Can BECCS deliver immediate and efficient carbon dioxide removal?

Can BECCS deliver immediate and efficient carbon dioxide removal? Mathilde Fajardy a,b, Niall Mac Dowell a,b a. Centre for Environmental Policy b. Centre for Process Systems Engineering Imperial College London mathilde.fajardy16@imperial.ac.uk, niall@imperial.ac.uk TCCS-9 June, 12 th 14 th 2017

BECCS value chain 2/15 Biomass pellets imports 500 M

BECCS value chain 2/15 Is BECCS carbon negative? If at all, how long does it take for BECCS to be carbon negative? Is BECCS a sustainable and resource efficient technology?

Model overview 3/15 Miscanthus, switchgrass, willow, wheat straw Brazil, China, Europe, India, US Cropland, marginal land, grassland, forest, peatland 60-90% 0-100% Gt C /yr Biomass supply chain model H 2 O Biomass Carbon footprint kg CO2 /t ater footprint m 3 /t OUTPUTS Annual emission balance on BECCS 500 M BECCS power plant BECCS project lifetime: 50 years Power plant model H 2 O Energy footprint GJ/t BECCS Annual GHG emissions balance over the lifetime Carbon intensity kg CO2 /Mh Lifetime net removal t CO2 /ha + CCS ater intensity m 3 /Mh breakeven time years Q Net efficiency % HHV Carbon efficiency %

N EE P2O5 EE K2O EE Lime EE Herbicide EE Diesel EE Diesel LHV Natural gas LHV Transport of supply EFF Road transport EFF Ship transport EFF N CF P2O5 CF K2O CF Lime CF Herbicide CF Power CF Diesel CF Biodiesel CF Road transport EF Ship transport EF LUC grassland LUC cropland LUC marginal cropland LUC forest LUC peatland ILUC Data collection and curation Range evaluation 4/15 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 3Q 1Q Data series Variation coefficient

Model overview Miscanthus, switchgrass, willow, wheat straw Brazil, China, Europe, India, US Cropland, marginal land, grassland, forest, peatland 60-90% 0-100% Gt C /yr Biomass supply chain model H 2 O Power plant model H 2 O Biomass Carbon footprint kg CO2 /t ater footprint m 3 /t Energy footprint GJ/t BECCS Carbon intensity kg CO2 /Mh OUTPUTS 500 M BECCS power plant BECCS project lifetime: 50 years Annual GHG emissions balance over the lifetime Carbon efficiency % + CCS ater intensity m 3 /Mh Lifetime net removal t CO2 /ha Q Net efficiency breakeven time % HHV years

hat are the main contributions to biomass carbon footprint? 5/15 Miscanthus Switchgrass heat straw illow Nitrogen application, road transport, industrial drying for high moisture biomass (willow) are key drivers.

How does biomass carbon footprint impact BECCS carbon intensity? 6/15 Miscanthus Switchgrass heat straw illow The power plant carbon intensity decreases with biomass co-firing proportion and capture rate.

How does biomass carbon footprint impact BECCS carbon intensity? 6/15 Miscanthus Switchgrass heat straw illow Adding biomass supply chain emission can offset the power plant carbon negativity, This increases the minimum co-firing and capture rate values for the power plant to be carbon negative, hence decreasing its flexibility.

Dynamic GHG balance How does the carbon balance change over the lifetime of a BECCS project? hat are the factors affecting BECCS lifetime carbon removal and carbon breakeven time? Decrease in electricity, fuels, chemicals carbon footprints + Decrease in moisture content + Increase in yield and carbon content Lifetime carbon removal Upper bound scenario Mean scenario Lower bound scenario Alternative scenario Alternative scenarios Use of biofuels Drying with biomass Use of carbon neutral electricity Use of organic chemicals Carbon breakeven time

BECCS carbon efficiency How to convert 1 EJ of bioenergy into t CO2 removed? 8/15 In current models: o 1 EJ of bioenergy 100 Mt CO2 on which is applied a 90% capture efficiency 90 Mt CO2 1 EJ of bioenergy = 1/HHV bio x C% bio x M CO2 /M C x 10 9 1/(18-20 GJ/t DM ) 46-50% DM = 84 102 Mt CO2 biologically removed from the atmosphere =? Mt CO2 stored in geological storage? Biomass supply chain mass loss + direct and indirect BECCS value chain emissions Carbon efficiency = t CO2 geologically stored/t CO2 biologically captured

BECCS carbon efficiency Miscanthus Marginal land 9/15 Out of 1 t CO2 stored in the biomass, how much is geologically stored? For efficiencies above 0%, the system is net negative. 1 EJ of bioenergy = 50 Mt CO2 removed

Model overview 3/15 Miscanthus, switchgrass, willow, wheat straw Brazil, China, Europe, India, US Cropland, marginal land, grassland, forest, peatland 60-90% 0-100% Gt C /yr Direct (LUC) and indirect (ILUC) land use changes Biomass supply chain model H 2 O Biomass Carbon footprint kg CO2 /t ater footprint m 3 /t OUTPUTS Annual emission balance on BECCS 500 M BECCS power plant BECCS project lifetime: 50 years Power plant model H 2 O Energy footprint GJ/t BECCS Carbon intensity kg CO2 /Mh Annual GHG emissions balance over the lifetime Carbon efficiency % + CCS ater intensity m 3 /Mh Lifetime net removal t CO2 /ha Q Net efficiency breakeven time % HHV years

And with land use change? 10/15 Miscanthus Switchgrass heat straw illow Up to 1,800 kg CO2 /Mh The offset effect is exacerbated with indirect land use changes. BECCS systems do not reach carbon negativity in the upper bound scenarios.

Dynamic GHG balance 11/15 How is the dynamic GHG profile affected by land use change? Lifetime carbon removal Upper bound scenario Mean scenario Lower bound scenario Alternative scenario Carbon breakeven time

BECCS carbon efficiency Miscanthus Cropland 12/15 How does BECCS carbon efficiency change with land use change? For efficiencies above 0%, the system is net negative. 1 EJ of bioenergy = 31 Mt CO2 removed

BECCS water intensity 13/15 Miscanthus illow Switchgrass The power plant water intensity increases with capture rate and co-firing proportion (efficiency drops),

BECCS water intensity 13/15 Miscanthus illow Switchgrass Biomass water footprint impact on the power plant water intensity is two orders of magnitude greater than that of the power plant cooling requirement.

How much resources does BECCS need? 12 Gt CO2 /year target 14/15 540 940 360 9,720 721 Harvested area for world cereal production (FAOSTAT, 2014) Land Mha 5,460 3,630 7,980 Total water consumption for agriculture in the world (Chapagain et al, 2004) ater Bm 3 /yr 2.1 Mean Miscanthus Marginal land 1.6 2.9 Range 1.8 orld capacity of coal fired power plants (EIA, 2016) Capacity T

Conclusions Biomass supply chain drives BECCS carbon and water intensities, BECCS does not remove immediately: from 1 year to over 50 years, The removed over the lifetime of a BECCS project can be very different: between 0 and 2 kt CO2 /ha, BECCS sustainability is highly case specific, But in all cases relies on intelligent management of the biomass supply chain: limiting land use change, prioritizing sea/rail over road transport, using organic chemicals and alternative drying and processing. Important policy implications: Stake holders in BECCS value chain are multiple, BECCS projects can vary in quality, Carbon breakeven time needs to be accounted for in crediting schemes. 15/15 Fajardy, M., & Mac Dowell, N. (2017). Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions? Energy Environ. Sci. mathilde.fajardy16@imperial.ac.uk, niall@imperial.ac.uk