Search

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is regarded as a crucial negative emission technology (NET) in many prospective climate change mitigation scenarios that limit global warming below 2 °C. However, there is still insufficient understanding of the overall life cycle environmental performance of different BECCS configurations. Despite the fact that BECCS entails many technological combinations, the technology is still regarded as a single "black box" technology in most climate scenarios. This study presents a critical review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on a wide range of BECCS options: biomass direct-fired power generation, biomass gasification power generation, bio-hydrogen production, biomass application in industry sectors and other biomass conversion processes, such as pyrolysis and fermentation. It is evident from the review that the biomass direct-fired and gasification power plant with a 100% biomass firing ratio and the gasification-based bio-hydrogen processes have a strong potential to achieve negative emissions. However, the net negative life cycle emissions range widely among studies for each configuration due to variations in technology, LCA methodology and assumptions. Additionally, there is an insufficient assessment of comprehensive environmental impacts for BECCS systems other than GWP, making it still unclear about the trade-offs between the benefit from climate change mitigation and potential negative impacts. Main recommendations for improving LCA on BECCS include developing a generalized guideline and standardization for BECCS LCA, conducting LCAs with comprehensive impact categories, focusing on BECCS configurations being overlooked, considering the impact of land use change and the global warming potential of biomass, and extending LCA in both temporal and spatial dimension. [Display omitted] • Systematically review of life cycle assessment on BECCS systems. • Detailed review on various biomass conversion technologies. • Net negative life cycle emissions range widely among studies. • Insufficient studies of some biomass conversion pathways. • Insufficient studies on multi-environmental environment impact categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]