Bioenergy And Carbon Capture To Open New Gates For The Energy Sector

However, there are limits to increasing the supply of bioenergy and possible trade-offs with sustainable development goals, such as avoiding conflicts at the local level with other uses of land, especially for food production and biodiversity protection.

As part of the Net-Zero Emissions (NZE) Scenario, bioenergy immediately switches to sourcing and consumption that are both entirely sustainable. The conventional use of solid biomass for cooking is eliminated entirely because it is inefficient, frequently associated with deforestation, and directly responsible for 2.5 million avoidable deaths in 2020 due to pollution. In the NZE Scenario, the traditional usage of solid biomass — estimated at roughly 40% of overall bioenergy supply, or around 25 EJ currently — drops to zero by 2030, in accordance with meeting UN Sustainable Development Goal 7 on universal access to affordable, dependable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.

By 2050, there will be a dramatic drop in the use of conventional biofuels, which are made from food crops. The approach to achieving bioenergy sustainability is complex but feasible, much like every other facet of the energy transition in the NZE Scenario. In order to ensure the long-term viability of the bioenergy supply, ease the adoption of advanced bioenergy, and maximise the efficiency of bioenergy production and usage, coordinated government action is necessary.

The NZE Scenario's sustainable use of bioenergy not only prevents unfavourable outcomes like accelerated deforestation and food production rivalry, but also provides advantages outside of the energy sector. A switch from traditional biomass use to modern bioenergy has many benefits, including the elimination of harmful methane emissions from inefficient combustion and waste decomposition, the alleviation of the burden placed on women who are often responsible for gathering wood for fuel, and cleaner air. 1 In broader terms, sustainable bioenergy can be a great way for rural areas in developing countries to have access to new opportunities for work and financial gain.

Promoting Long-Term Bioenergy Production While Decreasing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

In the NZE Scenario, there is no need to use offsets from non-energy sectors in order to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions from energy and industrial processes. The energy industry is the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, but AFOLU (agricultural, forestry, and other land use) accounts for about 5–6 billion tonnes annually. To mitigate climate change, these emissions must also be reduced. Increased short-rotation woody bioenergy production from marginal lands and pasture land, as well as a shift from conventional bioenergy crops to advanced short-rotation woody crops, would sequester about 190 million tonnes of CO2 by 2050, resulting in a reduction of AFOLU emissions by 140 million tonnes of CO2 relative to the NZE Scenario.

To completely remove CO2 emissions from AFOLU, however, other levers would be required. AFOLU's CO2 emissions could become net negative by 2040 and absorb 1.3 billion tonnes of CO2 annually by 2050 if deforestation were reduced by two-thirds by that year, improved forest management practises were implemented for bioenergy plantations and other forests, and about 250 Mha of new forests were planted.

The Role Of CO2 Storage

To reach our climate and energy targets, we'll need a wide range of technologies and initiatives, including carbon collection, utilisation, and storage. The IEA's Clean Technology Scenario (CTS) calls for a massive increase in CO2 storage capacity from current levels, with a total of 107 GtCO2 being permanently stored between 2020 and 2060. The research shows what extra policies and technologies would be needed in the electricity, industrial, transport, and buildings sectors to achieve the same reductions in emissions by 2060 as the CTS, if the availability of CO2 storage were limited to 10 GtCO2 throughout the scenario period. Since reducing the amount of available CO2 storage would necessitate a greater reliance on electrolytic hydrogen in industry and the production of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, the Limited CO2 Storage scenario variant predicts higher costs and significantly higher electricity demand, with 3,325 GW of additional new generation capacity required relative to the CTS, an increase of 17%. On a larger scale, the LCS would lead to greater use of less-mature technology. Many CO2 removal solutions would be unavailable after the scenario period of 2060 due to restrictions on CO2 storage availability, which may not be consistent with the fulfilment of long-term climatic goals.

To achieve internationally agreed upon climate targets, the Clean Technology Scenario (CTS) assumes that widespread CO2 storage is possible. Compared to a scenario where only present national commitments are considered, this plan demands an additional investment of US$ 9.7 trillion in the power, industrial, and fuel transformation sectors. Relying on more expensive and novel technologies, the cost of these additional expenditures increases by 40% if CO2 storage is restricted, reaching US$ 13.7 trillion.

Achieving Climate Targets Impossible Without Carbon Collection, Storage, And Utilization

Technologies for carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) have a significant chance to significantly cut CO2 emissions from critical industrial processes and the usage of fossil fuels in the electricity generation sector. In addition to laying the groundwork for numerous carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, CCUS can open up new clean energy routes, such as low-carbon hydrogen production.

By 2060, the Clean Technology Scenario (CTS), the primary decarbonization scenario, projects CCUS deployment to have reached 115 Gt CO2 (Gt CO2), with 93% of the captured CO2 permanently stored. There are now 18 large-scale projects trapping roughly 33 million tonnes of CO2 (Mt CO2) per year, but this would need to increase dramatically if the CTS were to deploy at its planned level.

The potential of CCUS relies heavily on the ability to store CO2. The Limited CO2 Storage scenario variation of the CTS was intended to help researchers learn more about the potential of CCUS as part of a suite of climate mitigation solutions (LCS). That makes it more difficult and expensive for important industrial sectors like cement manufacturing to achieve the same emission reductions as the CTS. The additional investment requirements of the power, fuel transformation, and industrial sectors in the LCS would be 40% (US$ 4 trillion) higher than the additional investments needed to achieve the CTS, relative to the baseline Reference Technology Scenario, totaling US$ 13.7 trillion (United States dollars) (RTS).

If CO2 storage capacity were to be severely constrained, the marginal abatement costs for the industrial sector would double by 2060 relative to the CTS, from about US$ 250 per tonne of CO2 (tCO2) to US$ 500/tCO2. This is because more expensive and creative technology choices would be required. By 2060, marginal abatement costs in the electricity sector are projected to rise to US$ 450/tCO2 from an estimated US$ 250/tCO2 in the CTS.

Potentially Increased Electricity Consumption If CO2 Storage Is Restricted

Compared to the CTS, the LCS would need to generate an extra 6 130 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in 2060, or an increase of 13%. This is despite the fact that the LCS would implement major efficiency gains. This would call for an increase in global power generation capacity of 3,325 GW, or about half of the total capacity as of 2017. Wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) would account for nearly all of the LCS's increased capacity, with PV capacity increasing by 25% by 2060. There may be consequences for the planning of land use, permitting, and infrastructure development in areas where these technologies are rapidly and widely adopted. For instance, in the LCS, 173,000 more onshore wind turbines would be needed than in the CTS (based on an assumed average size of 5 MW). Importing hydrogen-based fuels may be a good option in countries with limited capacity to produce renewable energy on their own.

Increased reliance on electrolytic hydrogen, in particular, would cause the industrial and fuel transformation sectors to be the primary drivers of increased power consumption in the LCS. Around 9% of worldwide electricity generation in 2060 in the LCS would be used for the creation of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, supported by dedicated, off-grid renewable electricity generation. The generation of hydrogen and the infrastructure needed to transport it or convert it into synthetic hydrocarbon fuels or ammonia would have to be greatly expanded to do this.

Given the scarcity of CO2 storage, the LCS would be unable to compete with the CTS, which in 2060 will have roughly 615 GW of CCUS capacity coupled to coal, gas, and biomass facilities. In the LCS, coal-fired power plants would be phased out at a faster rate than in the CTS, at an average of 60 GW of capacity per year in the period 2025-40. Lost revenue of almost US$ 1.8 trillion between 2017 and 2060 due to people retiring sooner than expected.