Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain

Fabrizio Albanito; Astley Hastings; Nuala Fitton; Mark Richards; Mike Martin; Niall Mac Dowell; Dave Bell; Simon C. Taylor; Isabella Butnar; Pei‐Hao Li; Raphael Slade; Pete Smith

doi:10.1111/gcbb.12630

Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain

Fabrizio Albanito^* (Corresponding Author), Astley Hastings, Nuala Fitton, Mark Richards, Mike Martin, Niall Mac Dowell, Dave Bell, Simon C. Taylor, Isabella Butnar, Pei‐Hao Li, Raphael Slade, Pete Smith

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)

10 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

New contingency policy plans are expected to be published by the United Kingdom government to set out urgent actions, such as carbon capture and storage, greenhouse gas removal, and the use of sustainable bioenergy to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the 4th and 5th carbon budgets. In this study, we identify two plausible bioenergy production pathways for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based on centralized and distributed energy systems to show what BECCS could look like if deployed by 2050 in Great Britain. The extent of agricultural land available to sustainably produce biomass feedstock in the centralized and distributed energy systems is about 0.39 and 0.5 Mha, providing approximately 5.7 and 7.3 MtDM yr−1 of biomass, respectively. If this land‐use change occurred, bioenergy crops would contribute to reduced agricultural soil GHG emission by 9 and 11 MtCO2eq yr−1 in the centralized and distributed energy systems, respectively. In addition, bioenergy crops can contribute to reduce agricultural soil ammonia emissions, water pollution from soil nitrate leaching, and to increase soil organic carbon stocks.

The technical mitigation potentials from BECCS lead to projected CO2 reductions of approximately 18 and 23 MtCO2 yr−1 from the centralized and distributed energy systems, respectively. This suggests that the domestic supply of sustainable biomass would not allow the emission reduction target of 50 MtCO2 yr−1 from BECCS to be met. To meet that target, it would be necessary to produce solid biomass from forest systems on 0.59 or 0.49 Mha, or alternatively to import 8 or 6.6 MtDM yr−1 of biomass for the centralized and distributed energy system, respectively. The spatially explicit results of this study can serve to identify the regional differences in the potential capture of CO2 from BECCS, providing the basis for the development of onshore CO2 transport infrastructures.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1234-1252
Number of pages	19
Journal	Global Change Biology. Bioenergy
Volume	11
Issue number	10
Early online date	7 Jul 2019
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12630
Publication status	Published - Oct 2019

Bibliographical note

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was carried out under the UK Energy Research Council (UKERC)‐funded project ‘Assessing potential, feasibility and impacts of Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) in the UK (Access‐BECCS)’. We thank Dr Ajay Gambhir for valuable comments and discussion.

Keywords

agricultural GHG emissions
BECCS
bioenergy crops
carbon capture and storage
climate mitigation strategy
future energy scenarios
greenhouse gases
land-use change
GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS
LAND-USE CHANGE
BIOENERGY CROPS
LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS
ENERGY CROPS
MISCANTHUS
BIOFUEL
CARBON
MODEL
AVAILABILITY

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1111/gcbb.12630Licence: CC BY

Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain
© 2019 The Authors. GCB Bioenergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Final published version, 1.74 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Albanito, F., Hastings, A., Fitton, N., Richards, M., Martin, M., Mac Dowell, N., Bell, D., Taylor, S. C., Butnar, I., Li, PH., Slade, R., & Smith, P. (2019). Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, 11(10), 1234-1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12630

Albanito, F, Hastings, A, Fitton, N, Richards, M, Martin, M, Mac Dowell, N, Bell, D, Taylor, SC, Butnar, I, Li, PH, Slade, R & Smith, P 2019, 'Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain', Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 1234-1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12630

@article{d5533b650c314e18971a78196bb383af,

title = "Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain",

abstract = "New contingency policy plans are expected to be published by the United Kingdom government to set out urgent actions, such as carbon capture and storage, greenhouse gas removal, and the use of sustainable bioenergy to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the 4th and 5th carbon budgets. In this study, we identify two plausible bioenergy production pathways for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based on centralized and distributed energy systems to show what BECCS could look like if deployed by 2050 in Great Britain. The extent of agricultural land available to sustainably produce biomass feedstock in the centralized and distributed energy systems is about 0.39 and 0.5 Mha, providing approximately 5.7 and 7.3 MtDM yr−1 of biomass, respectively. If this land‐use change occurred, bioenergy crops would contribute to reduced agricultural soil GHG emission by 9 and 11 MtCO2eq yr−1 in the centralized and distributed energy systems, respectively. In addition, bioenergy crops can contribute to reduce agricultural soil ammonia emissions, water pollution from soil nitrate leaching, and to increase soil organic carbon stocks.The technical mitigation potentials from BECCS lead to projected CO2 reductions of approximately 18 and 23 MtCO2 yr−1 from the centralized and distributed energy systems, respectively. This suggests that the domestic supply of sustainable biomass would not allow the emission reduction target of 50 MtCO2 yr−1 from BECCS to be met. To meet that target, it would be necessary to produce solid biomass from forest systems on 0.59 or 0.49 Mha, or alternatively to import 8 or 6.6 MtDM yr−1 of biomass for the centralized and distributed energy system, respectively. The spatially explicit results of this study can serve to identify the regional differences in the potential capture of CO2 from BECCS, providing the basis for the development of onshore CO2 transport infrastructures.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.",

keywords = "agricultural GHG emissions, BECCS, bioenergy crops, carbon capture and storage, climate mitigation strategy, future energy scenarios, greenhouse gases, land-use change, GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS, LAND-USE CHANGE, BIOENERGY CROPS, LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS, ENERGY CROPS, MISCANTHUS, BIOFUEL, CARBON, MODEL, AVAILABILITY",

author = "Fabrizio Albanito and Astley Hastings and Nuala Fitton and Mark Richards and Mike Martin and {Mac Dowell}, Niall and Dave Bell and Taylor, {Simon C.} and Isabella Butnar and Pei‐Hao Li and Raphael Slade and Pete Smith",

note = "ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was carried out under the UK Energy Research Council (UKERC)‐funded project {\textquoteleft}Assessing potential, feasibility and impacts of Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) in the UK (Access‐BECCS){\textquoteright}. We thank Dr Ajay Gambhir for valuable comments and discussion.",

year = "2019",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1111/gcbb.12630",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

pages = "1234--1252",

journal = "Global Change Biology. Bioenergy",

issn = "1757-1693",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain

AU - Albanito, Fabrizio

AU - Hastings, Astley

AU - Fitton, Nuala

AU - Richards, Mark

AU - Martin, Mike

AU - Mac Dowell, Niall

AU - Bell, Dave

AU - Taylor, Simon C.

AU - Butnar, Isabella

AU - Li, Pei‐Hao

AU - Slade, Raphael

AU - Smith, Pete

N1 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was carried out under the UK Energy Research Council (UKERC)‐funded project ‘Assessing potential, feasibility and impacts of Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) in the UK (Access‐BECCS)’. We thank Dr Ajay Gambhir for valuable comments and discussion.

PY - 2019/10

Y1 - 2019/10

N2 - New contingency policy plans are expected to be published by the United Kingdom government to set out urgent actions, such as carbon capture and storage, greenhouse gas removal, and the use of sustainable bioenergy to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the 4th and 5th carbon budgets. In this study, we identify two plausible bioenergy production pathways for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based on centralized and distributed energy systems to show what BECCS could look like if deployed by 2050 in Great Britain. The extent of agricultural land available to sustainably produce biomass feedstock in the centralized and distributed energy systems is about 0.39 and 0.5 Mha, providing approximately 5.7 and 7.3 MtDM yr−1 of biomass, respectively. If this land‐use change occurred, bioenergy crops would contribute to reduced agricultural soil GHG emission by 9 and 11 MtCO2eq yr−1 in the centralized and distributed energy systems, respectively. In addition, bioenergy crops can contribute to reduce agricultural soil ammonia emissions, water pollution from soil nitrate leaching, and to increase soil organic carbon stocks.The technical mitigation potentials from BECCS lead to projected CO2 reductions of approximately 18 and 23 MtCO2 yr−1 from the centralized and distributed energy systems, respectively. This suggests that the domestic supply of sustainable biomass would not allow the emission reduction target of 50 MtCO2 yr−1 from BECCS to be met. To meet that target, it would be necessary to produce solid biomass from forest systems on 0.59 or 0.49 Mha, or alternatively to import 8 or 6.6 MtDM yr−1 of biomass for the centralized and distributed energy system, respectively. The spatially explicit results of this study can serve to identify the regional differences in the potential capture of CO2 from BECCS, providing the basis for the development of onshore CO2 transport infrastructures.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

AB - New contingency policy plans are expected to be published by the United Kingdom government to set out urgent actions, such as carbon capture and storage, greenhouse gas removal, and the use of sustainable bioenergy to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the 4th and 5th carbon budgets. In this study, we identify two plausible bioenergy production pathways for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based on centralized and distributed energy systems to show what BECCS could look like if deployed by 2050 in Great Britain. The extent of agricultural land available to sustainably produce biomass feedstock in the centralized and distributed energy systems is about 0.39 and 0.5 Mha, providing approximately 5.7 and 7.3 MtDM yr−1 of biomass, respectively. If this land‐use change occurred, bioenergy crops would contribute to reduced agricultural soil GHG emission by 9 and 11 MtCO2eq yr−1 in the centralized and distributed energy systems, respectively. In addition, bioenergy crops can contribute to reduce agricultural soil ammonia emissions, water pollution from soil nitrate leaching, and to increase soil organic carbon stocks.The technical mitigation potentials from BECCS lead to projected CO2 reductions of approximately 18 and 23 MtCO2 yr−1 from the centralized and distributed energy systems, respectively. This suggests that the domestic supply of sustainable biomass would not allow the emission reduction target of 50 MtCO2 yr−1 from BECCS to be met. To meet that target, it would be necessary to produce solid biomass from forest systems on 0.59 or 0.49 Mha, or alternatively to import 8 or 6.6 MtDM yr−1 of biomass for the centralized and distributed energy system, respectively. The spatially explicit results of this study can serve to identify the regional differences in the potential capture of CO2 from BECCS, providing the basis for the development of onshore CO2 transport infrastructures.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

KW - agricultural GHG emissions

KW - BECCS

KW - bioenergy crops

KW - carbon capture and storage

KW - climate mitigation strategy

KW - future energy scenarios

KW - greenhouse gases

KW - land-use change

KW - GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS

KW - LAND-USE CHANGE

KW - BIOENERGY CROPS

KW - LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS

KW - ENERGY CROPS

KW - MISCANTHUS

KW - BIOFUEL

KW - CARBON

KW - MODEL

KW - AVAILABILITY

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/mitigation-potential-environmental-impact-centralized-versus-distributed-beccs-domestic-biomass-prod

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072996472&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/gcbb.12630

DO - 10.1111/gcbb.12630

M3 - Article

SN - 1757-1693

VL - 11

SP - 1234

EP - 1252

JO - Global Change Biology. Bioenergy

JF - Global Change Biology. Bioenergy

IS - 10

ER -

Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this