Search

The Intergovernmental panel on climate change raised awareness on the urgent need for action to limit climate change. Answers include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which could theoretically generate negative emissions. The life cycle assessment (LCA) method needs to be applied to BECCS systems to assess their negative emission potential and prevent transfers from one environmental impact category to another. To allow for informed decision-making, the quality of LCA results should be evaluated. The quality of results is related to the quality of the data used. The purpose of this article is thus to review the life cycle inventory data that are used for BECCS LCA. To this end, 35 recent BECCS LCA were selected and the inventory data they used was collected. Synthesis inventory tables were then compiled, including the observed range of variability for each data item. These tables cover biomass harvesting, pre-treatment, combustion, gasification, and carbon dioxide capture with a monoethanolamine (MEA) based solvent. Data quality is also reviewed, through the representativeness, reproducibility and completeness of the life cycle inventories highlighted in the selected articles. Only a third of the articles (13/35) provide life cycle inventory tables. Only half of the articles assess the impact on climate change leading to inventory cut-offs. BECCS systems including combustion followed by MEA-based capture have been most referenced (12/35 articles). More transparency on data quality is recommended. Certain promising BECCS systems should also be further studied. This applies, for instance, to BECCS systems that involve second-generation solvents. • A review of the data quality used in life cycle assessment (LCA) of BECCS is assessed. • Only a third of the studied articles provide their life cycle inventory tables. • Inventory data currently used in LCA of BECCS is compiled into synthesis tables. • BECCS systems including MEA-based capture are most frequently referenced. • BECCS systems that should be further assessed with LCA are identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decarbonization of industry and industrial systems is a pressing challenge given the relative lack of low-carbon options available for "hard to decarbonize" sectors such as steelmaking, cement manufacturing, and chemical production. Carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) represents a promising and crosscutting solution to this formidable problem. This review takes a systematic and sociotechnical perspective to examine how CCUS can support industrial decarbonization and relevant associated technical, economic, and social factors. This includes a focus on the energy and climate impacts of carbon emitting activities, the role, and options for CCUS in global responses to climate change, technical aspects of capture, transport, storage, and utilization, as well as policy implications and areas requiring further research. In doing so, the Review examines hundreds of published studies on the topic over the previous twenty years to offer a state-of-the-art investigation on technical options for capture (including direct air capture), transportation (including pipelines, ships, and rail), storage (including biotic and abiotic), and utilization (including enhanced oil recovery and biochar). The Review also investigates the evidence base within the literature on enablers and barriers to CCUS, policy mechanisms, and international frameworks as well as themes such as geopolitics, trade, and future research gaps. We conclude with insights about future CCUS pathways and sociotechnical systems dynamics. [Display omitted] • Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage can play a critical role in climate change mitigation. • Ample emerging technologies are available with adequate capture capacities and biotic and abiotic forms of storage. • Utilization processes include enhanced oil recovery and biochar. • Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage deployment has been largely limited by social and economic barriers. • Policy driven solutions may help drive costs down, engender social acceptance, and increase CCUS deployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is an important technology to reduce fossil CO 2 emissions and remove CO 2 from the atmosphere. Scenarios for CCS deployment consistent with global climate goals involve gigatonne-scale deployment of CCS within the next several decades. CCS technologies typically involve large water consumption during their energy-intensive capture process. Despite potential concerns, the water footprint of large-scale CCS adoption consistent with stringent climate change mitigation has not yet been explored. This study presents the water footprints (m3 water per tonne CO 2 captured) of four prominent CCS technologies: Post-combustion CCS, Pre-combustion CCS, Direct Air CCS, and Bioenergy with CCS. Depending on technology, the water footprint of CCS ranges from 0.74 to 575 m3 H 2 O/tonne CO 2. Bioenergy with CCS is the technology that has the highest water footprint per tonne CO 2 captured, largely due to the high water requirements associated with transpiration. The widespread deployment of CCS to meet the 1.5 °C climate target would almost double anthropogenic water footprint. Consequently, this would likely exacerbate and create green and blue water scarcity conditions in many regions worldwide. Climate mitigation scenarios with a diversified portfolio of CCS technologies have lower impacts on water resources than scenarios relying mainly on one of them. The water footprint assessment of CCS is a crucial factor in evaluating these technologies. Water-scarce regions should prioritize water-efficient CCS technologies in their mitigation goals. In conclusion, the most water-efficient way to stabilize the Earth's climate is to rapidly decarbonize our energy systems and improve energy efficiency. • Carbon capture and storage involve large green and blue water consumption. • Large-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage could double the water footprint of humanity. • Trade-offs between climate mitigation benefits and water resources should be weighed. • Carbon capture and storage should be prioritized in regions not affected by water scarcity. • Water sustainability should be accounted for in carbon dioxide removal policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coal-fired power plays an important role in China's power supply, even though the photovoltaic (PV) power has developed rapidly in recent years. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is essential for achieving anticipated long-term climate change mitigation targets. However, China's government subsidy policies tend to support PV, while incentives for CCS are few. Given this situation, a trinomial tree modeling-based real options approach was developed to evaluate CCS retrofitting investment in coal-fired power plants versus PV power investment. This model includes setting different policy scenarios by considering electricity tariff subsidies and Chinese emission trading scheme (CN-ETS). The results showed that coal-fired power with CCS has a cost advantage over PV power in most provinces in China, if the electricity tariff and other subsidy policies remain the same; however, PV power will be cheaper than coal-fired power with CCS in Yunnan, Tianjin, Hebei, Shanghai and Shanxi provinces in the above cases. Incorporating CCS into CN-ETS could cut the former's application cost, but the incentive effect of CN-ETS is not obvious, because the carbon price in China is currently too cheap, and the incentive effect of a power tariff subsidy (subsidy at the PV power tariff level) is much better for PV than for CN-ETS. Increasing the load factor is an important way to reduce the CCS application cost for power plants. The results of this study provide reference and guidance for the collaborative development of CCS and PV. • Trinomial tree model was used to evaluate CCS and PV investment. • CCS and PV investment were compared in different provinces in China. • Regional factors and policy factors were taken into account. • Suggestions on CCS and PV development in China were put forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]