Susan Caroline Alvarado Cummings, Martin Junginger, Steef V. Hanssen, Floor van der Hilst, Anna Sarah Duden
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) holds promise for achieving negative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while generating electricity. When using forestry or agricultural residues as feedstock, BECCS may also avoid or reduce land-use based impacts compared to dedicated energy crops. It is, however, unclear how negative emissions from residue-based BECCS compare to alternative uses (bioenergy with no CCS, 2G ethanol, paper and boards, animal feed and decomposition) and how quickly BECCS can achieve climate benefits compared to these other uses. In this study, we used life-cycle assessment (LCA) to quantify supply chain emissions of BECCS for two power plants in the Netherlands, using residue-based wood pellets from Louisiana, USA, and sugarcane bagasse pellets from Louisiana and São Paulo, Brazil, as feedstock. Using an attributional LCA approach, we showed that the two BECCS plants combined use 7.5 Mt of biomassdry per year. This system generates between 10.3 and 11.1 TWh of electricity and provides 11.0 and 11.3 Mt CO2-eq. of negative emissions annually, for wood or bagasse, respectively. This results in a footprint of −0.63 (wood) and −0.65 (bagasse) t CO2-eq./twet biomass. Following a consequential approach, we contrasted the GHG emissions per tonne of biomass residue used for BECCS with those associated with alternative uses, accounting for the (avoided) emissions from any substituted products and electricity. Here, BECCS negative emissions of approximately −0.6 t CO2-eq./twet biomass compare favourably to emissions of alternative uses, which range from −0.3 to +0.12 t CO2-eq./twet biomass. This study showed BECCS' potential for achieving negative emissions and climate benefits compared to other biomass uses.
具有碳捕获和储存(BECCS)的生物能源有望在发电的同时实现负温室气体(GHG)排放。当使用林业或农业残留物作为原料时,与专用能源作物相比,BECCS还可以避免或减少基于土地利用的影响。然而,与其他用途(不含CCS的生物能源、2G乙醇、纸和纸板、动物饲料和分解)相比,基于残留物的BECCS的负排放如何,以及与这些其他用途相比,BECCS实现气候效益的速度有多快,目前尚不清楚。在这项研究中,我们使用生命周期评估(LCA)来量化荷兰两家发电厂的BECCS供应链排放,这些发电厂使用来自美国路易斯安那州的残基木屑颗粒,以及来自路易斯安那州和巴西圣保罗的甘蔗渣颗粒作为原料。使用归因LCA方法,我们发现两个BECCS工厂每年总共使用750万吨生物质。该系统产生10.3至11.1太瓦时的电力,并提供11.0至11.3亿吨二氧化碳当量。木材和甘蔗渣的负排放。这导致二氧化碳当量的足迹为- 0.63(木材)和- 0.65(甘蔗渣)。/ twet生物量。根据相应的方法,我们将用于BECCS的每吨生物质残渣的温室气体排放量与替代用途相关的温室气体排放量进行了对比,其中考虑了任何替代产品和电力的(避免的)排放。这里,BECCS负排放约为- 0.6 t co2当量。/twet生物质比其他替代用途的排放更有利,其范围为- 0.3至+0.12吨二氧化碳当量。/ twet生物量。这项研究表明,与其他生物质利用相比,BECCS具有实现负排放和气候效益的潜力。
{"title":"Comparing GHG Emissions of Residue-Based BECCS to Alternative Biomass Uses","authors":"Susan Caroline Alvarado Cummings, Martin Junginger, Steef V. Hanssen, Floor van der Hilst, Anna Sarah Duden","doi":"10.1111/gcbb.70089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.70089","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) holds promise for achieving negative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while generating electricity. When using forestry or agricultural residues as feedstock, BECCS may also avoid or reduce land-use based impacts compared to dedicated energy crops. It is, however, unclear how negative emissions from residue-based BECCS compare to alternative uses (bioenergy with no CCS, 2G ethanol, paper and boards, animal feed and decomposition) and how quickly BECCS can achieve climate benefits compared to these other uses. In this study, we used life-cycle assessment (LCA) to quantify supply chain emissions of BECCS for two power plants in the Netherlands, using residue-based wood pellets from Louisiana, USA, and sugarcane bagasse pellets from Louisiana and São Paulo, Brazil, as feedstock. Using an attributional LCA approach, we showed that the two BECCS plants combined use 7.5 Mt of biomass<sub>dry</sub> per year. This system generates between 10.3 and 11.1 TWh of electricity and provides 11.0 and 11.3 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-eq. of negative emissions annually, for wood or bagasse, respectively. This results in a footprint of −0.63 (wood) and −0.65 (bagasse) t CO<sub>2</sub>-eq./t<sub>wet biomass</sub>. Following a consequential approach, we contrasted the GHG emissions per tonne of biomass residue used for BECCS with those associated with alternative uses, accounting for the (avoided) emissions from any substituted products and electricity. Here, BECCS negative emissions of approximately −0.6 t CO<sub>2</sub>-eq./t<sub>wet biomass</sub> compare favourably to emissions of alternative uses, which range from −0.3 to +0.12 t CO<sub>2</sub>-eq./t<sub>wet biomass</sub>. This study showed BECCS' potential for achieving negative emissions and climate benefits compared to other biomass uses.</p>","PeriodicalId":55126,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","volume":"17 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcbb.70089","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145529751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hans-Peter Schmidt, Samuel Abiven, Annette Cowie, Bruno Glaser, Stephen Joseph, Claudia Kammann, Johannes Lehmann, Jens Leifeld, Genxing Pan, Daniel Rasse, Cornelia Rumpel, Dominic Woolf, Andrew R. Zimmerman, Nikolas Hagemann