Search

Biomass can help reaching climate goals in many sectors. In electricity generation it can complement variable renewables or, if coupled with carbon capture and storage (CCS), also provide negative emissions. This paper adds to the existing literature by focusing on the cost-efficiency of balancing variable renewables with biomass and by providing an indication on acceptance of these technologies. A dynamic optimization model is used to analyse the role of biomass in the European electricity system pending different emission targets for 2050. The results are compared with survey data on investment preferences for biomass technologies, and wind and solar power. The formulation of the emission target greatly influences the cost-efficient use of biomass, with more concentrated use observed, if bioenergy with CCS is allowed. This indicates that a Europe-wide emission target could be more cost-efficient than separate national targets. Both governmental and nongovernmental actors tend to be negative towards investing in biomass technologies, although with greater variation if combined with CCS, indicating possible challenges for implementation. Their attitudes towards wind and solar power are much more positive in all countries, supporting the continuation of the existing trend of an increasing share of variable renewables in the European electricity system. • Formulation of the emission target greatly influence biomass use and distribution. • Europe-wide emission targets may be preferred when negative emissions are required. • Negative emissions combined with natural gas are cost-efficient variation management. • Preferences to invest in bio-based technologies are low in all countries. • Non-governmental actors strongly oppose bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sweden and Finland have national goals to reach net negative greenhouse gas emissions before mid-century. Achieving these ambitious goals could employ negative emission technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, but it is unclear how this technology could be realized in an energy transition. Sweden and Finland stand out for having a large share of substantial point source emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide, in the production of pulp, heat and power. In the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, Sweden and Finland reported 64% and 51% biogenic emissions, respectively, in facilities emitting over 100 kt of carbon dioxide in 2017, while the corresponding collective figure for all European states in the database is 6%. This qualitative study highlights company actors' perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage within a Nordic regional context and explores their perspective on emerging tensions in the energy transition. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 of the 24 companies with the largest point sources of biogenic emissions. The results are framed around four emerging tensions regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage from companies' perspectives in this study: (1) absence of reliable long-term policies; (2) limits to companies' climate change responsibility; (3) technical trade-offs of carbon capture; and (4) lack of customer demands for negative emissions. According to most of the companies, it is technically feasible to capture carbon dioxide, but it could be a challenge to determine who is responsible to create a financially viable business case, to enact supporting policies, and to build transport and storage infrastructure. Company representatives argue that they already contribute to a sustainable society, therefore bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is not their priority without government collaboration. However, they are willing to contribute more and could have an increasing role towards an energy transition in an international context. • BECCS discussions are on the horizon, but few companies are first movers. • Large-scale deployment of BECCS would require political and financial support. • Swedish and Finnish companies lack customer demand for negative emissions. • There are trade-offs between energy efficiency and carbon capture. • Companies consider BECCS as one of many climate change mitigation measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]