Search

• Integrating the source to sink BECCS chain into an energy system optimization model. • CCS cost-storage curves are created to analyze cost-competitiveness of BECCS. • Assess the dynamic relation between negative emissions and land use change emissions. • Total system costs decrease when BECCS is modelled endogenously. • Source-sink matching shows higher CO 2 injection rates (250 Mt CO 2) can be reached than mentioned in scientific literature (up to 135 Mt CO 2). • Unrestricted modeling of BECCS increases demand for biomass. Even though this comes with a higher EF due to LUC emissions, still net GHG benefits are larger. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can lead to negative emissions, and is seen as an important option to decarbonize energy systems. Its potential decarbonization contribution depends on low-carbon resource availability, its ability to meet end-use demand and the geological storage potential to safely trap CO 2. Here an energy system model is used to assess the BECCS decarbonization potential in Brazil, considering uncertainty in low-carbon biomass resources, and storage potential, injection rates and costs of CO 2 storage, assessed in eight scenarios. A spatial explicit analysis is done to make improved estimates on the storage potential, injection rates, and costs for CO 2 storage in the Rio Bonito saline aquifer of the Paraná basin. Although there are large differences in storage potential (12–117 Gt CO 2) and costs (on average 5–15 $/t CO 2), the accumulated volume of CO 2 stored between 2010 and 2050 is 2.9 Gt CO 2 for all scenarios, with injection rates around 240 Mt CO 2 in 2050. This shows that BECCS is a cost-competitive option to decarbonize the Brazilian energy system, even under pessimistic estimates of CO 2 storage potential and costs, and low biomass availability. The cheapest sink locations are selected, in the high development scenario. When CCS development is low, injection rates are the limiting factor. Locations are selected with the highest injection rates, even though sometimes more expensive. When CO 2 storage is limited, total system costs increase, mainly because decarbonization of the industry and freight transport sector relies on more expensive decarbonization options such as green hydrogen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]