and offer secure contracts for commercial developers of verifiable low‐carbon bioenergy and bioproducts; (3) support innovation in biomass utilisation value chains; and (4) continue long‐term, strategic R&D and education for positive environmental, economic and social sustainability impacts. Perennial biomass crops (PBCs) can potentially contribute to Common Agricultural Policy (2023–27) objectives provided they are carefully integrated into farming systems and landscapes. Despite significant research and development (R&D) investment over decades in herbaceous and coppiced woody PBCs, deployment has largely stagnated due to social, economic and policy uncertainties. This paper identifies the challenges in creating policies that are acceptable to all actors and discusses the interlinked issues: (i) available land; (ii) yield potential; (iii) integration into farming systems; (iv) R&D requirements; (v) utilisation options; and (vi) market systems and the socio‐economic environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) approaches are an essential part of virtually any scenario in which global warming is limited to 1.5 °C in accordance with the Paris Agreement. Discussions often focus on two technologies due to their substantial carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration potential: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). However, the large-scale deployment of both technologies—especially BECCS—may lead to significant human rights infringements. This paper aims to analyze the impact of both technologies on human rights from the methodological perspective of a legal interpretation of international law. It shows that a large-scale BECCS strategy, which inevitably requires enormous land-use changes, will most likely infringe upon the right to food, the right to water, and the right to a healthy environment. In contrast, large-scale DACCS approaches will likely have a smaller human rights impact, but the energy-intensive process could also infringe upon the right to energy. Balancing these human rights with other freedom rights, e.g., of consumers and enterprises, the paper will further demonstrate that from the perspective of human rights, rapid emission reductions and the minimization of livestock farming—and also less risky nature-based options such as peatland and forest management—should prevail before any large-scale industrial NET strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to achieve greenhouse gas neutrality, hydrogen generated from renewable sources will play an important role. Additionally, as underlined in the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), new technologies to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere are required on a large scale. A novel concept for hydrogen production with net negative emissions referred to as HyBECCS (Hydrogen Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage) combines these two purposes in one technological approach. The HyBECCS concept combines biohydrogen production from biomass with the capture and storage of biogenic carbon dioxide. Various technology combinations of HyBECCS processes are possible, whose ecological effects and economic viability need to be analyzed in order to provide a basis for comparison and decision‐making. This paper presents fundamentals for the techno‐economic and environmental evaluation of HyBECCS approaches. Transferable frameworks on system boundaries as well as emission, cost, and revenue streams are defined and specifics for the application of existing assessment methods are elaborated. In addition, peculiarities concerning the HyBECCS approach with respect to political regulatory measures and interrelationships between economics and ecology are outlined. Based on these considerations, two key performance indicators (KPIs) are established, referred to as levelized cost of carbon‐negative hydrogen (LCCNH) and of negative emissions (LCNE). Both KPIs allow deciding whether a specific HyBECCS project is economically viable and allows its comparison with different hydrogen, energy provision, or negative emission technologies (NETs). Carbon‐negative hydrogen production referred to as HyBECCS (Hydrogen Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage) combines hydrogen production from biomass with the capture and storage of biogenic carbon dioxide. Various technology combinations of HyBECCS processes are possible, whose ecological effects and economic viability need to be analysed. This paper presents fundamentals for the techno‐economic and environmental evaluation of HyBECCS approaches. Transferable frameworks on system boundaries as well as emission, cost and revenue streams are defined and specifics for the application of existing assessment methods are elaborated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decarbonization of energy matrices is crucial to limit global warming below 2 °C this century. An alternative capable of enabling zero or even negative CO2 emissions is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). In this sense, the Brazilian sugar–energy sector draws attention, as it would be possible to combine the production of fuel and electricity from renewable biomass. This paper is the final part of a study that aimed to research carbon capture and storage (CCS) in energy systems based on sugarcane. The case studied is CCS in thermal power plants considering two different technologies: the steam cycle based on the condensing–extraction steam turbine (CEST) and the combined cycle integrated to biomass gasification (BIG-CC). The results for the thermal power plant indicate that the CO2 capture costs may be lower than those in cogeneration systems, which were previously studied. The main reasons are the potential scale effects and the minimization of energy penalties associated with integrating the CCS system into the mills. In the best cases, capture costs can be reduced to EUR 54–65 per ton of CO2 for the CEST technology and EUR 57–68 per ton of CO2 for the BIG-CC technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) technologies are fundamental to reach negative CO2 emissions by removing it from the atmosphere and storing it underground. A promising solution to implement BECCS is pressurized Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC), which involves coupling a pressurized CLC reactor system to a turboexpander. The typical configuration chosen is to have an air reactor and a fuel reactor based on coupled circulating fluidized beds. The fluidization regime in both reactors is preferred to be fast fluidization to enhance gas particle contact and solids circulation among reactors. To design the two reactors, Aspen Plus software was used, given that the new version has a module for fluidized bed modeling. At first, the oxygen carrier was designed ex novo, but given that it is a composite compound mainly made by nickel oxide freeze-granulated on alumina (Ni40Al-FG), the molecular structure has been inserted in Aspen Plus. Then, based on the power of the gas turbine, the power output per kg of evolving fluid (in this case, depleted air) is calculated using Aspen Plus. Once the nitrogen content in the depleted air is known, the total air at the inlet of the air reactor is calculated. The fuel reactor is modeled by inserting the reduction reactions for nickel-based oxygen carriers. The paper presents a useful methodology for developing pressurized Chemical Looping Combustors to be coupled to gas turbines for power generation. The provided data will be cross-validated with 0D-models and experimental results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most mitigation scenarios compatible with a likely change of holding global warming well below 2 °C rely on negative emissions technologies (NETs). According to the integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to produce mitigation scenarios for the IPCC reports, the NET with the greatest potential to achieve negative emissions is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Crucial questions arise about where the enormous quantities of biomass needed according to the IAM scenarios could feasibly be produced in a sustainable manner. Africa is attractive in the context of BECCS because of large areas that could contribute biomass energy and indications of substantial underground CO2 storage capacities. However, estimates of large biomass availability in Africa are usually based on highly aggregated datasets, and only a few studies explore future challenges or barriers for BECCS in any detail. Based on previous research and literature, this paper analyses the pre-conditions for BECCS in Tanzania by studying what we argue are the applications of BECCS, or the components of the BECCS chain, that are most feasible in the country, namely (1) as applied to domestic sugarcane-based energy production (bioethanol), and (2) with Tanzania in a producer and re-growth role in an international BECCS chain, supplying biomass or biofuels for export to developed countries. The review reveals that a prerequisite for both options is either the existence of a functional market for emissions trading and selling, making negative emissions a viable commercial investment, or sustained investment through aid programmes. Also, historically, an important barrier to the development of production capacity of liquid biofuels for export purposes has been given by ethical dilemmas following in the wake of demand for land to facilitate production of biomass, such as sugarcane and jatropha. In these cases, conflicts over access to land and mismanagement have been more of a rule than an exception. Increased production volumes of solid biomass for export to operations that demand bioenergy, be it with or without a CCS component, is likely to give rise to similar conflicts. While BECCS may well play an important role in reducing emissions in countries with high capacity to act combined with existing large point sources of biogenic CO2 emissions, it seems prudent to proceed with utmost caution when implicating BECCS deployment in least developed countries, like Tanzania.The paper argues that negative BECCS-related emissions from Tanzania should not be assumed in global climate mitigation scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the prospects of low short‐term emissions reduction, carbon removals (CDRs) are expected to play an important role in achieving ambitious mitigation targets in future scenarios of integrated assessment models (IAMs), particularly Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). In this paper, we explore the IAMC 1.5℃ database to depict the characteristics of the two main CDR options present in mitigation scenarios: BECCS and afforestation/reforestation. We apply a linear mixed‐effect model to capture the specific regional and cross‐IAM effects. Results reveal that the distribution of BECCS and afforestation deployment differs across IAMs and regions and, to a second extent, time. BECCS is preferred in the scenarios not for its ability to expand energy use but actually because it appears as an alternative to afforestation, which is associated with a decrease in energy use. However, the regional distribution of CDR deployment does not show a common pattern across scenarios and IAMs. Therefore, a more comprehensive investigation is needed before it can support policy proposals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper presents a thermodynamic analysis of the integration of a cryogenic air separation unit into a negative CO2 emission gas power plant. The power cycle utilizes sewage sludge as fuel so this system fits into the innovative idea of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. A cryogenic air separation unit integrated with the power plant was simulated in professional plant engineering and thermodynamic process analysis software. Two cases of the thermodynamic cycle have been studied, namely with the exhaust bleed for fuel treatment and without it. The results of calculations indicate that the net efficiencies of the negative CO2 emission gas power plant reach 27.05% (combustion in 95.0% pure oxygen) and 24.57% (combustion in 99.5% pure oxygen) with the bleed. The efficiencies of the cycle without the bleed are 29.26% and 27.0% for combustion in 95.0% pure oxygen and 99.5% pure oxygen, respectively. For the mentioned cycle, the calculated energy penalty of oxygen production was 0.235 MWh/kgO2 for the lower purity value. However, for higher purity namely 99.5%, the energy penalty of oxygen production for the thermodynamic cycle including the bleed and excluding the bleed was indicated 0.346 and 0.347 MWh/kgO2, respectively. Additionally, the analysis of the oxygen purity impact on the carbon dioxide purity at the end of the carbon capture and storage installation shows that for the case with the bleed, CO2 purities are 93.8% and 97.6%, and excluding the bleed they are 93.8% and 97.8%, for the mentioned oxygen purities respectively. Insertion of the cryogenic oxygen production in-stallation is required as the considered gas power plant uses oxy-combustion to facilitate carbon capture and storage method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the role of negative emissions technologies (NETs) in energy systems, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC) with geological carbon storage (DACCS) in particular, using a bottom-up energy system model TIMES-Japan that participated in the 35th study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 35 JMIP) focusing on the energy transitions for the long-run climate goals. Modeling results show that large-scale deployment of NETs is essential to achieve the net-zero vision of Japan's long-term strategy, however, these NETs might not be enough in the case of the highest energy service demands. Within the feasible solution space, earlier deployment of BECCS with domestic biomass can contribute effectively to achieve the target with the support of the DACCS at the later period if both technologies are available. It shows feasible results without DACCS only in the lowest energy service demands, implying the importance of urgent research, development, and deployment of DACCS. Furthermore, this study shows that earlier deployment of DAC system with CO2 utilization in fuel production is a cost-effective way to lead the large-scale deployment of the DAC as NETs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several technical methods are currently discussed to meet the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 21st Conference of the Parties, Paris, France (Paris Agreement) in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. In addition to efficiency improvements, reduction of energy consumption, and the utilization of renewable energy sources, the application of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies seems to be unavoidable. Whereas all these measures aim on the reduction of CO2 that is being newly released, there is the approach to remove CO2 from the atmosphere that has already been emitted. This can be achieved by the utilization of bioenergy in CCS processes. Within this paper, the utilization of alternative fuels in two second-generation CCS processes is assessed. In this regard, chemical looping combustion (CLC) and calcium looping (CaL) are two promising technologies. Both processes have proven their feasibility already in semi-industrial scale. The assessment includes three different types of fuel namely coal, biomass, and solid recovered fuel (SRF). The analysis is twofold: first, a heat and mass balance calculation reveals the specific CO2 emissions of each power system; second, a cost analysis points out the feasibility from an economic point of view. The highest CO2 removal can be achieved by a biomass-fired CLC unit (− 696 gCO2/kWhe). Furthermore, it was found that the co-combustion of SRF even at moderate co-firing rates allows for noteworthy improved economics of the CCS system. Therefore, the utilization of waste-derived fuels in the context of CCS processes should be put more into focus in future research activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper covers the public debate on BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) between 2008 and 2018. Through a qualitative analysis of around 800 feature articles, editorials, and opinion pieces published in English, German, Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian in news media and debates sections of scientific media, we highlight conspicuous aspects of the debate and relate them to the theoretical concept of post-normal science. We find that the debate is characterized by an emphasis on values, scientific uncertainty and the integrity of science, premised on a pervading sense of urgency. To a significant extent, the debate can be understood as a "normal" view of science questioning what it perceives to be unscientific model-based climate scenarios, and the scenarios, in turn, can be seen as a response to post-normal circumstances. The urgency permeating the debate provides conditions for open debate about ethical and epistemological uncertainty. The debate goes through a period of polarization – corroborating findings from previous studies on the climate science debate after COP21 – between an intense critique of BECCS inclusion in climate scenarios and reluctant acceptance thereof. Towards the end of the studied period, emphasis shifts towards reluctant acceptance, indicating that post-normal debate may only occur as a temporary state always tending towards new consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores policies for Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs), in an attempt to move beyond the supply-side focus of the majority of NETs research, as well as the current dominance of carbon pricing as the main NETs policy proposal. The paper identifies a number of existing policies from four key areas – energy/transport, agriculture, sub-soil, and oceans – which will have an impact on three NETs: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), and terrestrial Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW). We propose that non-climate co-benefits may be valuable in terms of the policy 'demand pull' for NETs; in particular, we find that ERW may provide multiple co-benefits which can be mandated through existing policy structures. However, interaction with numerous policy areas may also create barriers, particularly where there is tension between the priorities of different government departments. On the basis of existing and analogous policies from a range of geographical contexts and scales, this paper proposes four options for NETs policy that could be reasonably implemented in the near-term. We also argue that ERW demonstrates the importance of scale and framing, because the policy environment depends on whether it is framed as a soil amendment at local scales or as a climate stabilization technique at international scale. Key policy insights Co-benefits may assist the 'demand pull' for novel technologies by providing multiple policy angles for incentivisation rather than relying on a 'fix-all' policy such as a high carbon price. DAC with storage might be overly reliant on a high carbon price, because it only provides one core benefit – that of atmospheric carbon reduction. ERW may provide multiple co-benefits which can be mandated through existing policy structures, but should focus on using waste rock rather than mining virgin material. We propose four near-term options for NETs policy: funding for small-scale BECCS demonstration and an international biomass certification mechanism; small-scale loans for ERW on farms and promotion of locally-sourced rock residues; amendment of fertilizer subsidy schemes to include silicate rock; and a clearer framework for licensing sub-soil access for CO2 storage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Willingness to pay for BECCS in Denmark and factors influencing it are investigated. • Willingness to pay is linked to the view of BECCS as necessary for mitigation. • View of BECCS as a necessity reveals either support or reluctant acceptance. • Preference for renewable energies revealed by respondents unwilling to pay. • Age, views on climate change and sustainability of biomass influence WTP. Most climate change mitigation scenarios rely on negative emissions technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). However, little is known about public support for BECCS. This paper gauges Danes' willingness to pay (WTP) for biomass with carbon capture and storage and examines factors influencing it. Denmark is a suitable case study given its reliance on biomass and negative emissions to achieve climate targets. Results from a questionnaire-based survey indicate a mean WTP of 3072 DKK (412 EUR) per household per year. This correspondents to a 12% increase in heat and electricity expenses. The need for negative emissions is the main stated reason for WTP. This may be interpreted as reflecting either support for, or reluctant acceptance of, BECCS. Results show that being younger, being concerned about climate change and believing that it is mainly caused by human activity, and believing in the mitigation potential of biomass and that sustainability is a precondition of its use have a significant effect on WTP. Public views on BECCS are complex but must be acknowledged if discussion of the role of BECCS in the decarbonisation agenda is to move forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our model for optimizing stand-level wood production and carbon sinks includes individual-tree models for forest growth, an advanced model for soil carbon, detailed wood production economy, and an intertemporal objective for the value of wood production and carbon sinks/emissions. Carbon stocks include aboveground biomass and carbon in forest soil and in wood products. Optimization of the management regime, rotations and thinning timing, and type and intensity are carried out by reinforcement learning. Including the social price of carbon causes a regime switch from continuous cover forestry to clear-cuts, postponed lighter thinning, and a longer rotation, and with a high carbon price, to solutions with pure clear-cuts or solutions utilizing stands as pure carbon stocks. Carbon price has profound effects on stand values, and the bare land value may well exceed the value before a clear-cut. The total average carbon stock is maximized with harvest and a long rotation instead of "no harvesting". Bioenergy, carbon capture, and storage (BECCS) always increases the value of wood production but not necessarily the value of carbon sinks. With BECCS, increasing carbon stocks in trees and forest soil remains optimal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The greatest lever for advancing climate adaptation and mitigation is the defossilization of energy systems. A key opportunity to replace fossil fuels across sectors is the use of renewable hydrogen. In this context, the main political and social push is currently on climate neutral hydrogen (H2) production through electrolysis using renewable electricity. Another climate neutral possibility that has recently gained importance is biohydrogen production from biogenic residual and waste materials. This paper introduces for the first time a novel concept for the production of hydrogen with net negative emissions. The derived concept combines biohydrogen production using biotechnological or thermochemical processes with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage. Various process combinations referred to this basic approach are defined as HyBECCS (Hydrogen Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage) and described in this paper. The technical principles and resulting advantages of the novel concept are systematically derived and compared with other Negative Emission Technologies (NET). These include the high concentration and purity of the CO2 to be captured compared to Direct Air Carbon Capture (DAC) and Post-combustion Carbon Capture (PCC) as well as the emission-free use of hydrogen resulting in a higher possible CO2 capture rate compared to hydrocarbon-based biofuels generated with Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) technologies. Further, the role of carbon-negative hydrogen in future energy systems is analyzed, taking into account key societal and technological drivers against the background of climate adaptation and mitigation. For this purpose, taking the example of the Federal Republic of Germany, the ecological impacts are estimated, and an economic assessment is made. For the production and use of carbon-negative hydrogen, a saving potential of 8.49–17.06 MtCO2,eq/a is estimated for the year 2030 in Germany. The production costs for carbon-negative hydrogen would have to be below 4.30 € per kg in a worst-case scenario and below 10.44 € in a best-case scenario in order to be competitive in Germany, taking into account hydrogen market forecasts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Paris Agreement, there are targets set up for 2100 to be well below 2 °C. A more ambitious target of 1.5 °C also appears in the agreement. In order to address whether this target is achievable or not, studies about the 1.5 °C target's emission pathway are essential. Recently a few studies have presented modelling results of the global emission pathway for the 1.5 °C target. This paper presents an analysis for China under the global 1.5 °C pathway and budget, by looking at key options to go beyond the 2 °C target pathway. Similar to the global emission pathway, China's CO2 emissions have to be reduced quickly and reach zero emission between 2050 and 2060. China's energy system needs to make a rapid transition to much greater reduction in fossil fuel use from now on. End-use sectors need to increase electricity use significantly. Power generation will achieve negative emission before 2050. CCS will be widely used, and biomass energy with CCS (BECCS) must be adopted on a large scale by 2040. This is doable in China, but very near-term changes in policy are needed to make such a pathway happen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The biological transformation of industrial value creation aims to provide solutions with regard to the ecological challenges of our time. Concerning climate change, the most critical transformation area is the energy sector. Alternatives to fossil energy supply as well as the active removal of carbon dioxide (CO 2) from the atmosphere are considered the most important challenges that technology must provide solutions for. A promising approach in this context is the carbon-negative hydrogen production from biogenic sources (HyBECCS). This approach can be implemented on the basis of existing biogas plants. Technology alternatives for retrofitting these plants to HyBECCS facilities are elaborated and their respective strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are derived in this paper. Further, taking the example of Baden-Wuerttemberg in Germany, the ecologic potentials concerning hydrogen (H 2) production and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction are estimated. The current total H 2 demand of 1.8 TWh/a in this area could be fully covered if 1/7 to 1/4 of existing biogas plants were retrofitted for H 2 production. The substitution of gray H 2 can avoid GHG emissions of 2.2-3.7 million t CO 2 per year. In addition, capture and storage or long-term use of the resulting biogenic CO 2 can enable negative emissions of 2.5-6 million t CO 2 per year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Proposed BECCS deployment criteria are based on socio-enviro-economic objectives. • Life cycle emissions and carbon abatement costs are calculated. • Some of the BECCS pathways are less likely to achieve net negative emissions. • Balancing between socioeconomic aspects such as local job creation opportunities, cost, feedstock supply chain disruptions, and emission reduction targets is discussed. Countries are considering different options to achieve net zero emissions including Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which is the process of capturing and storing CO 2 from processes that use bioenergy to produce heat, electricity, or biofuels. However, this technology faces sustainability concerns and possesses complex value chains of its emissions. Adding further to this complexity, the literature indicates two opposing views with respect to the potential of BECCS in terms of being able (or unable) to achieve negative emissions. Hence, this paper analyzes in detail a wide range of BECCS pathways in terms of their ability to achieve negative emissions along with their associated costs. Out of seven assessed pathways, our analysis shows that corn to ethanol and biomethane production from maize BECCS pathway in the USA, biomethane production from wet manure in Europe, and baling of straw pellets with trans-Atlantic shipment can achieve negative emissions at a cost of 50, 108, 159, and 232 dollars per ton of CO 2 ($/tCO 2) respectively. Other technologies like poplar pellets, forest residue, and agricultural residue with trans-Atlantic shipment are not able to achieve negative emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compared to conventional monoethanolamine (MEA), alternative solvents are expected to substantially contribute to reduce the energy demand of postcombustion CO2 capture from flue gases. This study presents a comprehensive techno-economic analysis of a 27wt% 2-amino-2-methyl-1- propanol (AMP) + 13wt% piperazine (PZ) aqueous solution for CO2 capture, compared to a 30 wt% MEA solution. The study addresses the retrofit of a carbon capture unit to a biomass-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plant, effectively making it a bioenergy with a carbon capture and storage (BECCS) system. The treated flue gas has a flow rate of 23 tons/hour (t/h) with 11.54 vol% CO2 and a 90% capture rate is aimed for. Aspen Plus V14 was employed for process simulations. Initially, binary interaction parameters for AMP/PZ, AMP/H2O, and PZ/H2O are regressed using vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) data, which were retrieved from literature along with reaction kinetics. Validation of parameters from available experimental literature yields an average absolute relative deviation (AARD) of only 5.9%. Afterwards, a process simulation model is developed and validated against experimental data from a reference pilot plant, using a similar AMP/PZ blend, resulting in 5% AARD. Next, a sensitivity analysis optimizes operating conditions, including solvent rate, absorber/stripper packing heights, and stripper pressure, based on regeneration energy impact. Optimized results, compared to MEA, reveal that AMP/PZ reduces the energy consumption from 3.61 to 2.86 GJ/tCO2. The retrofitting of the capture unit onto the selected CHP plant is examined through the development of a dedicated model. Two control strategies are compared to address energy unavailability for supplying the capture unit. The analysis spans 4 months, selected to account for seasonal variations. At nominal capacity, CO2 emissions, rendered negative by biomass combustion and CO2 capture, reach a maximum of -3.4 tCO2/h compared to 0.36 tCO2/h before retrofitting. Depending on the control strategy and CHP plant operating point, the Specific Primary Energy Consumption for CO2 Avoided (SPECCA) ranges from 4.91 MJ/kgCO2 to 1.76 MJ/kgCO2. Finally, an economic comparison based on systematic methodology reveals a 7.87% reduction in capture cost favoring the AMP/PZ blend. Together, these findings highlight AMP/PZ as a highly favorable alternative solvent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To achieve net-zero targets, it is essential to evaluate and model the costs and scalability of emerging carbon dioxide removal technologies like direct air capture with CO2 storage (DACCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Yet such efforts are often impeded by varying assessments of the climate impact and potential contributions of these technologies. This study explores the future costs and scalability of DACCS and BECCS to advance net-zero goals. Methods: We analyze expert opinions on these technologies’ potential costs and deployment scales for 2030, 2040, and 2050. Data was collected from 34 experts, comprising 21 DACCS and 13 BECCS specialists. They provided 90% confidence interval estimates and ‘best estimates’ for future costs and deployment under two International Energy Agency (IEA) policy scenarios— Stated Policies (STEPS) and Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE). Results: We find that BECCS costs start at a lower level but decrease more slowly, whereas DACCS costs decline more steeply from a higher initial cost. However, DACCS estimates varied significantly among experts, showing no convergence over time. Regarding potential scalability, both technologies are associated with substantially higher deployment under the NZE scenario. Yet the combined estimated capacity of DACCS and BECCS by 2050 is only about a quarter of the CO2 removals projected by the IEA for its NZE scenario (1.9 GtCO2). Discussion: This study provides valuable insights into the future of DACCS and BECCS technologies in Europe, especially since our experts expect that DACCS and BECCS costs will be even higher (and deployment scales lower) than those predicted by recent IEA tracking, opening future research directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can sequester atmospheric CO2, while producing electricity. The CO2 avoidance cost (CAC) is used to calculate the marginal cost of avoided CO2 emissions for BECCS as compared to other established energy technologies. A comparative analysis using four different reference-case power plants for CAC calculations is performed here to evaluate the CO2 avoidance cost of BECCS implementation. Results from this work demonstrate that BECCS can generate electricity at costs competitive with other neutral emissions technologies, while simultaneously removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Approximately 73% of current coal power plants are approaching retirement by the year 2035 in the U.S. After considering CO2 sequestered from the atmosphere and coal power plant CO2 emissions displaced by BECCS, CO2 emissions can be reduced by 1.4 billion tonnes per year in the U.S. alone at a cost of $88 to $116 per tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere, for 10% to 90% of available biomass used, respectively. CAC calculations in this paper indicate that BECCS can help the U.S. and other countries transition to a decarbonized electricity grid, as simulations presented in this paper predict that BECCS power plants operate at lower CACs than coal plants with CCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Limiting global warming to close to 1.5°C by 2100 requires deep and rapid greenhouse gas emission reductions and carbon dioxide removals (CDR) on a massive scale, presenting a remarkable scaling challenge. This paper focuses on the financing of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in Sweden. BECCS is one of the most prominent CDR methods in 1.5°C-compatible global emission scenarios and has been assigned a specific role in Swedish policy for net-zero. A Swedish state support system for BECCS based on results-based payments is planned. Furthermore, demand for CDR-based carbon credits is on the rise on the voluntary carbon markets (VCM) for use towards voluntary mitigation targets. Risks involved with the current Swedish policies are analysed, specifically for the co-financing of BECCS by the planned state support and revenues from the VCM. We find that with the current policies, state support systems will subsidise carbon credit prices on the VCM. We argue that such subsidisation can lower decarbonisation efforts by lowering the internal carbon price set by actors, thus undermining environmental integrity. It is concluded that proportional attribution should be applied, i.e., attributing mitigation outcomes to the state support and VCM revenue in proportion to their financial contribution to the CDR achieved. The attribution analysis should be accompanied by adjustments in national greenhouse gas accounting so that mitigation outcomes that are issued as carbon credits and used for offsetting are not double claimed (i.e., not used by both a nation and a non-state actor on the VCM towards their respective mitigation targets). If proportional attribution and adjustments in national GHG accounting are not implemented, the credibility and environmental integrity of offsetting claims made by carbon credit users are eroded. We recommend that action is taken to operationalise and implement proportional attribution to allow for co-financing of BECCS projects while maintaining environmental integrity. Wider implications for our recommendations beyond the case of Swedish BECCS are also analysed.

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) approaches are an essential part of virtually any scenario in which global warming is limited to 1.5 °C in accordance with the Paris Agreement. Discussions often focus on two technologies due to their substantial carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration potential: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). However, the large-scale deployment of both technologies—especially BECCS—may lead to significant human rights infringements. This paper aims to analyze the impact of both technologies on human rights from the methodological perspective of a legal interpretation of international law. It shows that a large-scale BECCS strategy, which inevitably requires enormous land-use changes, will most likely infringe upon the right to food, the right to water, and the right to a healthy environment. In contrast, large-scale DACCS approaches will likely have a smaller human rights impact, but the energy-intensive process could also infringe upon the right to energy. Balancing these human rights with other freedom rights, e.g., of consumers and enterprises, the paper will further demonstrate that from the perspective of human rights, rapid emission reductions and the minimization of livestock farming—and also less risky nature-based options such as peatland and forest management—should prevail before any large-scale industrial NET strategies.

Copyright of Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) plays a vital role in most climate change mitigation scenarios, where a solution for sustainable near‐term bioenergy expansion is to grow energy crops such as perennial grasses on recently abandoned cropland. There is a need to combine model‐based insights into theoretical potential and future biomass supply with more fine‐grained sociotechnical analysis to move toward realistic policies and innovation strategies. We combine natural science insights anchored in quantitative bioenergy modeling with qualitative social science anchored in the multi‐level perspective. Using these mixed methods enables a global‐to‐local‐to‐global level assessment of near‐term bioenergy recultivation opportunities for abandoned cropland. Norway is the local case. There are three main findings. First, the ongoing recultivation trends for food/feed production risks making gains in aboveground carbon stocks from natural regrowth on the mapped abandoned cropland over a 30‐year evaluation period almost negligible. Second, delaying a BECCS recultivation of abandoned cropland will make it impossible to reach high‐end mitigation potentials, and an accelerated BECCS recultivation guided by a policy push is needed to ensure stronger mitigation. Third, we unravel several real‐world challenges associated with bioenergy resource and supply modeling. Remote‐sensing techniques alone cannot capture actual land availability for land‐based climate change mitigation strategies. Local‐level sociotechnical conditions are generally found insufficiently supportive to align with the rapid near‐term bioenergy crop expansion found in 2°C scenarios from integrated assessment. The integration of mixed quantitative and qualitative methods is key to better understand the role of BECCS in climate change mitigation. Plain Language Summary: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a key option for mitigating climate change. The idea is to capture the carbon emitted when biomass is converted into fuels or burned for energy production and store it underground. One proposed solution to ramp‐up biomass supply involves growing energy crops, like perennial grasses, on recently abandoned farmland. To make realistic policies and strategies for the future, we need to connect the theoretical potential of BECCS with local context, considering social and technical factors. We combine two approaches: using numbers to model bioenergy and using social science to understand the human and political side. By using a mix of methods, we can assess the potential for a near‐term recultivation of abandoned cropland for bioenergy and BECCS. There were three main findings. First, the combined use of both natural science and social science methods can help us better understand the role of BECCS in climate change mitigation. Second, re‐using abandoned farmland for growing food or animal feed reduces the effectiveness of letting the land naturally recover for fighting climate change. Third a rapid BECCS recultivation of abandoned cropland increases achieved climate change mitigation relative to a delayed BECCS recultivation. Key Points: Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods are key to unravel the role of bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in climate change mitigationOngoing recultivation of abandoned cropland for food production limits aboveground carbon accumulation from natural regrowthPolicies to redirect recultivation toward BECCS are needed to maximize climate change mitigation [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Limiting global warming to 2 °C requires urgent action on land-based mitigation. This study evaluates the biogeochemical and biogeophysical implications of two alternative land-based mitigation scenarios that aim to achieve the same radiative forcing. One scenario is primarily driven by bioenergy expansion (SSP226Lu-BIOCROP), while the other involves re/afforestation (SSP126Lu-REFOREST). We find that overall, SSP126Lu-REFOREST is a more efficient strategy for removing CO2 from the atmosphere by 2100, resulting in a net carbon sink of 242 ~ 483 PgC with smaller uncertainties compared to SSP226Lu-BIOCROP, which exhibits a wider range of -78 ~ 621 PgC. However, SSP126Lu-REFOREST leads to a relatively warmer planetary climate than SSP226Lu-BIOCROP, and this relative warming can be intensified in certain re/afforested regions where local climates are not favorable for tree growth. Despite the cooling effect on a global scale, SSP226Lu-BIOCROP reshuffles regional warming hotspots, amplifying summer temperatures in vulnerable tropical regions such as Central Africa and Southeast Asia. Our findings highlight the need for strategic land use planning to identify suitable regions for re/afforestation and bioenergy expansion, thereby improving the likelihood of achieving the intended climate mitigation outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • Lifecycle assessment of coal plus wood and paper waste co-firing with CO 2 capture. • Combustion modelling used to predict direct CO 2 and trace emissions. • Increasing co-firing ratio without CO 2 capture decreases CO 2 emissions slightly. • Lower global warming potential due to CO 2 capture drives a lower endpoint score. • Negative emissions achievable at more than 30 % waste co-firing with CO 2 capture. Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is an emerging energy conversion technology with the potential to deliver 'negative emissions', a net removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere that may be necessary to achieve the net-zero targets adopted in the Glasgow Climate Pact at COP26. This paper uses Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to investigate the environmental impacts of co-firing dry waste biomass (wood and paper waste) while implementing CCS technology (i.e., BECCS) in a conventional black coal-fired power plant. The LCA covers CO 2 emissions and trace contaminants, determined via combustion modelling coupled with chemical-equilibrium-based ash-forming element and trace element calculations. As a case study, the context of New South Wales, Australia, is analysed to assesses the viability and discuss policy implications of waste co-firing BECCS as a future energy source for coal-reliant regions. An increase in co-firing ratio is found to decrease emission intensity. At current typical efficiencies, BECCS with a 10 % co-firing ratio can reduce emission intensity from 938 to 181 kgCO 2 /MWh. At 20 % to 25 % co-firing, the emission intensity of BECCS is comparable with other renewable technologies, and negative emissions are achievable above 30 %, although waste availability in NSW is insufficient to achieve these levels. Moreover, BECCS increases environmental impact in all categories except for global warming potential (GWP), land use, and terrestrial acidification. Nonetheless, when aggregating all impacts, the large reduction in GWP drives an endpoint score reduction, indicating that co-fired BECCS may be preferred over sub-critical black (bituminous) coal-fired power without or with CCS, or other higher emission intensity coal-fired power generation. Therefore, policy makers should consider incentivising waste co-firing BECCS as part of future energy policies towards achieving the net-zero targets, weighing its benefits against other environmental impacts, waste availability and competition with recycling initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pulp mills, as large biogenic CO2 point sources, could adopt Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) through retrofitting carbon capture. These existing carbon sources constitute a great potential to roll out BECCS on commercial scale. Yet, despite political targets for negative emission production in Sweden, no incentive schemes were thus far enacted. While previous proposals focus on governmental compensation, the aim of this work is to set BECCS into the supply chain of a wide array of consumer products and thereby find alternative or complementary, business-driven, ways to incentivise BECCS when applied to the pulp and paper industry. In this work, we assess a “value proposition” for low-carbon products in supply chains linked to the pulp and paper industry. By projecting the costs and negative emissions related to BECCS from the pulp mill to typical consumer products, as exemplified by three case study products, we show how BECCS can substantially reduce the carbon footprint of the consumer products, while only marginally increasing their cost. Additional price premiums could shorten the payback period of the initial investment in BECCS. The developed business case presents how actors along the supply chain for pulp and paper products can collectively contribute to securing financing and to mitigating investment risks. The results challenge the private sector, i.e., the companies along the pulp-and-paper supply chain to commit considerable investments also in the case without or with too weak direct political incentives. We conclude by discussing the governance implications on corporate and public level to enable the collaborative “bottom-up” adoption of BECCS.

This paper is a contribution to the ongoing debate on carbon-negative energy solutions. It deals with biomass conversion in dedicated biopower plants equipped with CCS (BECCS), or co-fired plants retrofitted with CCS in order to generate negative CO 2 -emissions. In this context, bioenergy refers to the use of biomass to generate electricity (i.e. biopower) in compliance with the needs of nations and regions without seasonal space heating demand. In this paper, direct-fired and co-fired systems will be addressed, combined mainly with post-combustion flue gas cleaning. The question is which CCS alternative should be preferred in order to obtain negative emissions: either building multiple smaller biopower units, or employing co-firing of biomass and coal in existing large coal power plants. Based on efficacy and the potential for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions as key indicators, some major differences between the alternatives are shown. In the event that a coal power plant equipped with CCS is readily available, more net electric energy (in MWh) can be provided from the feedstock of biomass than would be obtainable from an independent BECCS plant, although the amount of CO 2 captured and stored from the biomass (per tonne) will be essentially the same. Further case-specific cost-benefit analyses will be required to determine the feasibility of carbon-negative energy solutions. Although the study is carried out from the perspective of actual biomass sources as regards biomass composition and available technology (i.e. expected efficiency levels) using Indonesian agricultural residues, its main conclusion is fairly general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last 20 years, IPPC reports have made it clear that the world must move beyond simply reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere to actively removing it from the skies. (Solar and wind can reduce carbon emissions, but they do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere). New BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) technologies have been emerging that can remove carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere and sequester them permanently underground. Indeed, many long-term scenarios for transitioning from today's fossil fuel-dependent society to a future net zero society hinge on BECCS. But a key question is what bioenergy feedstock to use. In some cases, powering these facilities by burning biomass that comes from plantations in the US South is an option. Consequently, the study of the origins, production, and use of the fuel consumed by the world's largest biomass-fired power plant in Drax, England, provides a useful case study of the potential advantages and disadvantages of the burning of biomass – wood pellets made from trees, bark, roots, stumps, millwaste, sawdust, and other woody vegetation – in place of fossil fuel to generate power for processes such as BECCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the future greenhouse gas emission targets will be more ambitious and therefore solutions for of CO 2 emissions reduction more than 80% are sought. In thermal power plants these high levels of emission reductions can be reached with CCS technologies or by utilizing high shares of biomass based fuels. Following from the national targets of Finland, the power plants being planned at the moment need to take these targets into account in the planning phase as options that need to be fulfilled at least in the future if not immediately. In this paper high plant level CO 2 emission reduction targets are analysed for two large power plants that are planned to be constructed in Finland in the near future. Both are located close to urban areas and supply also district heat to neighboring cities. Both also face high political pressure to significant emission reductions in comparison to existing system. This paper is based on a case study of a planned combined heat and power (CHP) plant in Finland having fuel power of 420MWfuel. The boiler island is plant based on circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler technology enabling combustion of high shares of biomass. The paper is shortly describing technologies that are needed for reduction of CO 2 emissions when carbon capture based on oxyfuel technology and biomass firing based on high shares of forest residues are considered. The implications of applying these technologies and suitability for CHP environment are considered and economic feasibility of the solutions compared. Also the possibilities and feasibility of reaching negative emissions with combination of biomass firing and CCS is briefly assessed. Re**sults show significant emission reduction potential associated to both technologies. The major costs associated to CCS are caused by the equipment investment, loss of electricity production due to energy penalty and transportation and storage of CO 2 . The costs associated to biomass combustion with high shares are mainly caused by higher prices of biomass fuel in comparison to coal and lower power-to-heat ratio. Large biomass share has an increasing impact also on plant investment and O&M costs. On the other hand, significant savings are achieved in terms of CO 2 allowances. When discussing the biomass option one must also address questions related to availability of sustainable biomass, effecting pricing and competition of raw material between different uses such as forest industry or liquid biofuels production. And this further highlights the discussion on carbon stocks and carbon debt especially when Bio-CCS is considered. If the profound emission reduction targets are to be met, economically the difference between the technologies considered is not clear in all circumstances. All the most important parameters for the economic lifetime of the power plant include significant uncertainty therefore in this paper main focus has been in sensitivity analysis. The study reveals some major economical restrictions of the applicability of these emission reduction solutions. The pros and cons of the technologies in the light of feasibility and the role of these technologies as carbon abatement tools are discussed. The major factor effecting the technology decision is plant location in relation to availability of biomass, coal and CO 2 transportation&storage options, as well as heat demand (possibility to utilize CHP) in addition to political atmosphere and acceptability of technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can sequester atmospheric CO2, while producing electricity. The CO2 avoidance cost (CAC) is used to calculate the marginal cost of avoided CO2 emissions for BECCS as compared to other established energy technologies. A comparative analysis using four different reference-case power plants for CAC calculations is performed here to evaluate the CO2 avoidance cost of BECCS implementation. Results from this work demonstrate that BECCS can generate electricity at costs competitive with other neutral emissions technologies, while simultaneously removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Approximately 73% of current coal power plants are approaching retirement by the year 2035 in the U.S. After considering CO2 sequestered from the atmosphere and coal power plant CO2 emissions displaced by BECCS, CO2 emissions can be reduced by 1.4 billion tonnes per year in the U.S. alone at a cost of $88 to $116 per tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere, for 10% to 90% of available biomass used, respectively. CAC calculations in this paper indicate that BECCS can help the U.S. and other countries transition to a decarbonized electricity grid, as simulations presented in this paper predict that BECCS power plants operate at lower CACs than coal plants with CCS.