Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

EMF-33 insights on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the potential role of bioenergy coupled to carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (BECCS) in long-term global scenarios. We first validate past insights regarding the potential use of BECCS in achieving climate goals based on results from 11 integrated assessment models (IAMs) that participated in the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33). As found in previous studies, our results consistently project large-scale cost-effective BECCS deployment. However, we also find a strong synergistic nexus between CCS and biomass, with bioenergy the preferred fuel for CCS as the climate constraint increases. Specifically, the share of bioenergy that is coupled to CCS technologies increases since CCS effectively enhances the emissions mitigation capacity of bioenergy. For the models that include BECCS technologies across multiple sectors, there is significant deployment in conjunction with liquid fuel or hydrogen production to decarbonize the transportation sector. Using a wide set of scenarios, we find carbon removal to be crucial to achieving goals consistent with 1.5 °C warming. However, we find earlier BECCS deployment but not necessarily greater use in the long-term since ultimately deployment is limited by economic competition with other carbon-free technologies, especially in the electricity sector, by land-use competition (especially with food) affecting biomass feedstock availability and price, and by carbon storage limitations. The extent of BECCS deployment varies based on model assumptions, with BECCS deployment competitive in some models below carbon prices of 100 US$/tCO2. Without carbon removal, 2 °C is infeasible in some models, while those that solve find similar levels of bioenergy use but substantially greater mitigation costs. Overall, the paper provides needed transparency regarding BECCS’ role, and results highlight a strong nexus between bioenergy and CCS, and a large reliance on not-yet-commercial BECCS technologies for achieving climate goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azar C, Lindgren K, Obersteiner M, Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen KMG, Möllersten K, Larson ED (2010) The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Clim Chang 100(1):195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azar C, Johansson DJ, Mattsson N (2013) Meeting global temperature targets—the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Environ Res Lett 8(3):034004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer N et al (2018) Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison. Clim Chang:1–16

  • Bauer N, et al. (2020) “Bio-energy and CO2 emission reductions: an integrated land-use and energy sector perspective”. This issue

  • Bui M, Adjiman CS, Bardow A, Anthony EJ, Boston A, Brown S, Fennell PS et al. (2018) Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ Sci 11(5):1062–1176

  • Calvin K, Edmonds J, Bond-Lamberty B, Clarke L, Kim SH, Kyle P, Smith SJ, Thomson A, Wise M (2009) 2.6: Limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Econ 31:S107–S120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke LE, Jiang K, Akimoto K, Babiker M, Blanford GJ, Fisher-Vanden K, Hourcade JC, Krey V, Kriegler E, Loschel A, McCollum D (2014) Assessing transformation pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  • Daioglou et al. (2020) Bioenergy technologies in long-run climate change mitigation: results from the EMF33 study. This Issue

  • Edmonds J, Luckow P, Calvin K, Wise M, Dooley J, Kyle P, Kim SH, Patel P, Clarke L (2013) Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm− 2 without negative emissions from bioenergy AND CO2 capture and storage? Clim Chang 118(1):29–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuss S, Canadell JG, Peters GP, Tavoni M, Andrew RM, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Jones CD, Kraxner F, Nakicenovic N et al (2014) Betting on negative emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4(10):850–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuss S, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, de Oliveira Garcia W, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Luderer G (2018) Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ Res Lett 13(6):063002

  • Gasser T, Guivarch C, Tachiiri K, Jones C, Ciais P (2015) Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2°C. Nature Commun 6(1):1–7

  • Kemper J (2015) Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40:401–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein D, Luderer G, Kriegler E, Strefler J, Bauer N, Leimbach M, Popp A, Dietrich JP, Humpenöder F, Lotze-Campen H, Edenhofer O (2014) The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Clim Chang 123(3–4):705–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koelbl BS, van den Broek MA, Faaij AP, van Vuuren DP (2014) Uncertainty in carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise. Clim Chang 123(3–4):461–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leblanc F, et al. (2020) “The contribution of bioenergy to the decarbonization of transport in EMF-33”. This Issue

  • Muratori M, Calvin K, Wise M, Kyle P, Edmonds J (2016) Global economic consequences of deploying bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Environ Res Lett 11(9):095004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muratori M, Smith SJ, Kyle P, Link R, Mignone BK, Kheshgi HS (2017a) Role of the freight sector in future climate change mitigation scenarios. Environ Sci Technol 51(6):3526–3533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muratori M, Kheshgi H, Mignone B, Clarke L, McJeon H, Edmonds J (2017b) Carbon capture and storage across fuels and sectors in energy system transformation pathways. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 57:34–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) “Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration: a research agenda.” Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration: a research agenda

  • Rogelj J, Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Kriegler E, Schaeffer M, Krey V, Riahi K (2015) Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 [deg] C. Nat Clim Chang 5(6):519–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelj J, et al. (2018) Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5° C in the context of sustainable development

  • Rose SK, Kriegler E, Bibas R, Calvin K, Popp A, van Vuuren DP, Weyant J (2014) Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim Chang 4:477–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose S et al. (2020) “Global biomass supply modeling for long-run management of the climate system” This Issue

  • Sanchez DL, Kammen DM (2016) A commercialization strategy for carbon-negative energy. Nat Energy 1:15002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, Gabrielle B, Kato E, Jackson RB, Cowie A, Kriegler E, Van Vuuren DP (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6(1):42–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strefler J, Bauer N, Kriegler E, Popp A, Giannousakis A, Edenhofer O (2018) Between Scylla and Charybdis: delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs. Environ Res Lett 13(4):044015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavoni M, Socolow R (2013) Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim Chang 118(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vliet J, Hof AF, Beltran AM, van den Berg M, Deetman S, den Elzen MG, Lucas PL, van Vuuren DP (2014) The impact of technology availability on the timing and costs of emission reductions for achieving long-term climate targets. Clim Chang 4:559–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vuuren DP, Deetman S, van Vliet J, van den Berg M, van Ruijven BJ, Koelbl B (2013) The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2 C—insights from integrated assessment modelling. Clim Chang 118(1):15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan NE, Gough C (2016) Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver. Environ Res Lett 11(9):095003

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kara Podkaminer and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments. The views expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s institutions or funders. This research was partially supported by the intramural research program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy, or the views of any of the institutions associated with this study’s authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (analysis performed while at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), Golden, CO, USA

    Matteo Muratori

  2. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany

    Nico Bauer & Jessica Strefler

  3. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Washington, DC, USA

    Steven K. Rose

  4. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory – Joint Global Change Research Institute, College Park, MD, USA

    Marshall Wise & Yiyun Cui

  5. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, the Netherlands

    Vassilis Daioglou & Detlef P. van Vuuren

  6. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Vassilis Daioglou & Detlef P. van Vuuren

  7. Institute of Applied Energy, Minato, Tokyo, Japan

    Etsushi Kato

  8. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

    Matthew Gidden

  9. Department of Environmental Engineering, Kyoto University, C1-3-361, Katsura-Campus, Nishikyo-ku, Kyoto-City, Japan

    Shinichiro Fujimori

  10. Center for Social and Environmental Systems Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), 16-2, Onogawa, Tsukuba, Japan

    Shinichiro Fujimori

  11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA

    Ronald D. Sands

  12. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    John Weyant

Authors
  1. Matteo Muratori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nico Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven K. Rose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marshall Wise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vassilis Daioglou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yiyun Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Etsushi Kato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Matthew Gidden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jessica Strefler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Shinichiro Fujimori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ronald D. Sands
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Detlef P. van Vuuren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. John Weyant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Muratori.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the special issue “Assessing Large-scale Global Bioenergy Deployment for Managing Climate Change (EMF-33)” edited by Steven Rose, John Weyant, Nico Bauer, Shinichiro Fuminori, Petr Havlik, Alexander Popp, Detlef van Vuuren, and Marshall Wise.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 8654 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muratori, M., Bauer, N., Rose, S.K. et al. EMF-33 insights on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Climatic Change 163, 1621–1637 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02784-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02784-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation