BECCS+ Algae

[Greg Rau]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000704/full

Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) has been proposed to reduce atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, but concerns remain about competition for arable land and freshwater. The synergistic integration of algae production, which does not require arable land or freshwater, with BECCS (called “ABECCS”) can reduce CO₂ emissions without competing with agriculture. This study presents a techno-economic and life-cycle assessment for co-locating a 121-ha algae facility with a 2,680-ha eucalyptus forest for BECCS. The eucalyptus biomass fuels combined heat and power generation (CHP) with subsequent amine based carbon capture and storage (CCS). A portion of the captured CO₂ is used for growing algae and the remainder is sequestered. Biomass combustion supplies CO₂, heat, and electricity, thus increasing the range of sites suitable for algae cultivation. Economic, energetic, and environmental impacts are considered. The system yields as much protein as soybeans while generating 61.5 TJ of electricity and sequestering 29,600 t of CO₂ per year. More energy is generated than consumed and the freshwater footprint is roughly equal to that for soybeans. Financial break-even is achieved for product value combinations ranging from 1) algal biomass sold for $1,780/t without a carbon credit to 2) algal biomass sold for $100/t with a carbon credit of $396/t. Sensitivity analysis shows significant reductions to the cost of carbon sequestration are possible. The ABECCS system represents a unique technology for negative emissions without reducing protein production or increasing water demand, and should therefore be included in the suite of technologies being considered to address global sustainability.

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and list:  cc primary author as a courtesy

Thanks for the alert.  A direct link to the full non-fee article is:  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000704/epdf

I think this is one of the most useful CDR papers yet. There is a commendable heavy emphasis on ensuring that CDR does not reduce food availability.  They are working with algae to achieve both higher NPP and higher food output.   I do not recall any other CDR paper with such a strong emphasis on EROI.  

My main reason for liking the paper is that they have done an excellent job of specifying (and justifying with cites) all the assumed costs.  Unfortunately ABECCS turned out to not yet be a cost-effective CDR approach.

The word “biochar” appeared once, with the usual 2010 Woolf, Amonette, et al (out-dated) paper.   

 My guess is that replacing their ABECCS approach with an algae-biochar approach should make the ideas they have presented here a lot closer to a good economic choice, if not an excellent one.    A few of the reasons -  

a.  biochar also achieves higher food productivity (as does ABECCS, compared to BECCS), but from many sources - not one.  (I’m pretty sure this study was funded with algae-related DoE-EE funds).

b.  biochar is presently being sold to reduce the costs of both fertilizers and irrigation (BECCS and ABECCS probably increase these costs)

c.  biochar benefits obtain for many out years (not seen for the single year benefit from BECCS or ABECCS)

d.  BECCS has high initial costs (not borne by biochar), with international CDR benefits that local governmental units would rather not accept as local benefits;  all CCS approaches are having difficulty.

e.  Their choice of base-load electricity as their main energy end-use is difficult with wind and PV prices now so low and going lower (biochar can do the same , but also back-up electricity (and still CHP), but also only thermal and biofuel options.

f.   I guess EROI will be higher for biochar.

g.   Land owners and local governments seem to be increasingly seeking out biochar opportunities (for the improved soil and land values, as well as local  employment), so local support and even subsidies are becoming more evident.

Ron

On Feb 25, 2018, at 11:01 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000704/full

Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) has been proposed to reduce atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, but concerns remain about competition for arable land and freshwater. The synergistic integration of algae production, which does not require arable land or freshwater, with BECCS (called “ABECCS”) can reduce CO₂ emissions without competing with agriculture. This study presents a techno-economic and life-cycle assessment for co-locating a 121-ha algae facility with a 2,680-ha eucalyptus forest for BECCS. The eucalyptus biomass fuels combined heat and power generation (CHP) with subsequent amine based carbon capture and storage (CCS). A portion of the captured CO₂ is used for growing algae and the remainder is sequestered. Biomass combustion supplies CO₂, heat, and electricity, thus increasing the range of sites suitable for algae cultivation. Economic, energetic, and environmental impacts are considered. The system yields as much protein as soybeans while generating 61.5 TJ of electricity and sequestering 29,600 t of CO₂ per year. More energy is generated than consumed and the freshwater footprint is roughly equal to that for soybeans. Financial break-even is achieved for product value combinations ranging from 1) algal biomass sold for $1,780/t without a carbon credit to 2) algal biomass sold for $100/t with a carbon credit of $396/t. Sensitivity analysis shows significant reductions to the cost of carbon sequestration are possible. The ABECCS system represents a unique technology for negative emissions without reducing protein production or increasing water demand, and should therefore be included in the suite of technologies being considered to address global sustainability.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1134074647.4254062.1519581682294%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.