Audi reduces fuel consumption 21% in new direct injection 1.8L TFSI; indirect injection in part-load range
ABB wins $1B order for offshore wind power connection

Ecofys study finds large global potential for negative CO2 emissions through biomass linked with carbon dioxide capture and storage

Combining biomass-to-energy for electricity or biofuel production with CO2 capture and storage (Bio-CCS) could result in an annual global technical potential of up to 10 gigatonnes of negative CO2 emissions in the year 2050, according to a study commissioned by IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme to the global energy consultancy company Ecofys. Compared to the almost 31 gigatonnes of global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2010, this represents a large CO2 emissions reduction potential.

The combination actually removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The biomass extracts CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and the CCS takes out the CO2 released in the energy conversion process.

—Joris Koornneef from Ecofys

The study makes a distinction between technical potential (the potential that is technically feasible and not restricted by economic limitations); realizable potential (the potential that is technically feasible and takes future energy demand and scenarios for the phase out of existing generating capacity into account); and economic potential (the potential at competitive cost compared to alternatives).

Taking only technical limitations into account, the maximum annual potential is approximately either 10 gigatonnes (billion metric tonnes) of negative emissions in the power sector or 6 gigatonnes in the biofuel sector. In the short term, bio-ethanol production is the most promising option as it allows CO2 capture at relatively low cost.

Negative CO2 emissions associated with the realizable potential range between 0.3 and 2.3 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent/year in 2030 and between 0.8 and 3.2 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent/year in 2050.

The economic potential of biomass and CCS that can potentially compete with fossil technologies amounts to negative emissions of either up to 3.5 gigatonnes in the power sector or 3.1 gigatonnes in the biofuel sector.

Estimates of the economic potential are highly sensitive to assumptions on CO2 and biomass prices. Ecofys also identifies other important drivers and barriers that influence deployment of these technologies.

In most regions, the sustainable supply of biomass, rather than CO2 storage potential, is likely to be the limiting factor, said Koornneef says. However, he noted, worldwide, there is ample sustainable biomass available to achieve negative emissions.

Ecofys identifies six promising technology routes in the power and transport sectors, including biomass combustion and gasification for power production, and biomass conversion to bio-ethanol and biodiesel.

Currently, a major hindrance is the lack of a clear economic incentive to store CO2 from biomass and create negative emissions. Without such an incentive, the potential for negative emissions will not be deployed, the report said. In the near term, useful preparatory work would involve a more detailed look at the most promising regions where sustainable biomass production and conversion can be combined with CCS.



It's nice to know that remediation is at least technically possible. Making it not just feasible but a political possibility is the hard part.

Account Deleted

True. It is nice to know there is a remedy that scales enough to make a difference. In order to get it started we may consider to use the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery projects. That may be enough to pay for the needed infrastructure (CO2 pipelines and pumps). Higher oil prices will also help to make this scenario more economic.


I wonder what it would cost to sequester this 10B tons of CO2. Let's say that in a mature system, with the economies of scale it is 80$/ton. That would make 800B$. It's even today less than the cost of the "war on terror" for the US alone.
Once it's clear that climate change is as big a threat to world piece than terrorism, it will be considered a bargain.


Forty years from now there will be no need to burn fossil fuel for energy. Chemical combustion will not be necessary to produce energy. In the near term if coal fired power plants want to invest the $$Millions for CCS and can get an oilco to buy it for EOR - good for them. A new revenue stream.

It will make ZERO difference to global climate.

The comments to this entry are closed.