Search

Meeting the Paris Agreement will most likely require the combination of CO 2 capture and biomass in the industrial sector, resulting in net negative emissions. CO 2 capture within the industry has been extensively investigated. However, biomass options have been poorly explored, with literature alluding to technical and economic barriers. In addition, a lack of consistency among studies makes comparing the performance of CO 2 capture and/or biomass use between studies and sectors difficult. These inconsistencies include differences in methodology, system boundaries, level of integration, costs, greenhouse gas intensity of feedstock and energy carriers, and capital cost estimations. Therefore, an integrated evaluation of the techno-economic performance regarding CO 2 capture and biomass use was performed for five energy-intensive industrial sub-sectors. Harmonization results indicate that CO 2 mitigation potentials vary for each sub-sector, resulting in reductions of 1.4–2.7 t CO 2 /t steel (77%–149%), 0.7 t CO 2 /t cement (92%), 0.2 t CO 2 /t crude oil (68%), 1.9 t CO 2 /t pulp (1663%–2548%), and 34.9 t CO 2 /t H 2 (313%). Negative emissions can be reached in the steel, paper and H 2 sectors. Novel bio-based production routes might enable net negative emissions in the cement and (petro)chemical sectors as well. All the above-mentioned potentials can be reached for 100 €/t CO 2 or less. Implementing mitigation options could reduce industrial CO 2 emissions by 10 Gt CO 2 /y by 2050, easily meeting the targets of the 2 °C scenario by the International Energy Agency (1.8 Gt CO 2 /y reduction) for the industrial sector and even the Beyond 2 °C scenario (4.2 Gt CO 2 /y reduction). • Literature review on CO 2 mitigation in steel, cement, chemical, H 2 and paper sectors. • Introduction harmonized methodology to allow comparison between industrial sectors. • All investigated sectors have large reduction potentials for <100 €/t CO 2 avoided. • Negative emissions possible in iron/steel, H 2 and paper sectors. • Potential CO 2 emission reduction of 10 Gt/yr in 2050, easily meeting climate target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to quantify the benefits of switching from a system dependent on traditional biomass to systems running on more efficient fuels and technologies. It is estimated that even when open fires burning fuelwood are replaced by improved cooking stoves (ICSs) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves, and biomass is processed in dedicated biomass power plants, a net reduction in CO 2 emissions is still obtained. The ICS/LPG stove/biomass combustion power plant configuration could provide an average net reduction of 84 kg-C e /tDM. Meanwhile, a net reduction of 105 kg-C e /tDM could be obtained when implementing a ICS/LPG stove/biomass gasification power plant scheme. Main factors influencing the net reduction of CO 2 emissions are technology efficiency and the fraction of non-renewable fuelwood use. The switch from traditional biomass to modern biomass in traditional biomass intensive countries must not only be done to reduce CO 2 emissions but also to avoid indoor pollution and energy poverty. Health improvements should be more important than energy savings. Results also indicate that the use of modern biomass systems not only could provide a reduction of local environmental pollution, but also could boost the local economy by the creation of biomass infrastructures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing production of modern bioenergy carriers and biomaterials intensifies the competition for different applications of biomass. To be able to optimize and develop biomass utilization in a sustainable way, this paper first reviews the status and prospects of biomass value chains for heat, power, fuels and materials, next assesses their current and long-term levelized production costs and avoided emissions, and then compares their greenhouse gas abatement costs. At present, the economically and environmentally preferred options are wood chip and pellet combustion in district heating systems and large-scale cofiring power plants (75–81 US$ 2005 /tCO 2 -eq avoided ), and large-scale fermentation of low-cost Brazilian sugarcane to ethanol (−65 to −53 $/tCO 2 -eq avoided ) or biomaterials (−60 to −50 $/tCO 2 -eq avoided for ethylene and −320 to −228 $/tCO 2 -eq avoided for PLA; negative costs represent cost-effective options). In the longer term, the cultivation and use of lignocellulosic energy crops can play an important role in reducing the costs and improving the emission balance of biomass value chains. Key conversion technologies for lignocellulosic biomass are large-scale gasification (bioenergy and biomaterials) and fermentation (biofuels and biomaterials). However, both routes require improvement of their technological and economic performance. Further improvements can be attained by biorefineries that integrate different conversion technologies to maximize the use of all biomass components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]