Economic, energetic, and environmental analysis of lignocellulosic biorefineries with carbon capture
Not Available
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “BECCS”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Robust paths to net greenhouse gas mitigation and negative emissions via advanced biofuels
Biofuel and bioenergy systems are integral to most climate stabilization scenarios for displacement of transport sector fossil fuel use and for producing negative emissions via carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, the net greenhouse gas mitigation benefit of such pathways is controversial due to concerns around ecosystem carbon losses from land use change and foregone sequestration benefits from alternative land uses. Here, we couple bottom-up ecosystem simulation with models of cellulosic biofuel production and CCS in order to track ecosystem and supply chain carbon flows for current and future biofuel systems, with comparison to competing land-based biological mitigation schemes. Analyzing three contrasting US case study sites, we show that on land transitioning out of crops or pasture, switchgrass cultivation for cellulosic ethanol production has per-hectare mitigation potential comparable to reforestation and severalfold greater than grassland restoration. In contrast, harvesting and converting existing secondary forest at those sites incurs large initial carbon debt requiring long payback periods. We also highlight how plausible future improvements in energy crop yields and biorefining technology together with CCS would achieve mitigation potential 4 and 15 times greater than forest and grassland restoration, respectively. Finally, we show that recent estimates of induced land use change are small relative to the opportunities for improving system performance that we quantify here. While climate and other ecosystem service benefits cannot be taken for granted from cellulosic biofuel deployment, our scenarios illustrate how conventional and carbon-negative biofuel systems could make a near-term, robust, and distinctive contribution to the climate challenge.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
A bioenergy-focused versus a reforestation-focused mitigation pathway yields disparate carbon storage and climate responses
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.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Biochar as a carbon dioxide removal strategy in integrated long-run mitigation scenarios
Abstract 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.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Potential for Combined Heat and Power with Carbon Capture and Storage at U.S. Ethanol Facilities
Conference paper presented at 17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-17), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, October 20–24, 2024. Economic conditions in the United States have positioned ethanol producers as early adopters of industrial CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) from fermentation processes, creating an opportunity to further reduce emissions. Replacing fossil fired energy with biogenic combined heat and power (CHP) coupled with CCS could enable ethanol production to achieve net negative CO 2 emissions, with gasification based CHP better matching ethanol facilities’ heat and power needs than combustion based systems. Pilot scale testing showed that while 100% biomass gasification increased tar formation, cofeeding corn stover with coal and optimizing gasifier configurations offered promising pathways to reduce tar and improve operational performance.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
United States cool surfaces deployment plan
Solar-reflective building envelope surfaces, such as cool roofs and walls, can be especially helpful in disadvantaged communities that often have poorly insulated older homes, aging or absent air conditioning units, steep utility bills, polluted air, and high vulnerability and exposure to extreme heat. With support from the U.S. Department of Energy, our project seeks to dramatically increase the climate-appropriate deployment of cool surfaces across the United States with an emphasis on their application to disadvantaged communities. First, we sought to identify cool-surface deployment barriers, opportunities, and models by (a) reviewing the history of cool-surface deployment activities, (b) interviewing cool-surface stakeholders, (c) researching successful energy-efficiency/green building deployment models; and (d) interviewing the actors who have implemented these models. Second, we conducted a workshop to engage stakeholders in development of a deployment plan. Third, we asked several U.S. federal agencies (a) how cool surfaces and cool surface stakeholders could support their missions and (b) how agency activities could support cool-surface deployment. Fourth, we identified a set of transformative ideas that form the core of the deployment plan. Transformative ideas include but are not limited to initiatives to (a) launch an educational campaign to make the general public and building professionals aware of how cool roofs and walls exclude unwanted solar heat; (b) create a “Cool Roof Prize” stimulating the development of affordable, high-performance cool asphalt roofing shingles; (c) conduct high-profile, large-scale demonstration programs that bring cool surfaces to disadvantaged heat-vulnerable communities; and (d) support local, regional, and state climate action (heat mitigation) plans with cool surfaces.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Revisiting “Additional Carbon”: Tracking Atmosphere–Ecosystem Carbon Exchange to Establish Mitigation and Negative Emissions From Bio-Based Systems
Climate stabilization plans rely heavily on advanced bioenergy and bioproducts for substitution of fossil-based energy sources and materials, and increasingly, for negative emissions via the direct sequestration of biogenic carbon. Yet, there remain persistent, largely unresolved critiques of bioenergy assessment methodology, particularly in the areas of land use and biogenic carbon accounting. The concept of “additional carbon” calls for evaluating the climate performance of bio-based systems by whether feedstock production creates measurable new local agro-ecosystem uptake of carbon from the atmosphere. This concept is challenging to operationalize for first-generation biofuels, and has largely been advanced as a negative critique. However, carbon additionality is more straightforward to establish—and less critical to overall system mitigation performance—in advanced bioenergy systems. In this Perspective, I review the additional carbon critique, and why it is analytically challenging to address in first-generation biofuel systems based on conventional food crops with large existing markets. Next, I make a case that carbon additionality (1) is more readily achievable with cellulosic feedstocks, (2) is more directly observable for dedicated biomass crops, and (3) is not a strict requirement for achieving net mitigation in carbon-negative bio-based systems. I end by discussing how centering atmosphere–ecosystem carbon exchanges in bio-based system assessment could create new opportunities for enterprise-scale performance monitoring and verification, augmenting and diversifying the current reliance on model-based life-cycle assessment approaches.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Transport Cost for Carbon Removal Projects With Biomass and CO2 Storage
Strategies to remove carbon from the atmosphere are needed to meet global climate goals. Promising strategies include the conversion of waste biomass to hydrogen, methane, liquid fuels, or electricity coupled with CO 2 capture and storage (CCS). A key challenge for these projects is the need to connect geographically dispersed biomass supplies with geologic storage sites by either transporting biomass or CO 2 . We assess the cost of transport for biomass conversion projects with CCS using publicly available cost data for trucking, rail, and CO 2 pipelines in the United States. We find that for large projects (order of 1 Mt/yr CO 2 or greater), CO 2 by pipeline is the lowest cost option. However, for projects that send most of the biomass carbon to storage, such as gasification to hydrogen or electricity production, biomass by rail is a competitive option. For smaller projects and lower fractions of carbon sent to storage, such as for pyrolysis to liquid fuels, CO 2 by rail is the lowest cost option. Assessing three plausible example projects in the United States, we estimate that total transport costs range from $24/t-CO 2 stored for a gasification to hydrogen project traversing 670 km to $\$ 36$/t for a gasification to renewable natural gas project traversing 530 km. In general, if developers have flexibility in choosing transport mode and project type, biomass sources and storage sites can be connected across hundreds of kilometers for transport costs in the range of $20-40/t-CO 2 stored. Truck and rail are often viable modes when pipelines cannot be constructed. Distances of 1,000 km or more can be connected in the same cost range when shared CO 2 pipelines are employed.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗