1. bookVolume 31 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
26 Jun 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Comparative Analysis of Three Different Negative Emission Technologies, BECCS, Absorption and Adsorption of Atmospheric CO2

Published Online: 01 Oct 2021
Page range: 99 - 117
Received: 15 Sep 2020
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
26 Jun 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Negative Emission Technologies (NETs) are generally considered as vital methods for achieving climate goals. To limit the rise in the global average temperature below 2 °C, a large number of countries that participated in the Paris agreement was virtually unanimous about the effective collaboration among members for the reduction of CO2 emissions throughout this century. NETs on the ground that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, provide an active option to achieve this goal.

In this contribution, we compare limiting factors, cost, and capacity of three different NETs, including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), absorption and adsorption. Although there are several advantages for capturing CO2, still some constraints regarding the high operational cost of NETs and industrial condition of these technologies as a method of climate change mitigation is not clear. Thereby no single process can be considered as a comprehensive solution. Indeed, any developed technologies, in turn, have a contribution to the reduction of CO2 concentration. Extensive research needs to be done to assess and decrease NETs costs and limitations.

Keywords

1. Abergel, T et al. 2017. Energy technology perspectives 2017: Catalysing energy technology transformations. OECD. Search in Google Scholar

2. Alexander, L, Allen, S and Bindoff, N.L 2013. Working group I contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report climate change: the physical science basis summary for policymakers. OPCC. Search in Google Scholar

3. Allen, M.R et al. 2009. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163–1166. Search in Google Scholar

4. Azadi, M, Northey, S.A, Ali, S.H and Edraki, M 2020. Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation. Nature Geoscience 13(2), 100-104. Search in Google Scholar

5. Baciocchi, R, Storti, G and Mazzotti, M 2006. Process design and energy requirements for the capture of carbon dioxide from air. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 45(12), 1047-1058. Search in Google Scholar

6. Bednar, J, Obersteiner, M and Wagner, F 2019. On the financial viability of negative emissions. Nature communications 10(1), 1-4. Search in Google Scholar

7. Broehm, M, Strefler, J and Bauer, N.2015. Techno-economic review of direct air capture systems for large scale mitigation of atmospheric CO2. Available at SSRN 2665702. Search in Google Scholar

8. Bui, M, Fajardy, M and Mac Dowell, N 2017. Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS) performance evaluation: Efficiency enhancement and emissions reduction. Applied energy 195, 289-302. Search in Google Scholar

9. Cabral, R.P, Bui, M and Mac Dowell, N 2019. A synergistic approach for the simultaneous decarbonisation of power and industry via bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 87, 221-237. Search in Google Scholar

10. Cai, T., Park, S.Y. and Li, Y 2013.Nutrient recovery from wastewater streams by microalgae: status and prospects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 19, 360-369. Search in Google Scholar

11. Canadell, J.G, Raupach, M.R 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320.5882, 1456–1457. Search in Google Scholar

12. Chiu, S. Y et al. 2011. Microalgal biomass production and on-site bioremediation of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide from flue gas using Chlorella sp. cultures, Bioresource Technology 102, 9135-9142. Search in Google Scholar

13. Choi, Y.Y, Patel, A.K, Hong, M.E, Chang, W.S and Sim, S.J 2019. Microalgae Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): An emerging sustainable bioprocess for reduced CO2 emission and biofuel production. Bioresource Technology Reports 7, 10027. Search in Google Scholar

14. Consoli, C, 2019. Bioenergy and carbon capture and storage. Global CCS Institute. Search in Google Scholar

15. Creutzig, F et al. 2015. Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 7, 916–944. Search in Google Scholar

16. Cumicheo, C, Mac Dowell, N and Shah, N 2019. Natural gas and BECCS: A comparative analysis of alternative configurations for negative emissions power generation. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90, 102798. Search in Google Scholar

17. Dawson, T.P, Jackson, S.T, House, J.I, Prentice, I.C and Mace, G.M 2011. Beyond predictions biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science 332, 53–58. Search in Google Scholar

18. De Coninck, H and Rubin, E 2005. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. UK: Cambridge University Press. TNO: Cost Curves for CO2 Storage, Part 2, 14. Search in Google Scholar

19. Durgadevi, A and Pushpavanam, S 2018. An experimental and theoretical investigation of pure carbon dioxide absorption in aqueous sodium hydroxide in glass millichannels. Journal of CO2 Utilization 26, 133-142. Search in Google Scholar

20. EASAC, 2018. Negative emission technologies: What role in meeting Paris agreement targets?. EASAC Policy Report 35, 45. Search in Google Scholar

21. Edenhofer, O et al. 2011. Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

22. Edenhofer, O. ed 2015. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

23. Edmonds, J et al. 2013. Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm−2 without negative emissions from bioenergy and CO2 capture and storage?. Climate Change118, 29–43. Search in Google Scholar

24. Farrelly, D.J, Everard, C.D, Fagan, C.C and McDonnell, K.P 2013. Carbon sequestration and the role of biological carbon mitigation: a review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 21,712-727. Search in Google Scholar

25. Fuss, S et al. 2014. Betting on negative emission. Natural Climate Change 4, 850–853. Search in Google Scholar

26. Gasser, T, Guivarch, C, Tachiiri, K, Jones, C.D and Ciais, P 2015. Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C. Nature communications 6(1), 1-7. Search in Google Scholar

27. Giagnoni, L et al. 2019. Long-term soil biological fertility, volatile organic compounds and chemical properties in a vineyard soil after biochar amendment. Geoderma 344, 127-136. Search in Google Scholar

28. Goeppert, A, Czaun, M, Prakash, G.S and Olah, G.A 2012. Air as the renewable carbon source of the future: an overview of CO2 capture from the atmosphere. Energy & Environmental Science 5(7), 7833-7853. Search in Google Scholar

29. Gutknecht, V, Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó, Sigfússon, B, Aradóttir, E.S and Charles, L 2018. Creating a carbon dioxide removal solution by combining rapid mineralization of CO2 with direct air capture. Energy Procedia 146,129-134. Search in Google Scholar

30. Herzog, H. J and Drake, E. M 1996. Carbon dioxide recovery and disposal from large energy systems. Annual review of energy and the environment 21(1), 145-166. Search in Google Scholar

31. Hoefnagels, E.T.A, Junginger, H.M, Resch, G, Matzenberger, J, Panzer, C and Pelkmans, L 2011. Development of a tool to model European biomass trade: Report for IEA Bioenergy Task 40. Search in Google Scholar

32. Houghton, J 1990. Scientific assessment of climate change: the policymakers’ summary of the report of working group 1 to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientific assessment of climate change: the policymakers’ summary of the report of working group 1 to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Search in Google Scholar

33. House, K.Z, Baclig, A.C, Ranjan, M, van Nierop, E.A, Wilcox, J and Herzog, H.J 2011. Economic and energetic analysis of capturing CO2 from ambient air. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(51), 20428-20433. Search in Google Scholar

34. House, K.Z, House, C.H, Schrag, D.P and Aziz, M.J 2007. Electrochemical acceleration of chemical weathering as an energetically feasible approach to mitigating anthropogenic climate change. Environmental Science & Technology 41(24), 8464-8470. Search in Google Scholar

35. Hu, L et al. 2017. Considerable contribution of the Montreal Protocol to declining greenhouse gas emissions from the United States. Geophysical Research Letters 44(15), 8075-8083. Search in Google Scholar

36. Humpenöder, F etal. 2014. Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environmental Research Letters 9(6), 064029. Search in Google Scholar

37. Karlsson, H, Byström, L and Wiklund, J 2010. BECCS som klimatåtgärd. Biorecro AB, Stockholm, Sweden. Search in Google Scholar

38. Kato, E, Moriyama, R and Kurosawa, A 2017. A sustainable pathway of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage deployment. Energy Procedia 114, 6115-6123. Search in Google Scholar

39. Keith, D.W 2009. Why capture CO2 from the atmosphere?. Science 325, 1654-1655. Search in Google Scholar

40. Keith, D.W, Ha-Duong, M and Stolaroff, J.K 2006. Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air. Climatic Change 74(1), 17-45. Search in Google Scholar

41. Keith, D.W, Holmes, G, Angelo, D.S and Heidel, K 2018. A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Joule 2(8), 1573-1594. Search in Google Scholar

42. Keith, D.W and Rhodes, J.S 2002. Bury, burn or both: a two-for-one deal on biomass carbon and energy. Climatic Change 54(3), 375. Search in Google Scholar

43. Kelemen, P.B and Matter, J 2008. In situ carbonation of peridotite for CO2 storage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(45), 17295-17300. Search in Google Scholar

44. Kraxner, F et al. 2014. BECCS in South Korea-Analyzing the negative emissions potential of bioenergy as a mitigation tool. Renewable Energy 61, 102–108. Search in Google Scholar

45. Kraxner, F, Nilsson, S and Obersteiner, M 2003. Negative emissions from BioEnergy use, carbon capture and sequestration (BECS)—the case of biomass production by sustainable forest management from semi-natural temperate forests. Biomass and Bioenergy 24, 285-296. Search in Google Scholar

46. Krey, V, Luderer, G, Clarke, L and Kriegler, E 2014. Getting from here to there–energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Climatic change 123(3), 369-382. Search in Google Scholar

47. Lackner, K.S 2009. Capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air. The European Physical Journal Special Topics 176(1), 93-106. Search in Google Scholar

48. Lackner, K, Ziock, H.J and Grimes, P 1999. Carbon dioxide extraction from air: is it an option?. Los Alamos National Lab, NM (US). Search in Google Scholar

49. Larkin, A, Kuriakose, J, Sharmina, M and Anderson, K 2018. What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations. Climate policy 18.6, 690-714. Search in Google Scholar

50. Lenes, J.M et al. 2001. Iron fertilization and the Trichodesmium response on the West Florida shelf. Limnology and Oceanography 46, 1261–1277. Search in Google Scholar

51. Lenton, TM and Vaughan, NE 2009. The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 9(15), 5539–5561. Search in Google Scholar

52. Leung, D.Y, Caramanna, G and Maroto-Valer, M.M 2014. An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 39, 426-443. Search in Google Scholar

53. Li, M, Zhou, M, Tan, C and Tian, X 2019. Enhancement of CO2 biofixation and bioenergy generation using a novel airlift type photosynthetic microbial fuel cell. Bioresource technology 272, 501-509. Search in Google Scholar

54. Low, S and Schäfer, S 2020. Is bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) feasible? The contested authority of integrated assessment modeling. Energy Research & Social Science 60, 101326. Search in Google Scholar

55. Lu, J.G, CHENG, M.D, Yan, J.I and Zhang, H 2009. Membrane-based CO2 absorption into blended amine solutions. Journal of Fuel Chemistry and Technology 37(6), 740-746. Search in Google Scholar

56. Lueker, T.J, Dickson, A.G and Keeling, C.D 2000. Ocean CO2 calculated from dissolved inorganic carbon, alkalinity, and equations for K1 and K2; validation based on laboratory measurements of CO2 in gas and seawater at equilibrium. dMarine Chemistry 70, 105–119. Search in Google Scholar

57. Maciejewska, A.K, Peteves, S.D, Sanders, J.P.M and Veringa, H 2006. Cofiring of biomass with coal: constraints and role of biomass pretreatment. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Search in Google Scholar

58. McGlashan, N, Shah, N and Workman, M 2010. The potential for the deployment of negative emissions technologies in the UK. Work stream 2. Search in Google Scholar

59. McLaren, D 2012. A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions technologies. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 90(6), 489-500. Search in Google Scholar

60. Mendiara, T et al. 2018. Negative CO2 emissions through the use of biofuels in chemical looping technology: a review. Applied energy 232, 657-684. Search in Google Scholar

61. Meinshausen, M et al. 2009. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458, 1158–1162. Search in Google Scholar

62. Möllersten, K and Yan, J 2001. Economic evaluation of biomass-based energy systems with CO sub (2) capture and sequestration in kraft pulp mills- The influence of the price of CO sub (2) emission quota. World Resource Review 13(4), 509-525. Search in Google Scholar

63. Moreira, J.R, Romeiro, V, Fuss, S, Kraxner, F and Pacca, S.A 2016. BECCS potential in Brazil: Achieving negative emissions in ethanol and electricity production based on sugar cane bagasse and other residues. Applied Energy 179, 55–63. Search in Google Scholar

64. Murdock, C.R, Didas, S.A and Jones, C.W 2016. Direct capture of CO2 from ambient air. Chemical reviews 116(19), 11840-11876. Search in Google Scholar

65. Nemet, G.F et al. 2018. Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling. Environmental Research Letters 13.6, 063003. Search in Google Scholar

66. Panoutsou, C, Eleftheriadis, J and Nikolaou, A 2009. Biomass supply in EU27 from 2010 to 2030. Energy Policy 37(12), 5675-5686. Search in Google Scholar

67. Peters, G.P et al. 2013. The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C. Natural Climate Change 3, 4–6. Search in Google Scholar

68. Pires, J. C. M 2019. Negative emissions technologies: A complementary solution for climate change mitigation. The Science of the total environment 672, 502-514. Search in Google Scholar

69. Pour, N, Webley, P.A and Cook, P.J 2017. A sustainability framework for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) technologies. Energy Procedia 114, 6044-6056. Search in Google Scholar

70. Pour, N, Webley, P.A and Cook, P.J 2018. Opportunities for application of BECCS in the Australian power sector. Applied Energy 224, 615–635. Search in Google Scholar

71. Ranjan, M and Herzog, H.J 2011. Feasibility of air capture. Energy Procedia 4, 2869-2876. Search in Google Scholar

72. Read, P and Lermit, J 2005. Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): A sequential decision approach to the threat of abrupt climate change. Energy 30(14), 2654–2671. Search in Google Scholar

73. Realff, M.J and Eisenberger, P 2012. Flawed analysis of the possibility of air capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 109(25), E1589. Search in Google Scholar

74. Riahi, K et al. 2015. Locked into Copenhagen pledges — implications of short term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 90, 8–23. Search in Google Scholar

75. Rickaby, R.E, Elderfield, H, Roberts, N, Hillenbrand, C.D and Mackensen, A 2010. Evidence for elevated alkalinity in the glacial Southern Ocean. Paleoceanography 25(1). Search in Google Scholar

76. Rockström, J et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475. Search in Google Scholar

77. Rogelj, J et al. 2016. Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nature Climate Change 6.3, 245-252. Search in Google Scholar

78. Rogelj, J, McCollum, D.L, Reisinger, A, Meinshausen, M and Riahi, K 2013. Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493(7430), 79-83. Search in Google Scholar

79. Rogelj, J et al. 2016. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631-639. Search in Google Scholar

80. Russell, A.E, Laird, D.A, Parkin, T.B and Mallarino, A.P 2005. Impact of nitrogen fertilization and cropping system on carbon sequestration in Midwestern Mollisols. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69(2), 413-422. Search in Google Scholar

81. Rydén, M et al. 2017. Negative CO2 emissions with chemical-looping combustion of biomass – a Nordic energy research flagship project. Energy Procedia 114, 6074–6082. Search in Google Scholar

82. Sanchez, D.L, Nelson, J.H, Johnston, J, Mileva, A and Kammen, D.M 2015. Biomass enables the transition to a carbon-negative power system across western North America. Nature Climate Change 5(3), 230–234. Search in Google Scholar

83. Schakel, W, Meerman, H, Talaei, A, Ramírez, A and Faaij, A 2014. Comparative life cycle assessment of biomass co-firing plants with carbon capture and storage. Applied Energy 131, 441-467. Search in Google Scholar

84. Schmidt, J, Leduc, S, Dotzauer, E and Schmid, E 2011. Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria. Energy Policy 39(6), 3261–3280. Search in Google Scholar

85. Sheng, J, Han, X and Zhou, H 2017. Spatially varying patterns of afforestation/reforestation and socio-economic factors in China: a geographically weighted regression approach.” Journal of Cleaner Production 153, 362-371. Search in Google Scholar

86. Simon, A.J, Kaahaaina, N.B, Friedmann, S.J and Aines, R.D et al. 2011. Systems analysis and cost estimates for large scale capture of carbon dioxide from air. Energy Procedia 4, 2893-2900. Search in Google Scholar

87. Socolow, R et al. 2011. Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: a technology assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs. American Physical Society. Search in Google Scholar

88. Solomon, S 2007. The physical science basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate change, 996. Search in Google Scholar

89. Steffen, W, Crutzen, P.J and McNeill, J.R 2007.The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. The Globalization and Environment Reader 36, 614–621. Search in Google Scholar

90. Tokarska, K.B, Zickfeld, K 2015. The effectiveness of net negative carbon dioxide emissions in reversing anthropogenic climate change. Environmental Research Letters 10(9), 094013. Search in Google Scholar

91. Tokimatsu, K, Konishi, S, Ishihara, K, Tezuka, T, Yasuoka, R and Nishio, M 2016. Role of innovative technologies under the global zero emissions scenarios. Applied Energy 162, 1483–1493. Search in Google Scholar

92. Torvanger, A 2019. Governance of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): accounting, rewarding, and the Paris agreement. Climate Policy 19(3), 329-341. Search in Google Scholar

93. Van Vuuren, D.P, Deetman, S, van Vliet, J, van den Berg, M, van Ruijven, B.J and Koelbl, B 2013. The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2°C —insights from integrated assessment modelling. Climatic Change 118(1), 15-27. Search in Google Scholar

94. Vaughan, N.E and Gough, C 2016. Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver. Environmental research letters 11(9), 095003. Search in Google Scholar

95. Whiteley, N.M 2011. Physiological and ecological responses of crustaceans to ocean acidification. Marine Ecology Progress Series 430, 257–271. Search in Google Scholar

96. Wilcox, J, Psarras, P.C and Liguori, S 2017. Assessment of reasonable opportunities for direct air capture. Environmental Research Letters 12(6), 065001. Search in Google Scholar

97. Williamson, P et al. 2012. Ocean fertilization for geoengineering: A review of effectiveness, environmental impacts and emerging governance. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 90(6), 475-488. Search in Google Scholar

98. Williams, R.H 1998. Fuel decarbonization for fuel cell applications and sequestration of the separated CO2. Ecorestructuring: Implications for Sustainable Development. Search in Google Scholar

99. Woolf, D, Amonette, J.E, Street-Perrott, F.A, Lehmann, J and Joseph, S 2010. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature communications 1(1), 1-9. Search in Google Scholar

100. Wurzbacher, J.A, Gebald, C and Steinfeld, A 2011. Separation of CO2 from air by temperature-vacuum swing adsorption using diamine-functionalized silica gel. Energy & Environmental Science 4(9), 3584-3592. Search in Google Scholar

101. Xu, E, Zhang, H and Xu, Y 2020. Exploring land reclamation history: Soil organic carbon sequestration due to dramatic oasis agriculture expansion in arid region of Northwest China. Ecological Indicators 108, 105746. Search in Google Scholar

102. Yu, C.H, Huang, C.H and Tan, C.S 2012. A review of CO2 capture by absorption and adsorption. Aerosol and Air Quality Research 12(5), 745-769. Search in Google Scholar

103. Zaman, M and Lee, J.H 2013. Carbon capture from stationary power generation sources: A review of the current status of the technologies. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 30(8), 1497-1526. Search in Google Scholar

104. Zeman, F.S and Lackner, K.S 2004. Capturing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. World Resource Review 16(2), 157-172. Search in Google Scholar

105. Zeman, F 2007. Energy and material balance of CO2 capture from ambient air. Environmental science & technology 41(21), 7558-7563. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo