International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Life cycle meta-analysis of carbon capture pathways in power plants:

Implications for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
Jeffrey A. Bennett a, Mohammad Abotalib b, Fu Zhao c, Andres F. Clarens a, *
a
Department of Engineering Systems and Environment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
b
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Kuwait University, Safat, Kuwait
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based electricity generation is one possible approach for
Life cycle assessment delivering large-scale carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. This study evaluates the environmental
Bioenergy impacts of leveraging existing power plants for BECCS. We performed a life cycle meta-analysis of eight carbon
Carbon capture
capture technologies, including five previously simulated only for coal and natural gas, for both steam cycle and
Meta-analysis
BECCS
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants. We found that IGCC plants offer the best balance of
negative emissions, energy return on investment (EROI) and low water use irrespective of capture technologies.
Planned IGCC plants tend to be large whereas biomass-fired power plants are often small and distributed in the
landscape because of the distributed nature of the fuel. Steam cycle plants had larger negative emissions, but also
lower EROI, and so blending with coal may be necessary to achieve a suitable EROI. Steam cycles were sensitive
to capture technology type, and results found membrane and calcium looping capture technologies offer a
balance between negative emissions, EROI and water use when fired using coal-biomass blends. These results
suggest that steam cycle power plants may be the most desirable candidates to support early-stage deployment of
BECCS.

Concept and status

Introduction
In BECCS power plants, perennial (for example, switchgrass) or
The 2 ◦ C target of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement requires that woody (for example, pine) bioenergy crops are grown, harvested, and
nations drastically reduce their CO2 emissions (Rogelj et al., 2016). transported to a power plant where it is burned to generate electricity. In
Achieving these reductions will likely require aggresive decarbonization a conventional biomass-fired power plant the carbon in the biomass is
and the adoption of negative emission technologies (NETs) (Rogelj et al., re-released to the atmosphere resulting in net positive CO2 emissions
2015). NETs are a group of technologies under development that across the life cycle because of the gross emissions from biomass culti­
actively reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere vation and power production (Herron et al., 2012). BECCS power plants
via direct air capture using chemical separations, enhanced weathering capture CO2 at the power plant, and then store it in the deep subsurface,
of silicate materials, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage which creates the potential for net negative life cycle emissions (Gough
(BECCS), and other forms of carbon dioxide removal. Direct air capture and Upham, 2011).
consumes energy to separate CO2 from the air before storing it in the There are currently two BECCS power plants in operation, the Drax
subsurface and enhanced weathering accelerates the rate of carbon pilot plant in North Yorkshire, United Kingdom and the 50 MWe (MW
mineralization in rocks (National Academies of Sciences Engineering electric) Mikawa Power Plant in Omuta, Japan; both are retrofitted coal
and Medicine, 2019). Unlike other NETs, BECCS combines the storage of power plants (Bioenergy International, 2020; Mehta, 2019). BECCS has
CO2 with electricity production, and is based on a number of separately not been deployed in the United States (US) for power generation,
proven technologies: biomass-fired power plants are already in use and however there are five facilities that combine ethanol production from
several existing demonstration-scale power plants actively capture and biomass with carbon capture and storage (Consoli, 2019).
store CO2 (Stavrakas et al., 2018). Selecting the type of power plant and capture technology to use for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.F. Clarens).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103468
Received 15 August 2020; Received in revised form 4 August 2021; Accepted 11 September 2021
Available online 28 September 2021
1750-5836/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Nomenclature US United States

WTP Well-to-pump
Acronyms and Abbreviations WTW Well-to-wheels
BECCS Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage WU Water Use
CaL Calcium Looping
CC Carbon Capture Symbols
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage D Distance traveled
CL Chemical Looping ICC Impact of carbon capture
EROI Energy Return on Investment IFP Impact of fuel production and transport
EU Energy Use IPG Impact of power generation
FU Functional Unit ISP Impact of solvent production
GREET Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in IST Impact of solvent transport
Transportation model ṁCO2 CO2 flow rate
GWP Global Warming Potential ṁCO2 ,B CO2 flow rate of baseline GREET plant
HHV Higher Heating Value ṁS Solvent mass consumption rate
IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle qFUEL Fuel specific emission rate
LCA Life Cycle Assessment Ẇ Plant power output
LHV Lower Heating Value ẆCMP Compressor power
MDEA Methyl Diethanolamine β Carbon capture rate
MEA Monoethanolamine Δh Enthalpy change
MWe Megawatt electric Δη Total efficiency reduction
NET Negative Emission Technology ΔηCC Efficiency reduction due to CC
NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle ΔηCMP Efficiency reduction due to compression power
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology ηPP Power plant efficiency without CC
NG Natural Gas ηPP,B Baseline power plant efficiency without CC
SEWGS Sorption Enhanced Water Gas Shift ηPP+CC Power plant efficiency with CC
TRL Technology Readiness Level

BECCS requires balancing costs and environmental impacts. Fajardy fossil electricity production, so minimizing energy use is important to
et al. examined the economic impact of BECCS and found that wide maximize electricity outputs. Hetland et al. found that the low initial
spread deployment would not be detrimental to agricultural commodity efficiencies of bioenergy plants combined with the efficiency penalties of
prices (Fajardy et al., 2020). Emenike et al. performed a carbon capture could jeopardize the commercial viability of BECCS
techno-economic analysis of BECCS and found that the break-even price (Hetland et al., 2016).
depends on both the biomass feedstock and power plant type (Emenike Increasingly, energy return on investment (EROI) is also being used
et al., 2020). For fossil fuel fired power plants, a meta-analysis of carbon to evaluate novel energy generation pathways (Sgouridis et al., 2019).
capture costs by Akbilgic et al. found the major driving factors to be EROI is defined simply as the ratio of energy produced to energy
capital costs and efficiency penalty (Akbilgic et al., 2015). With so many consumed. While an EROI of 1 would be energetically balanced (energy
existing fossil-fuel power plants and so few operational BECCS power in equals energy out), King and van den Bergh suggest that an EROI of 3
plants, questions remain over the optimal carbon capture technology for would be insufficient for an affluent society, and that present society
retrofitting existing power plants with respect to environmental relies on EROIs greater than 20 (King and Bergh, 2018). In contrast,
impacts. Sgouridis et al. found that fossil power plants with carbon capture (CC)
have EROIs of 6.6 to 21.3, and Moeller and Murphy found unconven­
Environmental impacts of BECCS tional gas in the Marcellus Shale to have an EROI of 10.72 (Moeller and
Murphy, 2016; Sgouridis et al., 2019). A comparison of biomass feed­
Environmental impacts can be quantified with life cycle assessment stocks found EROIs ranging from 0.5 to 5.7 (Fajardy and Mac Dowell,
is necessary to confirm that BECCS power plants have net negative 2018). EROI has direct implications for the economic viability of a
emissions (Stavrakas et al., 2018). Global warming potential (GWP) is technology, particularly those that generate or consume energy. For
often used to quantify the emissions from power plants where non-CO2 example, Heun and Wit found that there is a high probability of
emissions such as CH4 also also important (Forster et al., 2007). Mac increased oil prices when EROI drops below 10 (Heun and de Wit, 2012).
Dowell and Fajardy have highlighted a paradox that BECCS power There is a research need to concurrently consider trade-offs between
plants with lower thermal efficiency result in more negative CO2 emis­ GWP, EROI, water use and energy use for the sustainable development
sions (Mac Dowell and Fajardy, 2017). This is attributed to the fact that a of BECCS projects.
less-efficient plant requires more biomass to produce the same amount
of electricity, so it stores more CO2. This was re-affirmed in a study by BECCS power plant configurations
Cumicheo et al. that compared combining biomass and natural gas fuel
sources which also found that plants that fired biomass alone had the A growing body of literature is exploring some of the life cycle di­
largest negative emissions (Cumicheo et al., 2019). mensions of BECCS power plant configurations. Existing BECCS Life
BECCS projects will also be evaluated on the basis of other envi­ Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies have considered the role of biomass
ronmental impacts such as water use, and energy use to support sus­ feedstocks including biomass residue (Spath and Mann, 2004), wood
tainable operation. Thermal power plants have large water demands, (Carpentieri et al., 2005; Corti and Lombardi, 2004; Cuellar, 2012;
which is a concern because Gosling and Arnell and others have projected Falano et al., 2015; Herron et al., 2012; Schakel et al., 2014), switch­
water scarcity to increase with climate change (Gosling and Arnell, grass (Black et al., 2012), straw (Schakel et al., 2014) and crops (Black
2016). One motivation to deploy a BECCS power plant is that it offsets et al., 2012; Schakel et al., 2014). Many of these studies exclusively

2
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Fig. 1. A comparison of existing A) biomass-fired, B) coal, C) natural gas electric utility power plants, and D) total biomass resources in the United States illustrates
the opportunity to convert existing fossil power plants to bioenergy (EIA, 2020a; NREL, 2014).

considered co-firing biomass with coal; for example, Schakel et al. analysis and found that oxy-fuel had the lowest GWP (Cuéllar-Franca
compared co-firing coal with a 30% blend of biomass in large plants but and Azapagic, 2015). In addition to considering amine-based (Gazzani
did not consider biomass-dedicated plants (Schakel et al., 2014). These et al., 2013; Rubin et al., 2015), oxy-fuel (Rubin et al., 2015) and Selexol
studies have primarily focused on two types of power plants; the steam (Rubin et al., 2015), recent fossil fuel studies have highlighted five
or Rankine cycle based on burning pulverized coal and the integrated emerging carbon capture technologies: ammonia (Petrescu et al., 2017),
gasification with combined cycle (IGCC) which combines a gas turbine chemical looping (Petrescu and Cormos, 2017), calcium looping (Ortiz
and steam cycle (Gough et al., 2018). Supercritical carbon dioxide et al., 2016; Ozcan et al., 2015; Petrescu et al., 2017; Petrescu and
power cycles have also been considered as an alternative to steam and Cormos, 2017), membrane (Kotowicz and Bartela, 2012) and sorption
IGCC (Bennett et al., 2019). enhanced water gas shift (Gazzani et al., 2013). Ammonia is an alter­
Only a limited number of carbon capture technologies have been native choice for chemical sorption to replace amine-based solvents
considered in the life cycle assessment literature for the context of (Petrescu et al., 2017). Chemical looping (CL) is similar to oxy-fuel in
BECCS power plants: amine-based, oxy-fuel and Selexol (Black et al., that fuel is combusted in pure oxygen but uses a metal oxide such as an
2012; Carpentieri et al., 2005; Corti and Lombardi, 2004; Cuellar, 2012; oxide of iron or copper to produce oxygen instead of air separation
Falano et al., 2015; Herron et al., 2012; Schakel et al., 2014; Spath and (Damen et al., 2006). Calcium looping (CaL) is an emerging carbon
Mann, 2004). CO2 capture at the power plant occurs following either capture technique in which calcium oxide (CaO) reacts with CO2 to
post-combustion i.e., removal of CO2 after the fuel is burnt in air or create calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which is subsequently heated to
pre-combustion i.e., first converting the fuel into a mixture of hydrogen release the CO2 and recycle the calcium (Blamey et al., 2010).
and CO2, followed by CO2 capture. The most common type of carbon Membrane-based capture uses physical separation typically with
capture is performed via chemical sorption using amine-based solvents advanced materials such as polymers, palladium, and ceramics (Damen
such as monoethanolamine (MEA) or methyl diethanolamine (MDEA). et al., 2006). Another recently considered capture technology is sorption
Amine-based capture has been considered for BECCS power plants in a enhanced water gas shift (SEWGS) which is a pre-combustion carbon
number of studies (Carpentieri et al., 2005; Corti and Lombardi, 2004; capture technology based on using pressure swing adsorption to produce
Cuellar, 2012; Herron et al., 2012; Spath and Mann, 2004). In oxy-fuel syngas (Gazzani et al., 2013).
carbon capture, the fuel is burned in pure oxygen obtained from the The deployment of BECCS will also need to consider the state of the
cryogenic distillation of air, which creates a pure CO2 stream, elimi­ carbon capture technology, often referred to as the Technology Readi­
nating the need to separate the flue gas following combustion. Herron ness Level (TRL), when the plant is being designed and built. A review of
et al. and Falano et al. analyzed oxy-fuel for BECCS power plants and carbon capture TRLs by Kearns et al. identified amine-based and Selexol
found that auxiliary power requirements increase greatly, primarily due as TRL 9 (commercial service); and ammonia, calcium looping, chemical
to the air separation (Falano et al., 2015; Herron et al., 2012). Selexol is looping, oxy-fuel (Allam-Fetvedt Cycle), membranes, and SEWGS as TRL
a type of physical solvent that relies on the physical sorption of CO2 to 5 to 7 (from sub-system validation to sub-scale demonstration) (Kearns
the solvent (Rackley, 2017). Schakel et al. and Black et al. evaluated et al., 2021). Although BECCS deployment is expected to rely on com­
Selexol for BECCS power plants (Black et al., 2012; Schakel et al., 2014). mercial products, Kearns et al. has shown that chemical looping moved
Black et al. noted that a 300–500 MWe plant would be logistically from TRL 2 (formulation) to TRL 6 (pilot tests) in just 6 years (Kearns
constrained to operating with 66% biomass by weight because of et al., 2021).
biomass availablity constraints (Black et al., 2012). Schakel et al. found
that pre-combustion with Selexol was more favorable than amine-based Need for harmonization
with respect to net negative emissions (Schakel et al., 2014).
The life cycle assessment literature for carbon capture from fossil fuel Comparing carbon capture technologies for power plants is chal­
power plants is much more extensive. Cúeller-Franca and Azapagic lenging because of differences in modeling assumptions and system
compared 27 different carbon capture approaches using life cycle meta- boundaries (Schreiber et al., 2012). Corsten et al. performed a review of

3
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Table 1
A summary of the literature review highlights the number of data points used in addition to an overview of model parameters. Some of the studies used were meta-
analyses or contained analyses of multiple plant configurations, therefore each data point refers to a unique combination of a power plant with and without carbon
capture.
Data points (-) All Fuel and Power Plant Combinations
Fuel Biomass Coal Natural Gas All Capture rate (%) Outlet Pressure (MPa) Efficiency Reduction (%)
Power Plant Steam Steam IGCC NGCC All

Amine-based 1 2 6 6 15 88.3 – 90.5 11.0 – 20.2 6.8 – 5.1

Ammonia 1 1 85.0 12.0 8.1
CaL 3 9 12 77.0 – 92.7 10.0 – 15.0 3.5 – 11.6
CL 1 1 99.5 12.0 6.2
Membrane 2 2 90.0 15.0 5.6 – 5.9
Oxy-fuel 1 6 7 90.0 – 98.0 11.0 – 15.3 8.3 – 9.9
Selexol 4 4 90.0 15.3 – 20.2 7.1 – 12.0
SEWGS 2 2 85.7 – 91.1 11.0 12.1 – 12.5

existing LCAs and highlighted differences in the inclusion or exclusion of though these investments seem significant, the Drax Power Plant con­
CO2 transport and storage within power plant life cycle boundaries version is equivalent to approximately 8% of the anticipated capital
(Corsten et al., 2013). Heath and Mann have shown that harmonization costs for a new biomass-fired power plant of similar capacity (NREL,
of system boundaries and inputs is necessary to make life cycle assess­ 2020). Co-firing with coal is another option that can lead to higher
ment studies directly comparable (Heath and Mann, 2012). Addition­ power plant efficiencies as compared with firing biomass alone (Fer­
ally, challenges exist for comparing carbon capture technologies for nando, 2012). Further analysis is required to understand whether it is
different fuels. Vasudevan et al. highlighted that accounting must be better to retrofit existing power plants, or to a construct a state-of-the-art
done for differences in exhaust CO2 partial pressures (Vasudevan et al., BECCS power plant.
2016). These studies have shown the importance of harmonizing system
boundaries and model inputs while accounting for differences in exhaust
gas composition, however a methodology to combine these steps has not Study overview
been demonstrated.
The goal of this study is to support electric grid decarbonization by
identifying carbon capture technologies with minimal environmental
Siting challenges and opportunities impacts for retrofitting coal power plants into BECCS power plants. We
use a meta life-cycle-assessment methodology to compare the environ­
Siting a BECCS power plant is challenging because it must be near mental impact of emerging carbon capture technologies with carbon
energy crop feedstocks, a geologic formation suitable for CO2 storage, capture technologies previously considered for coal power plants. Spe­
and electricity infrastructure. Baik et al. performed a comparison of cifically, we analyze, for the first-time, ammonia, chemical looping,
crops and storage locations in the US and found that transportation calcium looping, membrane and sorption enhanced water gas shift for
barriers and unsuitable storage reduce the negative emission potential of retrofitting existing steam and IGCC power plants into BECCS power
BECCS by 73% (Baik et al., 2018). plants. To consider these emerging technologies, we developed a
Even though BECCS power plants have not been deployed in the US method to harmonize and apply carbon capture technologies from one
to date, there are currently 22 biomass-fired power plants with a ca­ power plant to another, and made the model publicly available. In order
pacity of at least 10 MWe, with the largest having a capacity of 113 MWe to sustainably decarbonize the electric grid, negative emissions need to
(Fig. 1A) (EIA, 2020a). There are also 32 biomass-fired power plants in be balanced with other environmental impacts, so we investigate trade-
the US with a capacity less than 10 MWe (EIA, 2020a). Biomass trans­ offs with energy use, water use and EROI. We also used our model to
portation costs increase with plant capacity due to increased fuel con­ consider trade-offs in burning biomass with and without coal. Using
sumption (Huang et al., 2009; Leboreiro and Hilaly, 2011); thus, these results, we explore the potential to retrofit existing coal and nat­
bioenergy plants are typically much smaller than their fossil fuel coun­ ural gas power plants in the United States for BECCS.
terparts (EIA, 2020b). The siting of BECCS plants will need to balance
the costs of feedstock and CO2 transportation costs along with other Methodology
factors (Stolaroff et al., 2021). Another challenge with biomass is its
seasonal availability (Fernando, 2012). A comparative life cycle meta-analysis was performed by combining
In contrast to the US biomass-fired power plant infrastructure, there the harmonization approach outlined in from indirect to direct and
are hundreds of coal and natural gas power plants (Fig. 1B, C). If US remove comma before year."?>(Heath and Mann, 2012) with a BECCS
policies were to shift towards large deployment of low carbon fuels, this performance projection. Harmonization was necessary because our re­
could leave many stranded assets in the form of existing coal and natural view of recently published studies included LCAs as well as
gas power plants. Stranded assets are infrastructure investments that techno-economic and thermodynamic-based analyses with different
become uneconomic to operate and must close before they reach the end model inputs, system boundaries, and fuel inputs. For this meta-analysis
of their design life due to a change in the regulatory environment we selected studies published between 2012 to 2019 that had similar
(Rozenberg et al., 2020). In the US, the location of many coal and nat­ system boundaries and provided the capture rate (percent of CO2
ural gas plants overlaps with the location (Fig. 1D) of much of the captured) as well as the power plant efficiency before and after the
biomass resources suggesting there may be opportunities to retrofit addition of carbon capture. From the studies we also extracted the CO2
some of these aging power plants for BECCS. For example, the recent outlet pressure and whether the efficiency was based on the Higher
conversion from coal to biomass for 4 units built in the 1960–70′ s at the Heating Value (HHV) or Lower Heating Value (LHV) of the fuel. A
Drax Power Plant is also expected to extend the lifetime and had a total summary of the literature is shown in Table 1 with full model inputs
cost of 964 million USD (730 million pounds) or 365 USD/kW (Drax presented in the Appendix.
Group, 2018; Murray, 2014). Converting a coal power plant to biomass The published studies were harmonized by using common model
requires biomass-dedicated covered storage and conveying systems as inputs and compensating for differences in the system boundary. Spe­
well as combustor modifications (Dooley and Mason, 2018). Even cifically, the studies were harmonized to have a common compressed

4
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Table 2
Processed “Non Distributed - U.S. Mix” Power Plant Data from GREET 2019, with target year 2020 (Wang et al., 2019). Raw data and calculations are shown in the SI.
Power Plant Biomass (IGCC) Biomass (Steam) Coal (IGCC) Coal (Steam) NG (NGCC)
Type

GREET Electricity: Switchgrass Electricity: Switchgrass (Steam Electricity: Coal-Fired Electricity: Coal-Fired Electricity: NG-Fired (Combined-
Process IGCC Power Plant* Turbine) Power Plant (IGCC Turbine) Plant (Steam Turbine) Plant cycle Gas Turbine) Plant
Type Well-to-pump Well-to-pump Well-to-pump Well-to-pump Well-to-pump
Functional kWh kWh kWh kWh kWh
Unit
Efficiency (%) 45 25 39 38 60
Well-to-use
GWP (g 63.96 77.76 931.72 956.77 402.29
CO2eq)
Energy Use 0.33 0.59 0.19 0.20 70.52
(MJ)
Water Use (l) 0.09 1.68 1.51 1.65 0.67
Onsite
CO2 (g) 813.17 1457.47 875.25 898.26 337.72
GWP (g 22.90 3.85 878.69 902.35 338.24
CO2eq)
Energy Use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(MJ)
Water Use (l) 1.38* 1.51 1.38 1.52 0.60
*
GREET did not include Onsite water use for biomass IGCC so we assumed it to be the same per kWh as coal IGCC.

Table 3
Processed Fuel Gathering, Chemical Production, and Transport Data from GREET 2019, with target year 2020 (Wang et al., 2019). Raw data and calculations are shown
in the SI.
Product Biomass Coal Methyl Amine Natural Gas Transport
GREET Switchgrass Production for Coal for Power Production Pathway for NA NG from Shale and Regular Recovery HD Truck: Combination Short-Haul
Product Ethanol Plant Plants Methyl Amine for Electricity Generation CIDI - Low Sulfur Diesel

Type Well-to-pump Well-to-pump Well-to-pump Well-to-pump Well-to-wheels

Functional MJ MJ g MJ tonne-km
Unit
Well-to-use
GWP (g 5.13 5.74 2.66 10.68 70.84
CO2eq)
Energy Use 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.92
(MJ)
Water Use (l) 0.011 0.014 0.002 0.011 0.064

CO2 outlet pressure of 15.3 MPa (Rubin et al., 2015). Next, an efficiency CO2 at the power plant, thus we used the same boundary (Fig. 2).
reduction parameter was calculated based on power plant efficiencies Cúellar-Franca and Azapagic report that infrastructure production had a
before and after carbon capture that accounted for differences in fuel negligible impact on life cycle global warming potential for a carbon
inputs, which enabled projecting the capture technology performance capture and storage project comparing pulverized coal, IGCC, and
for BECCS. Other studies refer to the efficiency reduction parameter as combined cycle gas turbine power plants (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic,
either efficiency penalty (Akbilgic et al., 2015) or energy penalty 2015). BECCS power plants are not expected to be significantly different
(Vasudevan et al., 2016). Environmental impacts for each configuration in construction from this set of power plants, thus the construction phase
were calculated by applying the efficiency reduction to the common of the life cycle was excluded from the analysis. For the analysis it was
model inputs. Capture rates were not harmonized. assumed that solvent would need to be transported 100 km.
Based on our review of solvent consumption (Table 4), an average
consumption of 1.76 kg/tonne CO2 was calculated and assumed for all
Model inputs
amine-based systems using a generic MEA (Giordano et al., 2018;
Koornneef et al., 2008; Pehnt and Henkel, 2009). This is a conservative
To compare combinations of capture technologies and power plant
configurations, life cycle inventory data and power plant performance assumption for MEA systems with new products such as KS-1 advertising
reduced degradation (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, 2020). Based on
data were taken from the 2019 version of the Greenhouse gases, Regu­
lated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation Model (GREET) using Pehnt and Henkel, it was assumed that Selexol consumption was
negligible (Pehnt and Henkel, 2009).
the target year 2020 (Wang et al., 2019). The power plant data is
summarized in Table 2. Additional GREET data for fuel gathering
including biomass cultivation, amine production and transportation is Efficiency reduction
shown in Table 3. All simulations use switchgrass as a representative
biomass source. Switchgrass is similar in its cultivation and combustion An efficiency reduction parameter Δη was developed to provide a
to straw or corn stover and was included in GREET. universal method to account for the change in power plant efficiency
due to the implementation of a carbon capture technology. Once
calculated, it is applied to the GREET baseline power plant efficiencies,
System boundary
ηPP,B ,
Recent carbon capture studies of coal and natural gas plants consider ηPP+CC = ηPP,B − Δη (1)
system boundaries that include fuel gathering through compression of

5
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Fig. 2. The system boundary of the life cycle assessment was selected to include upstream impacts of fuel gathering through compression of CO2 at the power plant.
The energy stored in the fuels i.e., due to photosynthesis is excluded from the system boundary.

Table 4 where Ẇcmp is the compressor power, and Ẇ the plant power.
Solvent consumption of power plants with carbon capture from literature.
ṁCO2 ⋅ Δh
Study [-] Solvent [-] Consumption [kg / tonne Ẇ CMP = (4)
CO2] ηisen
(Koornneef et al., 2008) MEA 2.34
(Pehnt and Henkel, 2009) MEA 1.50 where ṁCO2 is the mass flow rate of carbon dioxide, Δh is the enthalpy
(Pehnt and Henkel, 2009) Selexol 0.00 change using real gas properties from NIST miniREFPROP (Lemmon
(Giordano et al., 2018) MEA 1.44
et al., 2018) using the Span and Wagner equation of state (Span and
Wagner, 1996) assuming a starting temperature of 25 ◦ C and outlet
pressure of 15.3 MPa which was the most common in the review by
Table 5 Rubin et al. (Rubin et al., 2015) and ηisen an isentropic efficiency of 80%
Emission factors and ratio of higher heating value (HHV) to lower heating value (Ozcan et al., 2015). The CO2 flowrate of the compressor is evaluated as,
(LHV) by fuel source, derived from GREET 2019 (Wang et al., 2019).
Fuel Emission Factors [g CO2/MJ] HHV/LHV ratio [-] Ẇ
ṁCO2 ⋅ = β⋅qFUEL ⋅ (5)
ηPP+CC
Switchgrass 101.43 1.11
Coal 94.82 1.11
Natural Gas 56.29 1.14 where β is the rate of carbon capture, and qFUEL the fuel specific carbon
dioxide emission rate. Eqs. (2)–(5) can then be combined to,

Ẇ CMP ṁCO2 ⋅ Δh qFUEL ⋅β ⋅Δh

to calculate the efficiency of the power plant with carbon capture ηPP+CC . ΔηCMP = = = (6)
Ẇ Ẇ ηPP+CC
It is nontrivial to compare the impact of carbon capture systems across
the literature because few assumed the same operating conditions and The total efficiency reduction Δη is then computed as,
outlet pressure. To make studies comparable, we focused on the
Δη = ΔηCC + ΔηCMP (7)
reduction in plant efficiency due to carbon capture ΔηCC ,
Predicting the efficiency reduction for another fuel type, here
ΔηCC = ηPP − ηPP+CC (2)
biomass, requires consideration of the exhaust gas CO2 concentration,
where ηPP is the efficiency of the power plant without carbon capture which is highly correlated with capture energy requirements. A pro­
and ηPP+CC the efficiency of the power plant with carbon capture. The portional correction was developed to predict the efficiency reduction
for using biomass Δηbiomass ,
majority of studies reported efficiencies on a LHV basis, however some
( )
also used HHV. Where applicable, efficiency reductions were corrected qFUEL
using values from Table 5. In addition to different operating conditions, Δηbiomass = ⋅Δη (8)
qFUEL,biomass
studies also varied the CO2 outlet pressure of the capture system. To
harmonize results, an efficiency correction was developed for differ­ Fuel-specific emission factors derived from GREET 2019 are shown
ences in compression work ΔηCMP , in Table 5.
Ẇ CMP
ΔηCMP = (3)
Ẇ

6
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Fig. 3. Comparison of GWP vs. EROI for power plants equipped with carbon capture. Negative GWP (indicated by horizontal dashed line) is necessary for lowering
atmospheric CO2 levels and EROI values greater than one (vertical dashed line) indicate energetically balanced processes. 50% Blend refers to 50% biomass and 50%
coal by mass.

Environmental impacts Results and discussion

For this analysis we considered four environmental impacts: global GWP vs. EROI
warming potential (GWP), energy use (EU), water use (WU) and energy
return on investment (EROI). GWP calculations are made on a 100 year Fig. 3 presents system global warming potential and energy return on
basis and are from GREET (Wang et al., 2019). Literature was reviewed investment for each BECCS configuration considered here. The ideal
to select the functional unit for the impacts. In Cúellar-Franca and power plant would have high EROI and low GWP which corresponds to
Azapagic’s review of CCS technology studies, 1 kWh was the most the bottom right corner of the figure. Instead of identifying a single best
common functional unit (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015). Schakel configuration, we see a Pareto front representing the trade-off between
et al.’s LCA of a power plant co-fired with biomass and coal also used a EROI and GWP. Some power plant configurations in the bottom left-
functional unit of 1 kWh (Schakel et al., 2014). Therefore, a functional hand corner of the plot (for example, steam power plants burning only
unit of 1 kWh of produced electricity was selected to be consistent with biomass and capturing CO2 with amine-based scrubbers) have high rates
similar LCAs to enable comparisons of results. The process of calculating of CO2 removal, but these power plants have very low EROI that could
the environmental impacts is based on scaling the baseline power plant influence the economic competitiveness of the plants. Conversely,
environmental impacts from GREET with the efficiency reduction power plants in the upper right-hand corner of the plot (for example,
parameter and the addition of solvent production if applicable. The steam power plants burning only coal and capturing CO2 using calcium
detailed process of calculating the environmental impacts using the ef­ looping) have very high EROI but are net carbon positive. The power
ficiency reduction parameter is shown in the Supporting Information. plants located in the elbow of the curve present a balance between GWP
and EROI.
The inset (Fig. 3B) provides a higher resolution depiction of the
power plant configurations with this balance between EROI and GWP.
The results suggest that IGCC plants that burn biomass or a blend of coal

7
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Table 6 and biomass provide the most balance between EROI and GWP. How­
Comparison of EROI and GWP outputs against literature values shows good ever, steam-based co-firing of coal and biomass provides EROI values
agreement. that are almost as high as IGCC plants with biomass, particularly for
EROI (-) GWP (kg CO2eq/kWh) those plants that deploy membrane or calcium-looping based separa­
Technology (King and Bergh, This (Pehl et al., This study tion. In all cases, NGCC plants are dominated, so regardless of preference
2018) study 2017) for EROI or GWP, there are better options. The impact of key technology
Coal with CC 9 – 13 7.9 – 0.079 – 0.147 0.100 – 0.314 characteristics is discussed in Section 3.4.
16.3 Chemical looping (CL) based separation produces the best EROI and
NGCC with CC 4–7 5.0 – 5.7 0.063 – 0.097 0.11 – 0.14
GWP results with SEWGS, CaL and Selexol following close behind.
Biomass with N/A 1.9 – 9.6 − 1.490 – − 3.096 –
CC − 0.368 − 0.725 Amine-based steam cycles offer the lowest GWP at the expense of the
lowest EROI. Conversely, IGCC plants with a 50% blend of biomass and
coal offer the highest EROI with net negative emissions. Negative GWP
only occurs for power plants that use 100% biomass or a 50% blend of
Table 7
biomass and coal, as would be expected. We explored additional co-
Leading biomass configurations based on EROI. The mean performance of
biomass power plants with carbon capture is shown in terms of GWP, EROI, and firing fractions and found that EROI did not vary significantly be­
WU (water use). Pre/post indicates whether it is pre- or post-combustion cap­ tween 25% and 50% co-firing (see the Supporting Information for more
ture. Blend refers to 50% biomass and 50% coal by mass. detail). For comparison, corn ethanol CCS is projected to have an EROI
of 1.54 and sugarcane ethanol an EROI of 3.89 based on Cheng et al.
Power Plant Capture Pre/ EROI GWP [kg CO2/ WU [l/
Type Type Post [-] kWh] kWh] (Cheng et al., 2020). We also compared GWP and EROI results against
estimates reported in the literature and found there was good agree­
Blend (IGCC) CL Pre 11.65 − 0.40 1.73
Blend (IGCC) SEWGS Pre 11.31 − 0.30 1.79
ment, as shown in Table 6.
Biomass CL Pre 9.64 − 0.86 1.69 Table 7 presents the two capture technologies with the highest EROI
(IGCC) for each plant that burns biomass. Results are sorted by EROI to show
Biomass SEWGS Pre 9.39 − 0.77 1.73 which configurations produce the most power and therefore are more
(IGCC)
likely to be more profitable. Full results for all configurations including
Blend (Steam) Membrane Post 8.41 − 0.66 2.02
Blend (Steam) CaL Post 8.14 − 0.67 2.09 minimum and maximum values as well as results for fossil-fuel power
Biomass Membrane Post 4.83 − 1.57 2.13 plants are provided in the Supporting Information. The configurations
(Steam) are ordered from highest to lowest EROI. As EROI decreases from within
Biomass CaL Post 4.64 − 1.63 2.24
these select results, GWP decreases and water use increases.
(Steam)

Fig. 4. Water use vs. EROI is compared for a) pre-combustion and b) post-combustion configurations. Here oxy-fuel is included in post-combustion. Blend refers to
50% biomass and 50% coal by mass.

8
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Fig. 5. A life cycle stage analysis of biomass power plants identifies the stages with the most impact for further improvement and to help identify the optimal
configuration.

Water use over pure biomass for IGCC, but greatly improves it for steam (4–5
points) with similar water use. The leading blend with steam used post-
In Fig. 4, water use is compared against EROI for both pre- combustion membrane capture and had a water use of 2.02 l/kWh and
combustion and post-combustion capture technologies. Each family of EROI of 8.4. Not included in this analysis is the cultivation of biomass,
power plant results has an optimal carbon capture technology that which also has a large water use. Smith et al. show that biomass culti­
achieves low water use and high EROI. Thus, if water use and EROI were vation increases overall life cycle water use 3 times (Smith et al., 2016),
the only metrics of interest, neither would have to be compromised. In and Fajardy and Mac Dowell found that biomass cultivation can increase
general, IGCC plants were found to have a lower water use and higher life cycle water use 150 times for a particular variety of willow (Fajardy
EROI than steam cycle counterparts for the same fuel. Pre-combustion and Mac Dowell, 2017).
capture technologies for IGCC biomass had higher EROI and similar
water use to the post-combustion alternatives. The leading IGCC
biomass configuration used an average of 1.69 l/kWh with chemical Life cycle stage analysis
looping having an EROI of 9.6. The leading biomass with steam plants
used membrane capture technology and achieved a water use of 2.13 l/ To identify which life cycle stages were driving the results for
kWh and EROI of 4.8. Blending with coal improves EROI (1–2 points) biomass-based configurations, we performed a life cycle stage analysis
(Fig. 5). If GWP is the only consideration, then biomass with steam

9
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Fig. 6. The meta-analysis model relies heavily on two inputs, capture technology efficiency reduction and capture rate. Here they are compared against GWP, EROI
and water use to better understand the influence of these parameters.

Table 8
Performance of integrated gasification combined cycle coal power plants with carbon capture and compression from literature.
Publication Case –Capture Type ηPP ηPP+CC HHV or LHV Capture Rate Outlet Pressure (MPa)

Cormos et al., 2018 Case 1a vs. Case 1b Amine-based (Post, MDEA) 46.05 36.03 LHV 90.00 12.00
Cormos et al., 2018 Case 1a vs. Case 1c Amine-based (Pre, MDEA) 46.05 36.59 LHV 90.00 12.00
Cormos et al., 2018 Case 1a vs. Case 1d CaL (Post) 46.05 34.35 LHV 90.00 12.00
Cormos et al., 2018 Case 1a vs. Case 1e CaL (Pre) 46.05 36.10 LHV 90.00 12.00
Petrescu and Cormos, 2017 Case 1 vs Case 2 CaL (Pre) 45.09 36.44 LHV 91.56 12.00
Petrescu and Cormos, 2017 Case 1 vs Case 3 CL (Pre, iron-based) 45.09 38.76 LHV 99.45 12.00
Rubin et al., 2015 USDOE 2013 Selexol (Selexol, Pre) 39.00 32.60 HHV 90.00 15.30
Rubin et al., 2015 USDOE 2013 Selexol (Selexol, Pre) 39.70 31.00 HHV 90.00 15.30
Rubin et al., 2015 USDOE 2013 Selexol (Selexol, Pre) 42.10 31.20 HHV 90.00 15.30
Rubin et al., 2015 GCCSI 2011 Selexol (Selexol NS, Pre) 41.10 32.00 HHV 90.00 20.20

would be the best option. With respect to energy use, IGCC plants appears to be the leading option for BECCS, there are many more steam
consume much less energy than steam cycles. The best water use cases cycle plants available. The existing BECCS plants in the UK and Japan
are comparable between steam and IGCC, however some steam capture are both retrofitted steam cycle power plants (Bioenergy International,
technologies have very high water use (amine-based). There is little 2020; Murray, 2014). There is currently only one operational IGCC plant
variation across capture technologies for IGCC plants. Most impacts in the United States with a rated capacity of 756 MWe (EIA, 2020c). The
were dominated by a single life cycle stage: GWP by carbon capture, limited deployment of IGCC plants to date is based on technical and
energy use by carbon capture, and water use by power generation economic challenges. Another plant started in Kemper County, Mis­
(cooling). This identifies where research is needed to improve a partic­ sissippi with a planned capacity of 582 MWe was abandoned due to cost
ular environmental impact. Solvent production and transportation were overruns (Patel, 2017). As a result, the conversion of existing power
found to have negligible impacts. The GWP of fuel production and plants to BECCS is more likely to take place at coal plants that operate
transport for biomass was negligible based on GREET data when using steam cycles. Repurposing coal power plants for BECCS and
compared with negative emissions. replacing coal plants beyond their design life with natural gas could
EROI is often correlated to cost, so our identification of IGCC as provide jobs for up to 22,000 workers in the United States alone (Pat­
having a balance between EROI and GWP is reaffirmed by a recent rizio et al., 2018). It could also be possible to convert a natural gas
report for the state of California, which identifies IGCC as a cost-effective combined cycle plant by adding a gasification system, but this would be
option for negative emissions (Baker et al., 2020). Although IGCC a very large additional infrastructure investment. Additional concerns of

10
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Table 9
Performance of pulverized coal power plants with carbon capture and compression from literature.
Publication Case Capture Type ηPP ηPP+CC HHV or LHV Capture Rate Outlet Pressure (MPa)

Rubin et al., 2015 ZEP 2011 Amine-based (Post, Adv.amine) 44.20 36.50 HHV 90.00 11.00
Rubin et al., 2015 GCCSI 2011 Amine-based (Post, Amine) 39.10 27.20 HHV 90.00 20.20
Rubin et al., 2015 IEAGHG 2014 Amine-based (Post, Cansolv) 42.30 33.80 HHV 90.00 11.00
Rubin et al., 2015 USDOE 2013 Amine-based (Post, Econ FG+) 39.30 28.40 HHV 90.00 15.30
Cormos et al., 2018 Case 2a vs. Case 2b Amine-based (Post, MDEA) 43.33 34.29 LHV 90.00 12.00
Petrescu et al., 2017 Case 1 vs 2 Amine-based (Post, MDEA) 43.33 34.29 LHV 90.49 12.00
Petrescu et al., 2017 Case 1 vs 3 Ammonia (Post) 43.33 35.09 LHV 85.00 12.00
Ozcan et al., 2015 Case A CaL (Ca-Cu, Post) 40.10 35.60 LHV 90.00 15.00
Ozcan et al., 2015 Case D CaL (Ca-Cu, Post) 40.10 36.60 LHV 90.00 15.00
Ozcan et al., 2015 Case E CaL (Ca-Cu, Post) 40.10 34.80 LHV 90.00 15.00
Cormos et al., 2018 Case 2a vs. Case 2c CaL (Post) 43.33 35.91 LHV 90.00 12.00
Ortiz et al., 2016 N/A CaL (Post) 33.50 28.00 HHV 77.00 10.00
Ozcan et al., 2015 Case A CaL (Post) 40.10 31.60 LHV 90.00 15.00
Ozcan et al., 2015 Case D CaL (Post) 40.10 32.30 LHV 90.00 15.00
Case E CaL (Post) 40.10 30.90 LHV 90.00 15.00
Petrescu et al., 2017 Case 1 vs 4 CaL (Post) 43.33 35.91 LHV 92.66 12.00
Kotowicz and Bartela, 2012 Fig. 4 Membrane (Post) 48.78 42.92 LHV 90.00 15.00
Kotowicz and Bartela, 2012 Fig. 6 Membrane (Post) 48.78 43.18 LHV 90.00 15.00
Rubin et al., 2015 USDOE 2010 Oxy-fuel 38.70 31.00 HHV 90.80 15.30
Rubin et al., 2015 (Rubin et al., 2015) USDOE 2010 Oxy-fuel 38.90 30.10 HHV 90.60 15.30
Rubin et al., 2015 EPRI 2011 Oxy-fuel 39.00 31.50 HHV 90.00 15.30
Rubin et al., 2015 EPRI 2011 Oxy-fuel 39.00 31.50 HHV 90.00 15.30
Rubin et al., 2015 EPRI 2011 Oxy-fuel 39.00 31.00 HHV 98.00 15.30
Rubin et al., 2015 IEAGHG 2014 Oxy-fuel 42.20 34.10 HHV 90.00 11.00

Table 10
Performance of natural gas combined cycle power plants with carbon capture and compression from literature.
Publication Case Capture Type ηPP ηPP+CC HHV or LHV Capture Rate Outlet Pressure (MPa)

Rubin et al., 2015 IEAGHG 2012 Amine-based (Post, Adv.amine) 53.20 47.00 HHV 90.00 11.00
Rubin et al., 2015 USDOE 2011 Amine-based (Post, Econamine FG+) 50.50 42.90 HHV 90.00 15.20
Rubin et al., 2015 Rubin and Zhai 2012 Amine-based (Post, Econamine FG+) 50.00 42.60 HHV 90.00 13.70
Rubin et al., 2015 USDOE 2013 Amine-based (Post, Econamine FG+) 50.20 42.80 HHV 90.00 15.20
Gazzani et al., 2013 MEA Amine-based (Post, MEA) 58.34 45.06 LHV 88.30 11.00
Rubin et al., 2015 IEAGHG 2012 Amine-based (Post, MEA) 53.20 46.10 HHV 90.00 11.00
Gazzani et al., 2013 SEWGS Case 4 SEWGS (Pre) 58.34 46.18 LHV 85.70 11.00
Gazzani et al., 2013 SEWGS Case 5 SEWGS (Pre) 58.34 45.78 LHV 91.10 11.00

Table 11
Performance of biomass power plants with carbon capture and compression from literature.
Publication Case Capture Type ηPP ηPP+CC HHV or LHV Capture Rate Outlet Pressure (MPa)

Herron et al., 2012 100% Poplar (P.N.1 vs P.A.1) Amine-based (Post, Econamine FG+) 35.80 22.60 HHV 90.00 15.30
Herron et al., 2012 100% Poplar (P.N.1 vs P.O.1) Oxy-fuel 35.80 27.10 HHV 90.00 15.30

retrofitting existing large capacity fossil fuel power plants are the published to date assume a capture rate of 90%, which is why many of
transportation costs and logistics required to provide sufficient feed­ the results are clustered in that range. Steam plants have significantly
stock (Huang et al., 2009; Leboreiro and Hilaly, 2011). Site need to also lower GWP compared to IGCC plants independent of efficiency reduc­
be selected that near a suitable CO2 storage site (Baik et al., 2018). tion and capture rate, due to a much lower starting power plant effi­
Belmont has highlighted other challenges of the potential for ciency (45% versus 25%). Within steam plants, amine-based separations
combustion-based BECCS in the United States including slow increase in have the lowest GWP, followed by oxy-fuel due to the highest efficiency
baseload power plants, inconsistent regulatory policies and staying reductions. IGCC plants have similar GWP across configurations.
competitive with current natural gas prices (Belmont, 2020). IGCC plants have much higher EROI values than steam plants. Of
capture technologies, amine-based processes have the lowest EROI
which is correlated with large efficiency reductions. For water use, IGCC
Impact of capture technology characteristics has lower water use than steam plants, which can also be correlated to
the efficiency reduction. IGCC has similar water use levels across con­
Each capture technology has a number of unique characteristics in figurations. Water use for steam plants however is a function of effi­
our analysis including efficiency reduction (Δη), capture rate (β), and ciency reduction, with more water used by less efficient plants. Large
solvent consumption. To understand how these characteristics were efficiency reductions are associated with lower GWPs. Modest negative
driving the results previously shown in Fig. 3 through Fig. 5, we took a correlation was found between capture rate and GWP and no strong
detailed look at the impact of efficiency reduction and capture rate on correlation between capture rate and EROI.
GWP, EROI, and water use in Fig. 6. Solvent consumption was not Fig. 6 also confirms the paradox that low efficiency power plants
included because it was found to have a negligible impact. result in the largest negative emissions (Mac Dowell and Fajardy, 2017).
Fig. 6 shows that chemical looping is advantageous due to its high This is based on the fact that CO2 capture rates are directly proportional
capture rate combined with a low efficiency reduction. Most studies

11
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

to biomass consumption. A less efficient plant requires more biomass to water use and low EROI. Retrofitting steam plants to burn biomass will
produce the same amount of electricity so it stores more CO2. However, likely require blending with coal to achieve negative emissions along
our analysis shows that this comes at the cost of high water use and a low with a suitably high EROI. Steam cycles were more sensitive to capture
EROI. technologies than the IGCC power plant configurations. Steam-based
We also performed a sensitivity analysis of a steam cycle BECCS coal plants with membrane or calcium looping-based separations per­
power plant with amine-based capture and found that a 1% reduction in formed almost as well as IGCC, especially when the plants burned a
efficiency reduced negative emissions by 5.1% and increased EROI by blend of coal and biomass.
5.4%; whereas a 1% increase in capture rate increased negative emis­
sions by 2.2%, and increased EROI by 0.3%. Therefore, future technol­ CRediT authorship contribution statement
ogy improvements could shift the balance of which technologies are
most favorable for a particular application. Jeffrey A. Bennett: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal­
ysis, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Visualization. Mohammad
Implications of net-zero targets and policy mechanisms Abotalib: Investigation, Methodology. Fu Zhao: Investigation. Andres
F. Clarens: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review &
In this study, we applied equal weight to our metrics of GWP, EROI, editing, Project administration.
energy use and water use. However, in practice, the selection of the
optimal BECCS power plant configuration for sustainable decarbon­ Declaration of Competing Interest
ization will require weighting these metrics with respect to regional
goals and impacts. For example, environmental constraints such as The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
water availability or carbon emission regulations will vary by region. If interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the primary goal is net zero emissions by mid-century, then the focus the work reported in this paper.
will be on maximizing negative emissions, regardless of the resulting
EROI. Alternatively, climate mitigation measures such as carbon pricing Acknowledgements
or cap and trade systems will reinforce the need for negative emissions
while creating trade-offs with economic value. BECCS power plants The authors would like to acknowledge the Rotating Machinery and
could be used primarily for power production, however due to their Controls Laboratory at the University of Virginia, which provided
increased water use and decreased EROI compared to fossil fuel power financial support for JB. The authors would like to thank Immanuel
plants, the success of BECCS power plants is expected to rely on suc­ Ndumbe for his work developing plotting scripts.
cessfully providing negative emissions. Future work can further consider
metric weighting in a system analysis.
Data Availability

Conclusions
An archived version of the model and analysis programs can be found
at https://doi.org/10.18130/V3/5W96LX, hosted on UVA Dataverse
Negative emission technologies are necessary for achieving carbon
(Bennett and Clarens, 2021). It is also hosted on GitHub and available
neutrality goals and stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels. Bioenergy with
for download at https://www.github.com/EnergyModels/BECCS-LCA-
carbon capture is expected to be an important source of negative
MetaAnalysis. The model was created in Excel 2016, data analysis per­
emissions that could leverage existing power plant infrastructure.
formed in R version 4.02 (R Core Team, 2020) using dplyr (Wickham
Detailed comparisons of carbon capture technologies with biomass were
et al., 2020) and readxl (Wickham et al., 2019), and plotting performed
previously limited to only a few different types of power plant capture
in Python 3.7.6 (Python 3.7.6 documentation, 2019) using numpy (Harris
technologies. Here we harmonized carbon capture estimates from fossil
et al., 2020), pandas (Reback et al., 2020), matplotlib (Hunter, 2007),
fuel studies to forecast the emissions factors from biomass plants, and
seaborn (Waskom et al., 2020) and xlrd (Machin and Withers, 2020).
compare life cycle impacts across operational configurations. The results
reveal important trade-offs between global warming potential and en­
Supplementary materials
ergy return on investment for different power plant and carbon capture
configurations. IGCC plants were found to have higher EROI values
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
while still achieving negative emissions which makes them the best
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103468.
candidate for conversion. However, IGCC plants are typically very large
and bioenergy plants tend to be small. Further, the US currently has only
Appendix
one IGCC plant which is in stark contrast with hundreds of steam plants
currently operating. Transitioning to low-carbon fuels would leave
The technical data from literature used in this study are summarized
existing fossil-fuel power plants as stranded assets, because they will no
in Table 8 through Table 11.
longer be economically viable to operate. Many existing steam plants are
in close proximity to biomass sources and could instead be repurposed
References
for BECCS. Successful BECCS operation will also require close proximity
to suitable carbon storage sites. Akbilgic, O., Doluweera, G., Mahmoudkhani, M., Bergerson, J., 2015. A meta-analysis of
Because a number of carbon capture technologies are under devel­ carbon capture and storage technology assessments: understanding the driving
opment, the pace of decarbonization will impact the prevalence of factors of variability in cost estimates. Appl. Energy 159, 11–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.056.
technologies. Projects built in the near term are going to be more likely Baik, E., Sanchez, D.L., Turner, P.A., Mach, K.J., Field, C.B., Benson, S.M., 2018.
to rely on established amine and oxy-combustion technologies. As more Geospatial analysis of near-term potential for carbon-negative bioenergy in the
plants are built over the coming decades, then emerging capture tech­ United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, 3290–3295. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1720338115.
nologies are more likely to have time to develop.
Baker, S.E., Stolaroff, J.K., Peridas, G., Pang, S.H., Goldstein, H.M., Lucci, F.R., Li, W.,
Chemical looping was found to be marginally better than other Slessarev, E.W., Pett-Ridge, J., Ryerson, F.J., Wagoner, J.L., Kirkendall, W., Aines,
capture technologies for IGCC, however future work could consider R., Sanchez, D.L., Cabiyo, B., Baker, J., McCoy, S., Uden, S., Runnebaum, R., Wilcox,
infrastructure and operational costs. Biomass plants operating with a J., Psarras, P.C., Pilorge, H., McQueen, N., Maynard, D., McCormick, C., 2020.
Getting to Neutral - Options for Negative Carbon Emissions in California.
steam cycle and amine-based capture technologies were found to have Belmont, E., 2020. Combustion-based BECCS Combustion-based BECCS. Work. Fed.
the lowest GWP but this was accompanied by a significant increase in BECCS priorities.

12
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Bennett, J., Clarens, A., 2021. Model for “Life cycle meta-analysis of carbon capture Giordano, L., Roizard, D., Favre, E., 2018. Life cycle assessment of post-combustion CO2
pathways in power plants: implications for bioenergy with carbon capture and capture: a comparison between membrane separation and chemical absorption
storage” [WWW Document]. University of Virginia Dataverse. https://doi.org/ processes. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 68, 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.18130/V3/5W96LX. ijggc.2017.11.008.
Bennett, J.A., Jasmin Melara, A., Colosi, L.M., Clarens, A.F., 2019. Life cycle analysis of Gosling, S.N., Arnell, N.W., 2016. A global assessment of the impact of climate change on
power cycle configurations in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Procedia water scarcity. Clim. Change 134, 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-
CIRP 80, 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.014. 0853-x.
Bioenergy International, 2020. Toshiba ESS commission Japan’s first large-scale BECCS Gough, C., Thornley, P., Mander, S., Vaughan, N., Lea-Langton, A. (Eds.), 2018. Biomass
plant [WWW Document]. Bioenergy Int. URL https://bioenergyinternational. Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS Or Bio-CCS). John Wiley & Sons.
com/heat-power/toshiba-ess-commission-japans-first-large-scale-beccs-plant Gough, C., Upham, P., 2011. Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS or
accessed 12.12.20. Bio-CCS). Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 1, 324–334.
Black, J.B., Haslbeck, J.K., Lewis, E., Woods, M.C., 2012. Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Harris, C.R., Millman, K.J., van der Walt, S.J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P.,
the Power Industry Using Domestic Coal and Biomass, 1. IGCC. Volume. Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N.J., Kern, R., Picus, M.,
Blamey, J., Anthony, E.J., Wang, J., Fennell, P.S., 2010. The calcium looping cycle for Hoyer, Stephan, van Kerkwijk, M.H., Brett, M., Haldane, A., Fernández del Río, J.,
large-scale CO2 capture. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 36, 260–279. https://doi.org/ Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., Gérard-Marchant, P., Sheppard, K., Reddy, T.,
10.1016/j.pecs.2009.10.001. Weckesser, W., Abbasi, H., Gohlke, C., Oliphant, T.E., 2020. Array programming
Carpentieri, M., Corti, A., Lombardi, L., 2005. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an with NumPy. Nature 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2.
integrated biomass gasification combined cycle (IBGCC) with CO2 removal. Energy Heath, G.A., Mann, M.K., 2012. Background and reflections on the life cycle assessment
Convers. Manag. 46, 1790–1808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. harmonization project. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
enconman.2004.08.010. 9290.2012.00478.x.
Cheng, F., Porter, M.D., Colosi, L.M., 2020. Is hydrothermal treatment coupled with Herron, S., Kyle, A., Lewis, E., Woods, M., 2012. Greenhouse Gas Reductions in the
carbon capture and storage an energy-producing negative emissions technology? Power Industry Using Domestic Coal and Biomass, 2. Pulverized Coal Plants.
Energy Convers. Manag. 203, 112252 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Hetland, J., Yowargana, P., Leduc, S., Kraxner, F., 2016. Carbon-negative emissions:
enconman.2019.112252. systemic impacts of biomass conversion - A case study on CO2 capture and storage
Consoli, C., 2019. Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage. options. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 49, 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cormos, A.M., Dinca, C., Petrescu, L., Andreea Chisalita, D., Szima, S., Cormos, .C..-C., ijggc.2016.03.017.
2018. Carbon capture and utilisation technologies applied to energy conversion Heun, M.K., de Wit, M., 2012. Energy return on (energy) invested (EROI), oil prices, and
systems and other energy-intensive industrial applications. Fuel 211, 883–890. energy transitions. Energy Policy 40, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.09.104. enpol.2011.09.008.
Corsten, M., Ramírez, A., Shen, L., Koornneef, J., Faaij, A., 2013. Environmental impact Huang, H.J., Ramaswamy, S., Al-Dajani, W., Tschirner, U., Cairncross, R.A., 2009. Effect
assessment of CCS chains - Lessons learned and limitations from LCA literature. Int. of biomass species and plant size on cellulosic ethanol: a comparative process and
J. Greenh. Gas Control 13, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.12.003. economic analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy 33, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Corti, A., Lombardi, L., 2004. Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle with biombioe.2008.05.007.
reduced CO2 emissions: performance analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA). Hunter, J.D., 2007. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95.
Energy 29, 2109–2124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.015. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55.
Cuéllar-Franca, R.M., Azapagic, A., 2015. Carbon capture, storage and utilisation Kearns, D., Liu, H., Consoli, C., 2021. Technology Readiness and Costs of CCS.
technologies: a critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental King, L.C., Bergh, J.C.J.M.Van Den, 2018. Implications of net energy-return-on-
impacts. J. CO2 Util. 9, 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2014.12.001. investment for a low-carbon energy transition. Nat. Energy 3, 334–341. https://doi.
Cuellar, A., 2012. Plant power: the cost of using biomass for power generation and org/10.1038/s41560-018-0116-1.
potential for decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Massachusetts Institute of Koornneef, J., van Keulen, T., Faaij, A., Turkenburg, W., 2008. Life cycle assessment of a
Technology. pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and storage of
Cumicheo, C., Mac Dowell, N., Shah, N., 2019. Natural gas and BECCS: a comparative CO2. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2, 448–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
analysis of alternative configurations for negative emissions power generation. Int. J. ijggc.2008.06.008.
Greenh. Gas Control 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102798. Kotowicz, J., Bartela, Ł., 2012. Optimisation of the connection of membrane CCS
Damen, K., Troost, M.Van, Faaij, A., Turkenburg, W., 2006. A comparison of electricity installation with a supercritical coal-fired power plant. Energy 38, 118–127. https://
and hydrogen production systems with CO 2 capture and storage. Part A: review and doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.12.028.
selection of promising conversion and capture technologies. Prog. Energy Combust. Leboreiro, J., Hilaly, A.K., 2011. Biomass transportation model and optimum plant size
Sci. 32, 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2005.11.005. for the production of ethanol. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 2712–2723. https://doi.org/
Dooley, B., Mason, P.E., 2018. Supply Chain Costs of Biomass Cofiring. London. 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.144.
Drax Group, 2018. Drax Closer to Coal-Free Future With Fourth Biomass Unit Conversion Lemmon, E.W., Bell, I.H., Huber, M.L., McLinden, M.O., 2018. NIST Standard Reference
[WWW Document]. Press release. URL. https://www.drax.com/press_release/drax Database 23: Reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties-REFPROP.
-closer-coal-free-future-fourth-biomass-unit-conversion/ (accessed 12.12.20). Version 10 (0).
EIA, 2020a. Power Plants [WWW Document]. URL https://www.eia.gov/maps/layer_i Mac Dowell, N., Fajardy, M., 2017. Inefficient power generation as an optimal route to
nfo-m.php (accessed 12.7.20). negative emissions via BECCS? Environ. Res. Lett. 12 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
EIA, 2020b. Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Generating Technologies. 9326/aa67a5.
Annual Energy Outlook 2020. Machin, S.J., Withers, C., 2020. xlrd [WWW Document]. URL https://xlrd.readthedocs.
EIA, 2020c. Table 6.1 Electric Generating Summary Capacity Changes (MW), October io/en/latest/index.html.
2019 to November 2019 [WWW Document]. Electr. Power Mon. URL https://www. Mehta, A., 2019. Drax targets negative emissions with world’s first biomass CCS project
eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_01. [WWW Document]. Reuters Events. URL. https://www.reutersevents.com/sustai
Emenike, O., Michailos, S., Finney, K.N., Hughes, K.J., Ingham, D., Pourkashanian, M., nability/drax-targets-negative-emissions-worlds-first-biomass-ccs-project. accessed
2020. Initial techno-economic screening of BECCS technologies in power generation 12.12.20.
for a range of biomass feedstock. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 40, 100743. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, 2020. CO2 Capture Plant [WWW Document]. URL https:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100743. //www.mhi.com/products/engineering/co2plants.html (accessed 12.14.20).
Fajardy, M., Mac Dowell, N., 2018. The energy return on investment of BECCS: is BECCS Moeller, D., Murphy, D., 2016. Net energy analysis of gas production from the marcellus
a threat to energy security? Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 1581–1594. https://doi.org/ shale. Biophys. Econ. Resour. Qual. 1, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-016-
10.1039/c7ee03610h. 0006-8.
Fajardy, M., Mac Dowell, N., 2017. Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient Murray, G., 2014. Drax moves to biomass [WWW Document]. Can. Biomass. URL https
negative emissions? Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 1389–1426. https://doi.org/10.1039/ ://www.canadianbiomassmagazine.ca/drax-moves-to-biomass-4503/ accessed
c7ee00465f. 12.12.20.
Falano, T., Thornley, P., Roeder, M., 2015. AIR/OXY BIOMASS COMBUSTION WITH National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2019. Negative Emissions
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE. In: 23rd European Biomass Conference and Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. Washington D.C.
Exhibition. Vienna, Austria. https://doi.org/ 10.17226/25259.
Fernando, R., 2012. Cofiring High Ratios of Biomass With Coal. IEA Clean Coal Centre. NREL, 2020. 2020 Annual Technology Baseline. Golden, CO.
Fajardy, M., Morris, J., Gurgel, A., Herzog, H., Mac Dowell, N., Paltsev, S., 2020. The NREL, 2014. U.S. Solid Biomass Resources by County [WWW Document]. URL https://
economics of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a www.nrel.gov/gis/biomass.html (accessed 12.7.20).
1.5 ◦ C Or 2 ◦ C world. Cambridge, MA. Ortiz, C., Chacartegui, R., Valverde, J.M., Becerra, J.A., 2016. A new integration model
Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., Fahey, D.W., Haywood, J., of the calcium looping technology into coal fired power plants for CO2 capture.
Lean, J., Lowe, D.C., Myhre, G., Nganga, J., Prinn, R., Raga, G., Schulz, M., Van Appl. Energy 169, 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.050.
Dorland, R., 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. Ozcan, D.C., Macchi, A., Lu, D.Y., Kierzkowska, A.M., Ahn, H., Müller, C.R., Brandani, S.,
In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.M.T., et al. 2015. Ca-Cu looping process for CO2 capture from a power plant and its comparison
(Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working with Ca-looping, oxy-combustion and amine-based CO2 capture processes. Int. J.
group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate Greenh. Gas Control 43, 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.10.021.
change. Cambridge University Press. Patel, S., 2017. Billions Over Budget, Kemper Facility Gasification Portion Is Suspended
Gazzani, M., Macchi, E., Manzolini, G., 2013. CO2 capture in natural gas combined cycle [WWW Document]. POWER. URL. https://www.powermag.com/billions-over
with SEWGS. Part A: thermodynamic performances. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 12, -budget-kemper-facility-gasification-portion-is-suspended/. accessed 2.20.20.
493–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.06.010.

13
J.A. Bennett et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 111 (2021) 103468

Patrizio, P., Leduc, S., Kraxner, F., Fuss, S., Kindermann, G., Mesfun, S., Spokas, K., Schreiber, A., Zapp, P., Marx, J., 2012. Meta-analysis of life cycle assessment studies on
Mendoza, A., Mac Dowell, N., Wetterlund, E., Lundgren, J., Dotzauer, E., electricity generation with carbon capture and storage. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 155–168.
Yowargana, P., Obersteiner, M., 2018. Reducing US Coal Emissions Can Boost https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00435.x.
Employment. Joule 2, 2633–2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.10.004. Sgouridis, S., Carbajales-dale, M., Csala, D., Chiesa, M., Bardi, U., 2019. Comparative net
Pehl, M., Arvesen, A., Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Hertwich, E.G., 2017. Understanding energy analysis of renewable electricity and carbon capture and storage. Nat. Energy
future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0365-7.
assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nat. Energy 2. https://doi.org/ Smith, P., Davis, S.J., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Minx, J., Gabrielle, B., Kato, E., Jackson, R.B.,
10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9. Cowie, A., Kriegler, E., Van Vuuren, D.P., Rogelj, J., Ciais, P., Milne, J., Canadell, J.
Pehnt, M., Henkel, J., 2009. Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage G., McCollum, D., Peters, G., Andrew, R., Krey, V., Shrestha, G., Friedlingstein, P.,
from lignite power plants. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 3, 49–66. https://doi.org/ Gasser, T., Grübler, A., Heidug, W.K., Jonas, M., Jones, C.D., Kraxner, F.,
10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.07.001. Littleton, E., Lowe, J., Moreira, J.R., Nakicenovic, N., Obersteiner, M.,
Petrescu, L., Bonalumi, D., Valenti, G., Cormos, A.M., Cormos, C.C., 2017. Life Cycle Patwardhan, A., Rogner, M., Rubin, E., Sharifi, A., Torvanger, A., Yamagata, Y.,
Assessment for supercritical pulverized coal power plants with post-combustion Edmonds, J., Yongsung, C., 2016. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2
carbon capture and storage. J. Clean. Prod. 157, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870.
jclepro.2017.03.225. Span, R., Wagner, W., 1996. A new equation of state for carbon dioxide covering the fluid
Petrescu, L., Cormos, C.C., 2017. Environmental assessment of IGCC power plants with region from the triple-point temperature to 1100 K at pressures up to 800 MPa.
pre-combustion CO2 capture by chemical & calcium looping methods. J. Clean. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 25, 1509–1596.
Prod. 158, 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.011. Spath, P.L., Mann, M.K., 2004. Biomass power and coventional fossil systems with and
Python 3.7.6 documentation, 2019. without CO2 sequestration - comparing the energy balance. Greenhouse Gas
R Core Team, 2020. R: A language and Environment For Statistical computing. R Emissions and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M405933200.
Foundation For Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Stavrakas, V., Spyridaki, N.-.A., Flamos, A., 2018. Striving towards the deployment of
Rackley, S.A., 2017. Carbon Capture and Storage, 2nd ed. Elsevier. bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): a review of research priorities
Reback, J., McKinney, W., Jbrockmendel, Bossche, J.Van den, Augspurger, T., Cloud, P., and assessment needs. Sustainability 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072206.
Gfyoung, Sinhrks, Klein, A., Roeschke, M., Tratner, J., She, C., Hawkins, S., Ayd, W., Stolaroff, J.K., Pang, S.H., Li, W., Kirkendall, W.G., Goldstein, H.M., Aines, R.D., Baker, S.
Petersen, T., Schendel, J., Hayden, A., Marc Garcia, M., Jancauskas, V., Battiston, P., E., 2021. Transport cost for carbon removal projects with biomass and CO2 storage.
Seabold, S., Chris-b1, H-vetinari, Hoyer, S., Wouter Overmeire, A., Mehyar, M., Front. Energy Res. 9, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.639943.
Dong, K., Whelan, C., 2020. pandas-dev/pandas: pandas 1.0.1. https://doi.org/10. Vasudevan, S., Farooq, S., Karimi, I.A., Saeys, M., Quah, M.C.G., Agrawal, R., 2016.
5281/zenodo.3509134. Energy penalty estimates for CO2 capture: comparison between fuel types and
Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., capture-combustion modes. Energy 103, 709–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Sha, F., Riahi, K., Meinshausen, M., 2016. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a energy.2016.02.154.
boost to keep warming well below 2 ◦ C. Nature 534, 631–639. https://doi.org/ Wang, M., Elgowainy, A., Lee, U., Benavides, P., Burnham, A., Cai, H., Dai, Q., Hawkins,
10.1038/nature18307. T., Kelly, J., Kwon, H., Liu, X., Lu, Z., Ou, L., Sun, P., Winjobi, O., Xu, H., 2019.
Rogelj, J., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R.C., Kriegler, E., Schaeffer, M., Krey, V., Riahi, K., Summary of Expansions and Updates in GREET 2019.
2015. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below Waskom, M., Botvinnik, O., Ostblom, J., Lukauskas, S., Hobson, P., MaozGelbart, David C
1.5 ◦ C. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 519–527. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2572. Gemperline, Augspurger, T., Halchenko, Y., Cole, J.B., Warmenhoven, J., Ruiter, J.
Rozenberg, J., Vogt-Schilb, A., Hallegatte, S., 2020. Instrument choice and stranded de, Pye, C., Hoyer, S., Vanderplas, J., Villalba, S., Kunter, G., Quintero, E., Bachant,
assets in the transition to clean capital. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 100, 102183 P., Martin, M., Meyer, K., Swain, C., Miles, A., Brunner, T., O’Kane, D., Yarkoni, T.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.10.005. Mike Lee Williams, C.E., 2020. mwaskom/seaborn. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo
Rubin, E.S., Davison, J.E., Herzog, H.J., 2015. The cost of CO2 capture and storage. Int. J. .592845.
Greenh. Gas Control 40, 378–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.018. Wickham, H., Bryan, J., RStudio, Kalicinski, M., Valery, K., Leitienne, C., Colbert, B.,
Schakel, W., Meerman, H., Talaei, A., Ramírez, A., Faaij, A., 2014. Comparative life cycle Hoerl, D., Miller, E., 2019. readxl: Read Excel Files [WWW Document]. URL https://
assessment of biomass co-firing plants with carbon capture and storage. Appl. Energy cran.r-project.org/web/packages/readxl/.
131, 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.045. Wickham, H., Francois, R., Henry, L., Mueller, K., 2020. dplyr: A Grammar of Data
Manipulation [WWW Document]. URL https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/
dplyr/index.html.

14