374
S. Takeda et al.
and the deployment of an incentive scheme for domestically consumed BECCSethanol (Moreira et al. 2016).
For the US, whose GHG emissions account for 15% of total global emissions,
second only to China (30%; (Boden and Andres 2017)), negative emissions technologies may have an important future role in meeting global emissions targets. Initially,
the US were a signatory under the Paris Agreement, with an intended NDC of a
26–28% cut compared to 2005 GHG levels by 2025 (UNFCCC 2015). Although
the US has since withdrawn from the agreement, under Article 28, the earliest that
such a withdrawal could come into effect is in the year 2020, until which the US is
obligated to maintain its commitments (UNFCCC 2018b). According to a geospatial
analysis of the US suggests that a complete mobilization of all available biomass for
BECCS could engender 370 Mt of negative emissions per annum by 2020, however
considering limitations of biomass and CO2 transportation and injection limitations,
a more realistic technical potential of BECCS is approximately 100 Mt per annum
by 2020 (Baik et al. 2018). This estimate is cognizant of biomass production at the
county level, CO2 pipelines and storage sites across the US and extols BECCS as
a superior negative emission technology because of its positive energy contribution
(Baik et al. 2018).
In addition to single nation studies, several global-scale studies of BECCS potential contribution to emission reductions have been undertaken. For example, (Kato
and Yamagata 2014) assessed the role of BECCS toward keeping mean global
temperature rises below 2 °C, identifying that current generation bioenergy crops
(corn, sugarcane, sugar beet etc.) would be insufficient to meet the target. Utilizing
second generation (lignocellulosic) bioenergy crops and thermochemical conversion
to synthetic natural gas, the BECCS contribution can become effective, only if all
resultant emissions are captured and a high-fertilizer approach to crop production
is undertaken. In all scenarios assessed, significant additional land use is required
(resulting in additional emissions), increasing the risk of a food vs fuel type outcome.
In order to ameliorate the identified land use issue, the assessment of bioenergy potential from residues, waste and woody biomass is suggested, along with a concomitant
contribution from the forestry sector.
In addition, (Moriarty and Honnery 2016) investigates the role of biomass in
reducing GHG emissions under a ‘food first’ approach considering dietary changes
and a shift toward the use of biomass-based materials (biomaterials) and bioenergy.
They seek to address the food vs fuel issue and extol the use of multiple sources of
biomass as replacements for fossil fuel sources. In terms of policy implications, they
identify the large subsidies received by fossil fuels, and the potential advancing of
biomass-based approaches, should a carbon tax be realized. Specifically investigating
the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) metric, a material, bioenergy and CCS
pathway is identified as providing a positive return into the future.
In their investigation of a zero-emission future scenario, (Tokimatsu et al. 2016)
identified a series of advanced energy technologies which could be developed and
deployed to meet emission targets and achieve global economic growth. By adopting
a least supply cost minimization model which considered energy, mineral, biomass
and food resources across 10 global regions, the authors identified a significant
S. Takeda et al.
and the deployment of an incentive scheme for domestically consumed BECCSethanol (Moreira et al. 2016).
For the US, whose GHG emissions account for 15% of total global emissions,
second only to China (30%; (Boden and Andres 2017)), negative emissions technologies may have an important future role in meeting global emissions targets. Initially,
the US were a signatory under the Paris Agreement, with an intended NDC of a
26–28% cut compared to 2005 GHG levels by 2025 (UNFCCC 2015). Although
the US has since withdrawn from the agreement, under Article 28, the earliest that
such a withdrawal could come into effect is in the year 2020, until which the US is
obligated to maintain its commitments (UNFCCC 2018b). According to a geospatial
analysis of the US suggests that a complete mobilization of all available biomass for
BECCS could engender 370 Mt of negative emissions per annum by 2020, however
considering limitations of biomass and CO2 transportation and injection limitations,
a more realistic technical potential of BECCS is approximately 100 Mt per annum
by 2020 (Baik et al. 2018). This estimate is cognizant of biomass production at the
county level, CO2 pipelines and storage sites across the US and extols BECCS as
a superior negative emission technology because of its positive energy contribution
(Baik et al. 2018).
In addition to single nation studies, several global-scale studies of BECCS potential contribution to emission reductions have been undertaken. For example, (Kato
and Yamagata 2014) assessed the role of BECCS toward keeping mean global
temperature rises below 2 °C, identifying that current generation bioenergy crops
(corn, sugarcane, sugar beet etc.) would be insufficient to meet the target. Utilizing
second generation (lignocellulosic) bioenergy crops and thermochemical conversion
to synthetic natural gas, the BECCS contribution can become effective, only if all
resultant emissions are captured and a high-fertilizer approach to crop production
is undertaken. In all scenarios assessed, significant additional land use is required
(resulting in additional emissions), increasing the risk of a food vs fuel type outcome.
In order to ameliorate the identified land use issue, the assessment of bioenergy potential from residues, waste and woody biomass is suggested, along with a concomitant
contribution from the forestry sector.
In addition, (Moriarty and Honnery 2016) investigates the role of biomass in
reducing GHG emissions under a ‘food first’ approach considering dietary changes
and a shift toward the use of biomass-based materials (biomaterials) and bioenergy.
They seek to address the food vs fuel issue and extol the use of multiple sources of
biomass as replacements for fossil fuel sources. In terms of policy implications, they
identify the large subsidies received by fossil fuels, and the potential advancing of
biomass-based approaches, should a carbon tax be realized. Specifically investigating
the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) metric, a material, bioenergy and CCS
pathway is identified as providing a positive return into the future.
In their investigation of a zero-emission future scenario, (Tokimatsu et al. 2016)
identified a series of advanced energy technologies which could be developed and
deployed to meet emission targets and achieve global economic growth. By adopting
a least supply cost minimization model which considered energy, mineral, biomass
and food resources across 10 global regions, the authors identified a significant