当前位置: X-MOL 学术GCB Bioenergy › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): Finding the win–wins for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services—size matters
Global Change Biology Bioenergy ( IF 5.6 ) Pub Date : 2020-06-29 , DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12695
Caspar Donnison 1, 2 , Robert A. Holland 1 , Astley Hastings 3 , Lindsay‐Marie Armstrong 4 , Felix Eigenbrod 5 , Gail Taylor 1, 2
Affiliation  

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.

中文翻译:

带有碳捕集与封存的生物能源(BECCS):寻找能源,负排放和生态系统服务的双赢局面

旨在实现《巴黎协定》目标的能源情景中,带有碳捕集与封存的生物能源(BECCS)发挥了重要作用,但用于生成这些情景的模型并未解决BECCS在区域范围内对环境和社会的影响。我们将生态系统服务价值整合到土地利用优化工具中,以确定使用当地生物质资源运营的500兆瓦BECCS电厂在英国的六个潜在地点的有利程度。每年,每个BECCS工厂都需要2.33 Mt生物量并产生2.99 Mt CO 2负排放量和3.72 TWh电。我们取得了三个重要发现:(a)BECCS对生态系统服务的影响在空间上是离散的,在Drax和Easington上确定了英国BECCS最有利的位置,这些地方的年度净福利价值(根据量化的生态系统服务篮子)为£分别产生了39英镑和2500万英镑,其中巴罗(-600万英镑)和泰晤士(200万英镑)的年度福利价值明显较低;(b)超过500兆瓦的BECCS大规模部署会降低社会福利净值,德拉克斯的1 GW BECCS电厂产生的年度净福利值为1900万英镑(与500 MW部署相比下降50%),并造成福利损失在所有其他站点;(c)可以使用BECCS来产生净福利收益,但是生态系统服务之间的权衡和共同利益在很大程度上取决于特定地点和具体情况,而这些特定于景观规模和特定地点的影响应该是未来BECCS政策发展的核心。对于英国而言,要通过依靠BECCS来实现《巴黎协定》的目标,在此处考虑的六个地点中的每一个地点都需要超过1吉瓦的电力,因此很可能会造成重大的福利损失。这意味着需要更多的小型BECCS部署来确保能源,负排放和生态系统服务的双赢。因此,造成了巨大的福利损失。这意味着需要更多的小型BECCS部署来确保能源,负排放和生态系统服务的双赢。因此,造成了巨大的福利损失。这意味着需要更多的小型BECCS部署来确保能源,负排放和生态系统服务的双赢。
更新日期:2020-06-29
down
wechat
bug