Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): Finding the win–wins for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services—size matters. Issue 8 (29th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Donnison, Caspar; Holland, Robert A.; Hastings, Astley; Armstrong, Lindsay‐Marie; Eigenbrod, Felix; Taylor, Gail
• Is Part Of: Global change biology. Volume 12:Issue 8(2020)
• Page Start: 586
• Page End: 604
• Publication Date: 2020-06-29
• Subjects: BECCS -- bioenergy crops -- carbon capture and storage -- climate change -- ecosystem service -- land‐use change -- negative emissions -- trade‐offs; Biomass energy -- Periodicals; Biomass energy -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Energy crops -- Periodicals; 662.88
• DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12695
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1757-1693

Abstract

Abstract: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) features heavily in the energy scenarios designed to meet the Paris Agreement targets, but the models used to generate these scenarios do not address environmental and social implications of BECCS at the regional scale. We integrate ecosystem service values into a land‐use optimization tool to determine the favourability of six potential UK locations for a 500 MW BECCS power plant operating on local biomass resources. Annually, each BECCS plant requires 2.33 Mt of biomass and generates 2.99 Mt CO2 of negative emissions and 3.72 TWh of electricity. We make three important discoveries: (a) the impacts of BECCS on ecosystem services are spatially discrete, with the most favourable locations for UK BECCS identified at Drax and Easington, where net annual welfare values (from the basket of ecosystems services quantified) of £39 and £25 million were generated, respectively, with notably lower annual welfare values at Barrow (−£6 million) and Thames (£2 million); (b) larger BECCS deployment beyond 500 MW reduces net social welfare values, with a 1 GW BECCS plant at Drax generating a net annual welfare value of £19 million (a 50% decline compared with the 500 MW deployment), and a welfare loss at all other sites; (c) BECCS can be deployed to generate net welfare gains, but trade‐offs and co‐benefits between ecosystem services are highly site and context specific, and these landscape‐scale, site‐specific impacts should be central to future BECCS policy developments. For the United Kingdom, meeting the Paris Agreement targets through reliance on BECCS requires over 1 GW at each of the six locations considered here and is likely, therefore, to result in a significant welfare loss. This implies that an increased number of smaller BECCS deployments will be needed to ensure a win–win for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services. Abstract : Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is a key negative emission technology (NET) enabling greenhouse gas emissions reduction and a move towards a net‐zero economy. We show that positive ecosystem service benefits of BECCS, including flood protection and carbon sequestration, depend on location, with Drax identified as one of the most positive UK sites for the delivery of ecosystem service benefits. However, these wider benefits decline with size; a 1 GW BECCS deployment is significantly less beneficial to the environment than 500 MW, suggesting that future BECCS requires site‐specific ecosystem service valuations to assess trade‐offs and co‐benefits of this NET.