Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios
Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios
复制标题
DOI：
10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa02
复制
发表时间：
2018-04-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
van Vuuren, Detlef P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vaughan, Naomi E.;Gough, Clair;van Vuuren, Detlef P.
生物质能源与碳捕获和储存（BECCS）在未来排放的情景中受到严重依赖，这些情景与将全球平均气温上升限制在工业化前的1.5摄氏度或2摄氏度相一致。这些温度限制在《巴黎协定》中定义，以减少气候变化的风险和影响。在这里，我们将探讨BECCS技术在参考情景和三个低排放情景中的使用，这些情景由综合评估模型（IMAGE）生成。使用这些方案，我们调查的可行性，这些BECCS技术，包括生物质资源，土地利用，CO2储存能力和碳捕获和储存（CCS）部署率的关键隐式和显式假设。在这些情景中，我们发现，到2100年，全球二氧化碳封存需求的一半发生在美国、西欧、中国和印度，这与目前对区域二氧化碳封存能力的估计是一致的。与化石燃料、可再生能源或核技术的历史部署率相比，这些情景下的CCS部署率非常具有挑战性，完全取决于激励CCS的严格政策行动。在这些设想方案中，一半的生物质资源来自农业和林业残留物，另一半来自在废弃农田上种植的专用生物能源作物，并扩展到草原（即森林和粮食生产用地受到保护）。对生物能源作物生产可持续性的管理不善，可以通过直接和间接土地利用变化造成的土壤碳损失，大大限制BECCS去除的CO2量。只有三分之一的生物能源作物种植在与更发达的治理框架相关的地区。总的来说，IMAGE中的情景是雄心勃勃的，但与目前的相关文献中假设的生物质资源，土地利用和CO2储存能力是一致的。
Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is heavily relied upon in scenarios of future emissions that are consistent with limiting global mean temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C or 2 degrees C above pre-industrial. These temperature limits are defined in the Paris Agreement in order to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Here, we explore the use of BECCS technologies in a reference scenario and three low emission scenarios generated by an integrated assessment model (IMAGE). Using these scenarios we investigate the feasibility of key implicit and explicit assumptions about these BECCS technologies, including biomass resource, land use, CO2 storage capacity and carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment rate. In these scenarios, we find that half of all global CO2 storage required by 2100 occurs in USA, Western Europe, China and India, which is compatible with current estimates of regional CO2 storage capacity. CCS deployment rates in the scenarios are very challenging compared to historical rates of fossil, renewable or nuclear technologies and are entirely dependent on stringent policy action to incentivise CCS. In the scenarios, half of the biomass resource is derived from agricultural and forestry residues and half from dedicated bioenergy crops grown on abandoned agricultural land and expansion into grasslands (i.e. land for forests and food production is protected). Poor governance of the sustainability of bioenergy crop production can significantly limit the amount of CO2 removed by BECCS, through soil carbon loss from direct and indirect land use change. Only one-third of the bioenergy crops are grown in regions associated with more developed governance frameworks. Overall, the scenarios in IMAGE are ambitious but consistent with current relevant literature with respect to assumed biomass resource, land use and CO2 storage capacity.