Carbon-negative emissions: Systemic impacts of biomass conversion: A case study on CO2 capture and storage options

12713 10 50884 3 136438 document 50884 16-02 Carbon negative emissions - Revised manuscript.pdf application/pdf bfae8ed710e9ec405b5bf13dbbc0e502 MD5 959131 2016-04-20 09:38:22 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/12713/1/16-02%20Carbon%20negative%20emissions%20-%20Revised%20manuscript.pdf 12713 1 1 application/pdf text en public cc_by

16-02 Carbon negative emissions - Revised manuscript.pdf

accepted 50886 2 136447 document 50886 lightbox.jpg image/png f0d35494094b30c40762528b3aa58626 MD5 43492 2016-04-20 09:48:45 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/12713/2/lightbox.jpg 12713 2 2 image/png other Thumbnails conversion from text to thumbnail_lightbox en staffonly

lightbox.jpg

preview.jpg

medium.jpg

small.jpg

indexcodes.txt

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/50884 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/50884 http://eprints.org/relation/isIndexCodesVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/50884 archive 2 disk0/00/01/27/13 2016-04-15 08:11:17 2021-08-27 17:40:40 2016-04-15 08:11:17 article show Hetland J. Yowargana P. 2069 Leduc S. 8228 Kraxner F. 7904 Carbon-negative emissions: Systemic impacts of biomass conversion: A case study on CO2 capture and storage options pub prog_esm Biopower; Bioenergy; BECCS; CO2 capture; CCS; Co-firing; Efficiency; CO2 mitigation; Negative emissions This paper is a contribution to the ongoing debate on carbon-negative energy solutions. It deals with biomass conversion in dedicated biopower plants equipped with CCS (BECCS), or co-fired plants retrofitted with CCS in order to generate negative CO2-emissions. In this context, bioenergy refers to the use of biomass to generate electricity (i.e. biopower) in compliance with the needs of nations and regions without seasonal space heating demand. In this paper, direct-fired and co-fired systems will be addressed, combined mainly with post-combustion flue gas cleaning. The question is which CCS alternative should be preferred in order to obtain negative emissions: either building multiple smaller biopower units, or employing co-firing of biomass and coal in existing large coal power plants. Based on efficacy and the potential for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions as key indicators, some major differences between the alternatives are shown. In the event that a coal power plant equipped with CCS is readily available, more net electric energy (in MWh) can be provided from the feedstock of biomass than would be obtainable from an independent BECCS plant, although the amount of CO2 captured and stored from the biomass (per tonne) will be essentially the same. Further case-specific cost-benefit analyses will be required to determine the feasibility of carbon-negative energy solutions. Although the study is carried out from the perspective of actual biomass sources as regards biomass composition and available technology (i.e. expected efficiency levels) using Indonesian agricultural residues, its main conclusion is fairly general. 2016-06 Elsevier 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.03.017 341 175 165 public International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 330-342 TRUE 1878-0148 FALSE no info:eu-repo/semantics/article