GCB Bioenergy · 2019 · 44 citations · 26 references
ManagementEnvironmental SciencesClimate Change MitigationEnergy EconomicsEnergy PolicyCarbon CaptureCarbon Dioxide RemovalCarbon SequestrationDecarbonization PathwaysLow-carbon Energy TransitionRenewable EnergyBiomass Carbon StorageCarbon Dioxide CaptureCarbon Dioxide Removal PathwaysClimate Mitigation ModelingDecarbonization TechnologiesDeep Decarbonization PathwaysGreenhouse Gas EmissionsNegative Emissions Pathways
Abstract Bioenergy is expected to have a prominent role in limiting global greenhouse emissions to meet the climate change target of the Paris Agreement. Many studies identify negative emissions from bioenergy generation with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as its key contribution, but assume that no other CO 2 removal technologies are available. We use a global integrated assessment model, TIAM‐UCL, to investigate the role of bioenergy within the global energy system when direct air capture and afforestation are available as cost‐competitive alternatives to BECCS. We find that the presence of other CO 2 removal technologies does not reduce the pressure on biomass resources but changes the use of bioenergy for climate mitigation. While we confirm that when available BECCS offers cheaper decarbonization pathways, we also find that its use delays the phase‐out of unabated fossil fuels in industry and transport. Furthermore, it displaces renewable electricity generation, potentially increasing the likelihood of missing the Paris Agreement target. We found that the most cost‐effective solution is to invest in a basket of CO 2 removal technologies. However, if these technologies rely on CCS, then urgent action is required to ramp up the necessary infrastructure. We conclude that a sustainable biomass supply is critical for decarbonizing the global energy system. Since only a few world regions carry the burden of producing the biomass resource and store CO 2 in geological storage, adequate international collaboration, policies and standards will be needed to realize this resource while avoiding undesired land‐use change.
26
Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects
Sabine Fuss, William F. Lamb, Max Callaghan et al. · Environmental Research Letters · 2018 · 1.5K citations · Full text
Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions
Pete Smith, Steven J. Davis, Felix Creutzig et al. · Nature Climate Change · 2015 · 1.4K citations · Full text
Management, Environmental Policy, Natural Resource Economics +14
Oliver Fricko, Peter Havlík, Joeri Rogelj et al. · Global Environmental Change · 2016 · 1.1K citations · Full text
Natural Sciences, Environmental Sciences, Climate Change Mitigation +13