Environmental impact of Biomass with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) Systems

Prof Patricia Thornley

UKCCSRC

London 12 April 2017

Contents

• Introduction to SUPERGEN Bioenergy Hub

• BECCS GHG balances

• Critical parameters

• Resource availability

• Wider environmental issues

• Wider sustainability issues

• Governance and frameworks

Introduction: SUPERGEN Bioenergy Hub

To bring together industry, academia and other stakeholders to focus on the research and knowledge challenges associated with the chief objective of increasing the contribution of UK bioenergy to meet strategic environmental and energy security targets in a coherent, sustainable and cost-effective manner.

Supergen Bioenergy Hub Overview

Impact on complementary bodies

Impact outside the Hub

Industry

Europe

Government

Impact on the Hub

ERAESC

Improve

Training

- SHARE

Integrate

partners

Integrate

science &

engineering

Improve

cooperationStatutory

bodies

Rest of

World

RCUK InnovateUK

WP5:

System

Modelling

WP3:

Conversion

engineering

WP2: Pre-

processing

technologies

WP4:

Energy

Vectors

ETI

Society

REACCCProfessional

bodies

WP1:

Biomass

& Waste

CORE MANAGEMENT GROUP

IMPACT

Supergen Bioenergy Hub 2017-18 Focus

To extend our existing knowledge of biomass thermochemical conversion to more challenging feedstocks to widen the available UK biomass supply.Growth of energy crops on contaminated land and their utilization in different conversion technologies to deliver diverse energy vectors

BECCS GHG Balances

• Modelling different BECCS with process simulation software (ASPEN)

• Life cycle (Sima-Pro) and techno economic assessment of BECCS value chains in the UK

• Key parameters: efficiency, parasitic load, capture rate, significant sources of embodied carbon

Process flow diagram of coal/biomass oxy fuel combustion

Process flow diagram of coal/biomass enrich aircombustion

Net CO2 emissions for oxy-fuel cofiring

Effect of capture rate on GHG savings for the oxyfuelcombustion

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

85 87 90 92 95 99

CO

2eq

.(kg

/MW

h)

Capture rate (%)

15wt%

30wt%

60wt%

BECCS GHG Balances

• Reducing CO2 emissions at the expense of energy consumption

• Scale matters

• Feedstock specification/losses mater

• Feedstock origin less important

• Attributional and consequential LCA distinctions

Resource availability limited by land and material resource availability ...

Welfle A., Gilbert P., Thornley P., Increasing biomass resource availability through supply chain analysis , Biomass and Bioenergy, 2014

Slide 14

Welfle A., Gilbert P., Thornley P., Securing a bioenergy future without imports, Energy Policy, vol 68, 2014

44% of UK primary energy demand

possible

Wider environmental issues

Comparing 1 kg 'soybiodiesel, Argentina' with 1 kg 'Diesel, at regional storage/RER U'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / World, 1990 / characterisation

soybiodiesel, Argentina Diesel, at regional storage/RER U

Abioticdepletion

Acidification Eutrophication Global warming(GWP100)

Ozone layerdepletion (OD

Human toxicity Fresh wateraquatic ecoto

Marine aquaticecotoxicity

Terrestrialecotoxicity

Photochemicaloxidation

%

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110

1 Gilbert et al., ““The influence of organic and inorganic fertiliser application rates on UK biomass crop sustainability”, Biomass and Bioenergy 35 (2011), 1170-1181,

Significance of land-use and importance of system scope

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Social justice

Environmental protection

Economic growth

Wider sustainability perspective

Ecological

Economic

Social

Pesticide use

Impact on crop rotations

Water demand vs local availability

Genetic modificationRegional biodiversity

Plantation biodiversityl

Greenhouse gas savings

Fertilizer use

Soil chemical changes Soil physical changes

Use of fire for land clearance

Accidental fire risk from feedstock productionWaste

arisings

Surface and ground water pollutionAir borne

pollution

Contribution to national GDP via tax

Inappropriate handling of complaints

Minimum standards for treatment of workers and protection of rights

Appropriate training of workers

Legal non-complianceCommunity benefits

Cost of delivered energy product

Conflict with local food production

Social & environmental assessment of new plantations

Legal system transparent & acknowledgedUse of inappropriately

obtained land

Appropriate community consultation

Visual/landscape impact of crop

Impact on global food prices

Energy delivered per unit of land used

Minimum grade of land required

Wider impacts of land use change

Contribution to energy security

Technology risk –potential for failure

Contribution to national economy via employment and manufacturing

Capital investment per unit of capacity

Examples of impact categories

Thornley & Gilbert, “Biofuels: Balancing risks and rewards”, Interface Focus, 2013

Trade-offs involved when particular feedstock/conversion routes chosen

Challenges for BECCS

• Demonstrating feasibility!

• Procuring sustainable feedstock (widening the envelope)

• Assessing an appropriate system scope

• Developing a framework that incentivizes minimum GHG emissions

• Governance and scale

More information

p.thornley@manchester.ac.uk

www.supergen-bioenergy.net