Susan Caroline Alvarado Cummings, Martin Junginger, Steef V. Hanssen, Floor van der Hilst, Anna Sarah Duden
{"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":null,"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":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcbb.70089","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.70089","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
GCB Bioenergy is an international journal publishing original research papers, review articles and commentaries that promote understanding of the interface between biological and environmental sciences and the production of fuels directly from plants, algae and waste. The scope of the journal extends to areas outside of biology to policy forum, socioeconomic analyses, technoeconomic analyses and systems analysis. Papers do not need a global change component for consideration for publication, it is viewed as implicit that most bioenergy will be beneficial in avoiding at least a part of the fossil fuel energy that would otherwise be used.
Key areas covered by the journal:
Bioenergy feedstock and bio-oil production: energy crops and algae their management,, genomics, genetic improvements, planting, harvesting, storage, transportation, integrated logistics, production modeling, composition and its modification, pests, diseases and weeds of feedstocks. Manuscripts concerning alternative energy based on biological mimicry are also encouraged (e.g. artificial photosynthesis).
Biological Residues/Co-products: from agricultural production, forestry and plantations (stover, sugar, bio-plastics, etc.), algae processing industries, and municipal sources (MSW).
Bioenergy and the Environment: ecosystem services, carbon mitigation, land use change, life cycle assessment, energy and greenhouse gas balances, water use, water quality, assessment of sustainability, and biodiversity issues.
Bioenergy Socioeconomics: examining the economic viability or social acceptability of crops, crops systems and their processing, including genetically modified organisms [GMOs], health impacts of bioenergy systems.
Bioenergy Policy: legislative developments affecting biofuels and bioenergy.
Bioenergy Systems Analysis: examining biological developments in a whole systems context.