Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: are short-term issues set aside?
Negative emission technologies (NETs) are a set of technologies that could retrieve greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. NETs could dramatically contribute to maintaining the temperature increase to within the limit of 2 °C or even 1.5 °C. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is one of the most studied NETs. BECCS captures carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions coming from a bioenergy plant—e.g., electricity, biofuels, and hydrogen—and stores those emissions in a geologic reservoir, typically a saline aquifer. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether a research community exists on BECCS, and whether it is aligned with research priorities. To do so, a bibliometric analysis is conducted based on author collaborations on BECCS in academic journals between 2001 and 2017. The co-authorship network shows that BECCS research is largely based on the integrated assessment model (IAM) research community. These models analyze how power and transportation systems evolve under a climate constraint in the long run, e.g., until 2100. Such a focus has advantages and drawbacks. On the one hand, it helps to build a common vision of the technology and possible roadmaps. On the other hand, I highlight that the implementation features of BECCS in the near future are insufficiently assessed, e.g., techno-economic analyses, business models, local-scale assessments, and comparison with other NETs. These issues are marginal in the network, whereas long-term analyses are at its core. Future research programmes should better include them to avoid a considerable disappointment about the real potential of BECCS.
KeywordsBioenergy with carbon capture and storage BECCS Negative emission technologies Bioenergy Co-authorship network
- Al-Ansari T, Korre A, Shah N (2014) Integrated modelling of the energy, water and food nexus to enhance the environmental performance of food production systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014). American center for life cycle assessment, San Francisco, California, USA, pp 1–10Google Scholar
- Belter CW, Seidel DJ (2013) A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev Clim Change 4:417–427Google Scholar
- Blondel VD, Guillaume J-L, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
- Herzog H (2016) Lessons learned from CCS demonstration and large pilot projects, MIT energy initiative working paper MITEI-WP-2016-06Google Scholar
- IEA (2013) Technology roadmap—carbon capture and storage. OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
- IEA (2016) Twenty years of carbon capture storage. OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kriegler E, Weyant JP, Blanford GJ, Krey V, Clarke L, Edmonds J, Fawcett A, Luderer G, Riahi K, Richels R, Rose SK, Tavoni M, van Vuuren DP (2014) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Clim Chang 123:353–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Milgram S (1967) The small-world problem. Psychol Today 1:61–67Google Scholar
- Möllersten K, Yan J (2001) Economic evaluation of biomass-based energy systems with CO2 capture and sequestration in Kraft pulp mills—the influence of the price of CO2 emission quota world. Resour Rev 13:509–525Google Scholar
- Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, Edmonds J, O’Neill BC, Fujimori S, Bauer N, Calvin K, Dellink R, Fricko O, Lutz W, Popp A, Cuaresma JC, KC S, Leimbach M, Jiang L, Kram T, Rao S, Emmerling J, Ebi K, Hasegawa T, Havlik P, Humpenöder F, da Silva LA, Smith S, Stehfest E, Bosetti V, Eom J, Gernaat D, Masui T, Rogelj J, Strefler J, Drouet L, Krey V, Luderer G, Harmsen M, Takahashi K, Baumstark L, Doelman JC, Kainuma M, Klimont Z, Marangoni G, Lotze-Campen H, Obersteiner M, Tabeau A, Tavoni M (2017) The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob Environ Chang 42:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar