1 s2.0 S0921344921003438 Main

Resources, Conservation & Recycling 173 (2021) 105734
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
Full length article
A comprehensive review of biomass based thermochemical conversion

technologies integrated with CO2 capture and utilisation within
BECCS networks
Muhammad Shahbaz, Ahmed AlNouss, Ikhlas Ghiat, Gordon Mckay, Hamish Mackey,
Samar Elkhalifa, Tareq Al-Ansari *
College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Education City P.O. Box 5825, Doha, Qatar
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The future of the global environment is at threat due to global warming and climate change primarily driven by
Biomass greenhouse gas emissions. Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and storage/utilisation (BECCS/U) through its
CO2 capture CO2 negative emission capacity is considered a principal component of global mitigation strategies as agreed in
CCU
the Paris climate change agreement. In this study, the current global status and efforts to implement BECCS
negative emissions
utilisation
systems are comprehensively reviewed. The potential for thermochemical conversion processes (combustion,
circular economy gasification, pyrolysis, and liquefaction) to manifest within BECCS systems is analysed, in addition to their
integration potential with carbon dioxide capture methods. Outcomes suggest that gasification and combustion
processes when integrated with CO2 capture and storage (CCS), within combine heat and power (CHP) config
urations, biomass integrated gasification combine cycle (BIGCC) and chemical looping cycle (CLC) are mature
technologies. Furthermore, this review indicates that pyrolysis and liquefaction process are commercial and lab-
scale respectively. When integrated within BECCS systems, pyrolysis systems are at the pilot level and lique
faction processes are at lab scale. Moreover, a comprehensive discussion on the negative emission potential from
various BECCS configurations is provided, highlighting their role in advancing bio-refineries through waste
management and conversion to value-added products such as biochar, ethanol, bio diesel etc. The pyrolysis
process has CO2 mitigation potential of 2.2 GtCO2/year by 2020-2050. Finally, an insight into the commercial
barriers and future perspectives of BECCS technologies, role of international supply chains therein, and the need
for effective stakeholder management to facilitate BECCS systems within global trade.
1. Introduction towards climate change (Collins et al., 2013; Köberle, 2019). As a

consequence, the global average temperature has increased by approx
The modern economy is driven by energy, where the global energy imately 0.85◦ C since the pre-industrial age (Pelto, 2008; Rosenzweig
demand has reached approximately13973 Mtoe, of which 85% is sup and Parry, 1994), impacting ecosystems, crop yields and weather pat
plied through fossil fuels (Birol, 2019; Tan et al., 2020). The excessive terns (Li et al., 2019). To prevent such disastrous consequences, the
utilisation of fossil fuels contributes towards rapid resource depletion Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that increases
(Madadian et al., 2020), whilst greenhouse gas emissions contribute in temperature should be limited to 2◦ C and most likely 1.5◦ C (Haaf
Abbreviations: BECCS, Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and storage; BECCU/S, Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture, utilization, and storage; BIGCC,
Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle; CCU, Carbon capture and utilisation; CCUS, Carbon capture, utilisation, and storage; CEC, Cation exchange capacity;
CLC, Chemical looping cycle; CHP, Combined heat and power; CCS, CO2 capture and storage; DEA, Diethanolamine; DGA, Diglycol-amine; DME, Dimethyl Ether;
EOR, Enhanced oil recovery; EJ, Exa joule; FT, Fischer-Tropsch; Gt, Giga ton; GWP, Global warming potential; HVCs, high-value petrochemicals; IEA, International
Energy Agency; IGCC, Integrated gasification combined cycle; kWh, Kilowatt hour; MDEA, Methyldiethanolamine; Mt, Mettric ton; MEA, Monoethanolamine; MSW,
Municipal solid waste; NEV, Net energy value; IPCC, Panel on climate change; SNG, Synthetic natural gas; TRL, Technical readiness level; WOS, Web of science; AR4
and AR5, 4th and 5th assessment report; $, United state dollar.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: talansari@hbku.edu.qa (T. Al-Ansari).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105734
Received 18 January 2021; Received in revised form 5 June 2021; Accepted 5 June 2021
Available online 19 June 2021
0921-3449/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Shahbaz et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 173 (2021) 105734
et al., 2020). As suggested in the fifth IPCC, an overhaul in global energy The production of high value petrochemicals (HVCs) emits 4-5 tCO2/t
supply systems, lifestyles and food needs are required (IPCC, 2014). In (HVCs) and 8-11 tCO2/t(HVCs) using gas and coal as fuels. The use of
order to enable low carbon pathways, it is necessary to continue to biomass can reduce emissions by 2-4 tCO2/t(HVCs) (Ren and Patel,
commercialise low carbon and carbon neutral sources for energy, 2009). Moreover, biomass can not only be used for power, it can also be
chemicals and technologies (Shahbaz et al., 2020b). a source for many useful chemicals such as H2 (Khan et al., 2019) and
Biomass can be considered an alternative to fossil fuels as it is a Dimethyl Ether (DME) (Inayat et al., 2017) through the gasification and
carbon neutral source of energy (Naqvi et al., 2018). The total biomass pyrolysis processes (Chen et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2015). Negative
potential estimated by various studies is in the range of 200-700 EJ emission approaches for the potential removal of CO2 from the atmo
annually (Shahbaz et al., 2017a), and it has been projected that the total sphere have been categorised as illustrated in Table 1, with each
production is in the range of 50-1000 EJ per year in 2050 (Hoogwijk demonstrating distinct features as reported in the literature (Gough
et al., 2009; Smeets and Faaij, 2007). Currently, biomass provides et al., 2018). In the case of negative emissions, BECCS has further ad
approximately 10% of the global energy supply amounting to 50 EJ of vantages as it produces various products, such as electricity, liquid, and
energy. The potential of energy generation from biomass is expected to gaseous fuels. Therefore, BECCS can be one of the best options for
be 140-270 EJ (Johansson et al., 2012; Liew et al., 2021). Biomass is achieving large scale negative emissions, and thus presents a significant
considered a carbon neutral source of energy since the release of CO2 potential to capture and then utilise or sequester CO2 in the years to
during combustion is equal to the amount of CO2 absorbed by tree/plant come (Gough and Upham, 2010).
during their lifecycle. Different types of biomass are available in various In the 5th Assessment Report (AR5), the IPCC determined that the
forms, such as forest, crops residue, food waste, food processing wastes, implementation of BECCS systems is central to mitigation scenarios that
animal waste, industrial biomass wastes, and municipal wastes (Brad seek to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets and keep any surface
Page, 2019; Naqvi et al., 2018). The biomass and wastes can be con temperature rise below 2◦ C (IPCC, 2014). Several other Integrated
verted into liquid, gaseous, and solid fuels such as SNG, biochar, DME, Assessment Models (IAM) studied in literature have also proposed
hydrogen, syngas gas and electricity using thermochemical conversion BECCS technology as an essential component necessary to achieve
process (Inayat et al., 2020a; Yusup et al., 2019). Biological methods emission targets with the potential to eliminate 2-10 GtCO2/yr (Pour,
include fermentation and digestion, producing liquid fuels such as 2019; Pour et al., 2017). In order to meet 2100 emission targets, BECCS
ethanol and biogas (Woodley, 2020). Thermochemical conversion technology needs to eliminate approximately 3.3 GtCO2/yr, necessi
methods include combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, and liquefaction tating 300-700 Mha of land to supply biomass, and double the amount of
producing various energy-carrying fuels (Chan et al., 2019). The pro current water utilised (Detz and van der Zwaan, 2019). The imple
duction of energy from the biomass thermochemical conversion process mentation of BECCS is an important mechanism to combat climate
is CO2 neutral, although it also releases CO2, known as biogenic CO2 changes without affecting energy utilisation industries and creating
(Brad Page, 2019; Carbo et al., 2011). opportunities that generate economic benefits through CCU (Donnison
The value of CO2 capture and conversion into value added products et al., 2020).
has been demonstrated to be an important mechanism within the en
ergy, water and food nexus to reducing total CO2 emissions (Ghiat et al.,
1.2. Development of BECCS
2021a; Ghiat et al., 2021b)(Ghiat et al., 2020b). For a Qatar case study,
the implementation of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) or CCU scheme in
The growth in BECCS technology has been relatively slow to date,
the process industries has an economic implication, in addition to
where there are only five facilities, namely Illinois Industrial, Kansas
demonstrating environmental benefits as CO2 utilisation is in the range
Arkalon, Bonanza CCS, Farnsworth in (USA) and Husky Energy CO2
of 1.62-6 Mt/yr with an excepted revenue of 0.48-4.35 billion $/yr for
Injection (Canada), which are under operation, with a carbon removal
process industries (Al-Yaeeshi et al., 2020b) (Al-Yaeeshi et al., 2020c).
capacity of 1.5 MtCO2/yr, the details of which are provided in Table 2
Similarly, the CCS/CCU concept is applicable in the cement industry,
where the CO2 abatement cost is reduced from 183.12-63.2 CNY/tCO2.
The CCS/CCU concept has also been demonstrated in gas to liquid (GTL) Table 1
Negative emission approaches (Fuss et al., 2018; Gough et al., 2018).
processes (Al-Yaeeshi et al., 2020a; Zhang et al., 2021). Captured CO2
can also be stored underground, known as carbon capture and storage Approach Description Storage Capture
(CCS) (Consoli, 2019; CSLF, 2018). According to Jafari et al. (2017), the Afforestation Establishing and maintaining Biological
geological storage of CO2 in a saline aquifer is a solution for large-scale forests that Biotic Biological
coal power plants in China. Furthermore, the implementation of CCS in have not previously been Indirect
forested for a given period (e.g.
coal power production can reduce 83% of CO2 emissions during the
50 years) (UNFCCC, 2015).
power plant’s lifecycle (Singh et al., 2015). Negative emissions are Biochar Biochar used for providing soil Biological
achieved when biomass is used as a feedstock for energy production and nutrients as well as a carbon Biotic
is coupled with captured CO2 from biomass-based processes in an inte sink.
grated process known as Bio-energy and CO2 capture and storage/uti Biomass energy Power generation using Geological
and biomass feedstock followed by Pressurised
lisation (BECCS/U) (Dowd et al., 2015; Gough and Upham, 2010). Such carbon capture CO2 capture from flue gases for
systems, which have received widespread attention by the research and subsequent geological storage.
community and policy making experts in terms of viability and feasi storage
bility are described further in the proceeding text. (BECCS)
Enhanced CO2 absorption from the Non-
weathering atmosphere and its dissolution biological Non-
1.1. Why BECCS and its potential into oceans and oils (Gough Mineralised biological
et al., 2018). Indirect
Bioenergy production is considered a neutral carbon technology, Ocean liming ( The oxides of Ca and Mg Non-
Fuss et al., present in the ocean increase biological
where the carbon released during energy conversion is considered to
2018) the absorption of atmospheric Oceanic
have been previously absorbed by biomass during photosynthesis. CO2.
Hence, the CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere during photosynthesis is Direct air capture The capture of CO2 directly Geological
released ‘back’ during energy conversion. The BECCS concept is related (DAC) from air using chemicals and Pressurised
to the collection of CO2 from industry generation points and stored at other methods and its storage (
Gough et al., 2018).
different geological locations to attain negative emissions (Pour, 2019).
2
Table 2
Global Status of BECCS (Detz and van der Zwaan, 2019).
Project Status Year Country Industry Scale Capacity (t/ Storage type
yr)
Illinois Industrial Operational 2017 USA Ethanol production Large 1,000,000 Geological storage
scale
Arkalon CO2 Compression Operational 2009 USA Ethanol production Small 290,000 EOR
Facility scale
Bonanza Bioenergy CCS Operational 2012 USA Ethanol production Small 100,000 EOR
scale
Husky Energy CO2 Operational 2012 Canada Ethanol production Small 90,000 EOR
Injection scale
Farnsworth Operational 2005 USA Ethanol Production 600,000 EOR
Occidental/White Energy In evaluation TBC USA Ethanol production Large 700,000 EOR
scale
Mikawa Power Plant Development 2020 Japan Power generation (coal and Pilot 180,000 Ongoing identification of an offshore
planning biomass) scale storage site
Drax Power Plant Development 2018 UK Power generation (coal and Small 330 Not determined yet
planning biomass) scale
Full-Chain CCS Advanced 2023- Norway Large 800,000 Geological storage
development 2024 scale
(Consoli, 2019; Detz and van der Zwaan, 2019). Amongst these facilities, • National and international policy: type of policy, national laws and
the Illinois Industrial project is the only large-scale plant to produce incentives, global policies related to biomass and energy trade, and
ethanol from corn. This project can eliminate 1 MtCO2/yr through environmental regulations (How et al., 2019).
geological storage. The other three BECCS operating plants are small
scale projects and are also based on ethanol production. However, they As highlighted by Gough and Upham (2010), BECCS is a
use the CO2 collected for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) practices. Table 2 multi-dimensional concept involving the potential of bio-energy coupled
summarises these projects and their features (Detz and van der Zwaan, with CCS (CO2 capture, transportation, and storage capacity). Read
2019). Notably, CO2 can also be utilised in many applications, mainly in et al. (2008) developed the concept of Biosphere Carbon Stock Man
chemical production, hydrocarbons, materials used for construction, agement (BCSM) based on the development of de-fossilisation technol
and plastics. The CO2 utilised in the aforementioned applications was ogies with the simultaneous development of biomass-based energy in a
estimated to an amount of 545 MtCO2/yr in 2015 and can rise to 14 closed cycle, which not only captures the CO2 produced from bio-based
GtCO2/year in 2050, estimated based on the potential growth of the energy, it also has a negligible effect on the environment as illustrated by
circular carbon economy and consequently demand for CO2 (Detz and the carbon balance in Fig. 1. Considering that CCS is an integral
van der Zwaan, 2019). Detz and van der Zwaan (2019) highlighted the component of the BECCS system, various studies have evaluated the
potential for CO2 in achieving net negative emissions by 2050 within effectiveness and utilisation of these systems. For instance, Selma et al.
BECCS systems and determined that there is a potential to achieve (2014) concluded that techno-economic factors, public perception, and
negative emissions amounting to 2 GtCO2/yr. social dimensions are very relevant issues. As highlighted in Table 3,
The BECCS concept is based on multiple parameters involving most BECCS reviews focus on: (a) biomass energy and CCS (Batidzirai
various technologies, biomass feedstocks, social and business impacts, et al., 2012; Fridahl and Lehtveer, 2018; Smeets et al., 2007); (b) carbon
national and international policies and regulations as summarised below capture and storage processes and issues (Boot-Handford et al., 2014;
(Pour et al., 2017): Gough and Upham, 2010; Pires et al., 2011; Pour et al., 2017); (c)
captured CO2 conversion methods (Kemper, 2015); (d) public percep
• Biomass resources: biomass types, available quantity, geographical tion and social issues regarding BECCS (Dütschke et al., 2016; Selma
location, property analysis (chemical composition and heating et al., 2014); (e) review on the overall opportunity of BECCS and barriers
value), supply chain, seasonal availability, and cost of transportation (Gough and Upham, 2010; Stavrakas et al., 2018); (f) overview of
and storage (Claude et al., 2016; How et al., 2019; Pour et al., 2017). research priorities (Stavrakas et al., 2018). Bellamy et al. (2021)
• Biomass conversion technologies: processes such as gasification, com reviewed the incentives required to enhance BECCS systems considering
bustion (Cherubini et al., 2011), pyrolysis, and liquefaction, energy the UK and Sweden as case studies. Muratori et al. (2020) reviewed the
and economic efficiency, technology maturity, and product type and potential of the BECCS systems in achieving climate targets. The
quality (Chan et al., 2019; How et al., 2019). development and implementation of BECCS systems requires the intri
• Carbon dioxide capture and storage: CO2 capture process, efficiency, cate design of national and international supply chains for its various
storage method and capacity, cost of the process and safety param constituting and interrelated components through both technology and
eters (Molino et al., 2016) (Selma et al., 2014; Stavrakas et al., 2018). policy (Xu et al., 2021), which will be further elaborated on in this study.
• CO2 conversion technologies: processes for CO2 conversion, efficiency From the above discussion and considering the published reviews, it
and maturity of the process (Claude et al., 2016; Kemper, 2015; can be deduced that the combustion and gasification process has been in
Markusson et al., 2011; Pour et al., 2017). focus within BECCS studies, whilst liquefaction and pyrolysis processes
• Products: type of products (fuel, electricity), cost, supply process, have not been discussed extensively. Furthermore, the technology
efficiency, and comparability with fossil fuel-based products (How readiness level (TRL) of various technologies within the BECCS config
et al., 2019; Pour et al., 2017). urations is also important to consider. Therefore, there is a need to
• Socio-economics: product lifecycle costs and market value, job crea further elaborate on the TRL of biomass conversion technologies,
tion, carbon credit and global trade, social parameters such as BECCS including the gasification, combustion, pyrolysis and liquefaction pro
culture (Dowd et al., 2015), awareness, and recycling habits cesses, and the coupling suitability with CCS technologies. It is also
(Dütschke et al., 2016; Fridahl and Lehtveer, 2018). noted that the lifecycle of CO2 emissions within BECCS configurations
• Environmental issues: deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, cer has not been studied extensively across the spectrum of technologies,
tificates of renewable energy, and particulate emissions and life cycle although this an important factor within BECCS systems as it is the main
assessment (Kemper, 2015; Singh et al., 2011). driver for negative emissions. As such, This review focuses on the
3
Fig. 1. Carbon balance for fossil fuels and biofuel with and without CCS.
solutions for conversion technologies. It also includes a review of CCS

Table 3
technologies that can be integrated within BECCS systems in terms of
The major review’s publication in BECCS.
technical maturity and the CO2 emissions cycle for different technolo
References Key areas of review studies gies within BECCS. In addition, the role of BECCS in achieving CO2
(Gough and Upham, Describes biomass potential, CCS technologies, gasification, neutrality, bio-energy trade, enabling polices, challenges, and barriers
2011) combustion, and socio-economic issues. are also discussed. The outcomes of this review can provide vital in
(Selma et al., 2014) Reviews CSC technologies, storage capacities, economics,
formation to researchers and policymakers and support them in identi
technological development, and public perception.
(Creutzig et al., Discusses the deployment of BECCS, its mitigation potential fying suitable technologies and systems in terms of environmental and
2015) and effect on climate change. economic characteristics.The structure of this review is presented in
(Kemper, 2015) Summarises the Biomass-CCS technologies in the light of the Fig. 2.
IPCC 4th and 5th assessment reports (AR4 and AR5).
(Stavrakas et al., Policy-driven review is discussing technology priorities and
2. Thermochemical conversion process
2018) issues between policymakers, investors and end-users.
(Gambhir et al., Critical discussion on integrated assessment models for
2019) BECCS. Thermochemical conversion processes convert biomass into valuable
(Köberle, 2019) Discusses IAMS models for BECCS with a focus on supply products such as biochar, syngas, heat, electricity, bio-oil, and green oil
chains.
(Shahbaz et al., 2020c). This contrasts with biochemical biomass pro
(Bellamy et al., A brief discussion on the incentives required for the
2021) implementation of BECCS. cessing that utilise microorganisms and enzymes for energy production
(Muratori et al., An evaluation of BECCS systems towards achieving long term (Shahbaz et al., 2020a). Thermochemical processing has various ad
2020) climate change targets. vantages over biochemical processing, such as: lower purification re
quirements than is needed in biochemical processing; the ability for
catalyst recycling; lower catalysts costs; higher feedstock flexibility;
thermochemical conversion technologies for BECCS, with the following
variety in fuel production; and reduced reaction times (Brown, 2019;
objectives: a thorough and critical review of the TRL of biomass con
Vispute and Huber, 2008). In thermochemical conversions, the most
versation technologies (combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, and lique
important processes are combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, and lique
faction), in which the potential of pyrolysis and liquefaction process for
faction, which are enabling technologies for BECCS, the advantages and
BECCS are highlighted for the first time. Furthermore, this review ac
disadvantages for each technology is reviewed below.
centuates an analysis of the benefits and challenges, and possible
Fig. 2. Thermochemical conversion process prospects in BECCS development.
4
2.1. Combustion neutral society. The introduction of BECCS in combustion is techni

cally viable as CCS has been implemented successfully for coal and
Combustion is one of the major processes used for the conversion of natural gas plants (Wang et al., 2017). In this regard, Pour et al. (2017)
energy into electricity and is a major source of thermal energy in in demonstrated a BECCS model for the combustion of municipal solid
dustry (Osman et al., 2017). In combustion, carbon-based materials, waste (MSW) for electricity production with the integration of CCS and
especially coal, are burned in air, releasing heat and emitting relatively reported that 0.7 kg CO2 was removed from one kg of MSW combusted.
large amounts of CO2 into the environment (Fan et al., 2021; Shahbaz In comparison with coal based power plants, the cost of electricity
et al., 2020a). The thermal efficiency of the power plant is very low, generation could be less by considering renewable energy certificates.
although it remains popular due to the abundant availability of coal and The most widely used method for CO2 capture is post combustion with
its cheap price. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), coal membrane separation (Luis and Van der Bruggen, 2013), adsorption
provides approximately 27.1% of the total world’s energy supply and (Creamer and Gao, 2016), and absorption (Wang et al., 2015). Later
contributes to approximately 44% of CO2 emissions in the range of chemical looping combustion and combined heat and power have
0.34-0.39 kgCO2/kWh, accounting for the highest specific emissions emerged to enhance the economic feasibility of the process (Chen et al.,
amongst other energy sources (Birol, 2019). Consequently, it is of high 2018; Peltola et al., 2020; Rajabi et al., 2019). Most post-combustion
importance to curb CO2 emissions within this pathway because new coal CO2 capture processes are technically mature and are used to a
power plants continue to be installed worldwide for power production. reasonable extent in power plants (Ghiat et al., 2021a).
In this regard, the capture of CO2 has the potential to reduce 90% of CO2 Moldenhauer et al. (2018) investigated the application of magne
emissions at the cost of 10-12% of the process’ efficiency (Tapia et al., sium ore in a biomass combustion process within a 300W circulating
2018). The reduction of CO2 emissions from coal power plants is fluidised bed in the chemical looping cycle (CLC) process. Later, Keller
possible; although it requires a capital investment, it will significantly et al. (2019) performed a techno-economic study of a CLC based BECCS
reduce global CO2 emissions. The energy from biomass is available in process with Japanese biomass up to 50 MWth production, and reported
quantities in the range of 200-700 EJ/yr, and is considered as a CO2 that the use of CLC saved about 17% of the total cost of the BECCS
neutral source of energy that can be coupled with CCS to activate process per ton of CO2 captured. The CLC process has been tested on a
negative emissions (Kemper, 2015; Shahbaz et al., 2017a). Moreover, practical basis on 12 units with a capacity of 0.3-140 kW for different
the conversion of CO2 into value-added products supports the notion of a fuel types such as biomass coal and natural gas (Boot-Handford et al.,
‘circular economy’. Therefore, the introduction of storage and utilisation 2014). In Nanjing, China, the CLC process was successfully tested for one
of biogenic CO2 from combustion can contribute significantly to sus kW and 10 kW for coal-biomass firing by using Fe2O3 and NiO respec
tainable energy technologies and circular economy strategies. tively (Boot-Handford et al., 2014; Shen et al., 2009). The combined
The combustion process is mainly used for electricity production in heat and power (CHP) with cooling and heating appeared to be a major
power plants, whereas, in industry, it is used for many purposes such as breakthrough in the combustion process for BECCS. Through an energy
heat generation for industrial applications, drying, pre-heating, post- analysis, Maraver et al. (2013) highlight the opportunities for small and
heating, steam generation using boilers. For this purpose, coal and other medium level CHP systems for biomass combustion as illustrated in
types of locally available biomass have been used. Whilst, this tech Fig. 3 by considering commercially available technologies. This
nology is very mature, the main challenges are associated with its effi poly-generation type of process is more beneficial for BECCS based
ciency and CO2 emissions. The utilisation of biomass in power plants and combustion systems already in commercial operation. The TRL of BECCS
industrial boilers has already been initiated by many industries that use based combustion is a commercial process, for instance steam and heat
biomass alone or in combination with coal for power production, which production for lignocellulosic biomass (CSLF, 2018). The first successful
supports overall CO2 emission reduction. In Malaysia, many oil pro BECCS system based on combustion is operated in the United Kingdom
cessing mills use the palm oil waste for combustion to produce steam by the Drax power station in North Yorkshire using biomass and cap
and electricity to fulfil the domestic needs of the mills, which not only tures one ton CO2/day (CSLF, 2018; Hammond and Spargo, 2014). The
enhances the economy of the process, it also unlocks carbon-neutral second example is the Mikawa Post Combustion Capture Demonstration
processes (Abdullah and Sulaiman, 2013; Samiran et al., 2016). In Plant in Japan, which is based on the co-combustion of coal and biomass
addition, biomass is also used for combustion in clay brick for power production and captures 180,000 CO2 annually (CSLF, 2018;
manufacturing, rubber glove industries, kernel crushing mills, and Saito et al., 2014). Although combustion technology is well established
cement companies in Malaysia (Dit, 2007). According to a case study, a for BECCS applications, further research and development is needed to
cement company, Lafarge Malayan Cement Bhd., about 0.94 ton of CO2 make this process more economically feasible as the CLC process is
emissions were reduced by using per ton of biomass instead of fossils developed (Keller et al., 2019). The CLC process can provide improve
fuels, which can generate certified emission reduction (CER) credits to ments by avoiding the large costs and energy load requirements required
the company (Dit, 2007). Saidur et al. (2011) reviewed the utilisation of for gas separation. Although this system has been tested at small scale,
biomass as boiler fuel and provided a comprehensive discussion on the there remains a large gap in the upscaling of this process. As such,
advantages, available technologies (issues and barriers) with the further research is needed to design and optimise process parameters for
example use of various types of biomass alone or combined with coal. It the deployment of this system at a larger scale (Boot-Handford et al.,
was reported that CO2 emissions are less for biomass (about 1525 g/kg) 2014). In addition, conversion of captured CO2 into valuable products
as compared to coal (2085 g/kg) for boiler combustion (Mohan, 2007). (carbon capture and utilisation) is an important extension of BECCS
According to a report by Peake. (2018) on renewable energy and power systems in order to enhance the economics and feasibility of BECCS
for a sustainable future, CO2 emissions from various feedstock is much processes and CO2 capture technologies.
lower as compared to natural gas and coal (Peake, 2018). It is evident
from the above discussion that biomass as a feedstock is already used by 2.2. Gasification
various industries, and when in use emits lower CO2 emissions as
compared to coal. Gasification of biomass has been an ongoing research endeavour
Evidently, the utilisation of biomass alone instead of fossil fuels has since the last quarter of the last century for the production of fuel and
considerable potential for CO2 reduction, noting that available tech other chemicals (Chan et al., 2019; Molino et al., 2016). In the gasifi
nology is sufficiently mature enough to process the biomass. Further cation process, the biomass is thermally decomposed at elevated tem
more, adopting CO2 capture and storage systems enables a CO2 negative peratures with a controlled amount of oxidising agent(s) such as steam,
process, supporting economic benefits for industry and social benefits air, and O2 (known as gasifying agents) into a mixture of gases known as
such as carbon credits/certificates and progress towards a carbon- syngas (AlNouss et al., 2020; Shahbaz et al., 2017b). The product array
5
Fig. 3. Biomass combustion process for energy production.
consists of a mixture of gases (H2, CO, CO2, CH4, and N2) that depend involved, although issues related to process safety and high-pressure
upon the use of gasifying agents, type of gasifier and many other oper costs remain.
ating process conditions such as temperature, equivalence ratio (ER), iii Use of solid adsorbents is beneficial in the adsorption of gases at
feedstock type, feedstock moisture level, fuel particle size, and catalyst higher temperatures such as dolomite etc. However, this method
(Inayat et al., 2020b; Shahbaz et al., 2019a). Three types of gasifiers and draws issues related to the durability of adsorbent materails and heat
agents are primarily used in gasification, each with its own benefits and management (Shahbaz et al., 2017c).
disadvantages (Parthasarathy et al., 2021; Shahbaz et al., 2019b). The iv Chemical looping process; Oxy-combustion and gasification without
fluidised bed gasifier has many advantages such as uniform heat transfer an O2 plant is a potential low-cost option for near-zero emissions.
and mixing, high conversion biomass to gas and suitability for However, this process remains at the pilot-scale level (Stavrakas
large-scale production (Chan et al., 2019; Puig-Arnavat et al., 2010; et al., 2018).
Shahbaz et al., 2016). Moreover, the fixed bed gasifier is applicable for
small scale and biomass with low ash and moisture content (Basu, 2018; The gasification process has been implemented within BECCS sys
Chan et al., 2019). The third is the entrained flow gasifier, which is tems as reported in the literature (Koornneef et al., 2013) as listed
unsuitable for biomass use, although it is used for coal that has high below:
efficiency for large scale production (Basu, 2018; Chan et al., 2019).
Whereas, in the case of the gasification agent, steam is useful to produce A Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) (Gough and Upham,
a higher H2 content syngas, and is favourable for both small and large 2010; Kemper, 2015).
scale systems and leads to gaseous mixtures dominated by more than 60 B Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC) (Mølnvik
vol.% of H2 and less CO2 and methane products (Shahbaz et al., 2017d). et al., 2013).
Whereas air is beneficial for small scale and lab-scale gasifiers. The C Bio-ethanol and bio-diesel based generation advanced generation
product gas mostly consists of N2, CO, and H2 content is in the range of (Clausen et al., 2010; Naqvi et al., 2012).
5-40 vol.% (Chan et al., 2019; Li et al., 2009). The use of catalysts is very D Biodiesel synthesis from gasification and the Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
important in the gasification process because it directly affects the process (Stavrakas et al., 2018).
product composition and leads towards the desired product, and enables
the capture of CO2 (Shahbaz et al., 2020b; Shahbaz et al., 2020d). Some The IGCC technologies (also known as BIGCC) are found to be more
review articles have described different types of catalysts and their effect feasible for electricity generation in terms of cost and efficiency as re
on the gasification process (Shahbaz et al., 2017c). The main product of ported by many researchers as illustrated in Fig. 4 (Johansson et al.,
gasification is the mixture of gases that can be used as direct fuel and can 2012; Kemper, 2015; Koornneef et al., 2012; Laude et al., 2011). The use
be converted into many useful fuel products such as H2 (main compo of BECCS confirms that the cost can compete with that of coal-based
nent of ammonia and urea) (Shahbaz et al., 2017d), synthetic natural energy by considering the cost of (Emissions Trading Scheme) ETS
gas (SNG) through methanation (Zhang, 2010), diesel, jet fuel, gasoline certificates as 48-55 €/ton of CO2 (176-202 €/ton of C) and 65-76 €/ton
using Fischer-Tropsch (FT) diesel process (AlNouss et al., 2019), and of CO2 (238-278€/ton of C) for the case without capture and with cap
methanol, ethanol and dimethyl ether (DME) synthesis (Naqvi et al., ture respectively (Gough and Upham, 2010; Laude et al., 2011). In
2012; Naqvi et al., 2010). Gasification is one of the important methods addition, it has been estimated that the IGCC and BIGCC processes can
for the conversion of biomass into fuel and with practical and com store about 10 GtCO2/yr, and in the case of bio-diesel and SNG pro
mercial implementation (Ahmad et al., 2016). In the case of BECCS, the duction about 6 and 2.7 GtCO2 annually (Koornneef et al., 2012;
gasification process is distinct amongst other processes as it can replace Koornneef et al., 2013). The economic benefits by considering the cost
coal-based power plants with biomass for heat and power. In addition to are 70-250 $/ton of CO2 (McLaren, 2012).
the production of gaseous fuels that are usually produced from natural Many studies have evaluated the potential of BECCS using the gasi
gas without any major modifications in the existing plant and supply fication process with the integration of CO2 removal and capture facil
chain infrastructure established for the supply of both natural gas and ities (Ghiat et al., 2021b; Laude et al., 2011). Rhodes et al. (2005)
liquid natural gas (LNG) (Carbo et al., 2011). Furthermore, the CO2 developed a biomass-based IGCC system with the production of steam
separation in the gasification process can be accomplished through and found that the cost of electricity is 0.082 $/kWh with the mitigation
various means as detailed below: of 140 gC/kWh and about 44% CO2 capture rate. Later, Uddin et al.
(2007) proposed a combined heat and power (CHP) system with 200
i Use of solvents such as organic amines and alkalis to separate the kgC mitigation for a 200MW plant with an 85% capture rate. Kraxner
CO2 from flue gases at low temperature and high efficiency, albeit et al. (2003) present a scenario that has a 90 % capture rate with 2.5 ton
with a high regeneration cost. of C.year/ha. The gasification technology has matured and is ready for
ii Use of membrane separation as a simple and easy separation method commercialisation in the case of BECCS and CHP. Many ongoing BECCS
with the post-combustion process. No chemical reactions are projects are using the gasification process for synthetic natural gas
6
Fig. 4. Integrated biomass gasification-combustion (IGCC) and a combined heat and power (CHP) system (a) full process flow diagram and (b) detailed process flow
diagram of gasification block.
(SNG) and ethanol production. In 1980, the Dakota Project in the USA 2015; Loy et al., 2018). The pyrolysis process is used primarily for bio-oil
for SNG production via the gasification process in which one metric and biochar production for different applications (Pradhan et al., 2020).
ton/year of CO2 is captured and stored in Canada for enhanced oil re Pyrolysis is a widely adopted process within bioenergy systems,
covery (EOR). Göteborg Energy and E.ON accomplished milestone for although it is not as prevalent within BECCS systems compared to other
Bio-SNG commercialisation a with a capacity of 20 MWth in 2012 processes because CO2 capture technology has not been integrated with
reaching 80 MWth SNG capacity (Carbo et al., 2011). In Norway, a CCS the pyrolysis process. In the last three decades, researchers have focused
system was installed using a biomass/waste gasification system. The on biochar (solid) and bio-oil (liquid) production from biomass due to its
system in operation is expected to reach approximately 800,000 ton/yr renewability and carbon-neutrality (Onyango, 2014). Biochar is the
in 2023-2024. Later, many BECCS pilot scale projects have emerged product obtained through slow pyrolysis. Approximately half of the
such as the co-venture of Biorecro and Energy and Environmental carbon can be converted into porous and stable carbon, whilst the
Research Center (EERC) of University of North Dakota, Biorecro/EERC remainder is converted into bio-oil and gases (Abdelaal et al., 2020;
project, Contrat de plan État-région (CPER) Artenay project, and Sohi et al., 2009). Biochar is used as a soil conditioner and is a leading
Bonanza BioEnergy project of carbon dioxide utilisation (CCUS) and source of carbon mitigation means, according to a study, about 3 Gt/yr
storage and Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) (Birol, 2019; Brad Page, of biomass can be converted into biochar that can mitigate about 0.75
2019). In conclusion, CHP and IGCC with CO2 capture are ready for use GtC or 2.75 GtCO2 per year till 2050 (Caldecott et al., 2015). In addition,
with the addition of incentives such as carbon credits and renewable about 80% of carbon equating to about 2.2 Gt/yr can be stored
energy certificates. In addition, further research and technology devel permanently, whilst the remaining can be used for bioenergy (Lehmann
opment is also required to enhance the further economic feasibility of et al., 2009; Roberts et al., 2010). This will become a permanent soil
the process, such as gasification with CO2 capture. conditioner, whereby 200 GtC of biochar can be stored as a soil coor
dinator in crop lands (Lenton, 2010). In both cases; biochar as a soil rich
2.3. Pyrolysis component with slow-release and permanent storage represents a po
tential option for BECCS as the release of CO2 per unit of char is very
Pyrolysis is the process of thermally treating organic compounds in low.
an inert atmosphere that produces solid (biochar), liquid (bio-oil) and Bio-oil is the second product of pyrolysis and can be upgraded to bio-
gaseous fuels (Chan et al., 2019). The product array (primary or diesel and other conventional fuels that can replace the conventional
by-product) is based on parameters such as pyro-temperature, particle components and reduce CO2 emissions (Patel and Kumar, 2016; Saidur
size, residence time, heating rate, and catalyst used (Naqvi et al., 2019; et al., 2011). Many countries have taken various initiatives to utilise
Saidur et al., 2011). Bio-oil and biochar are the major products due to waste for bio-oil and biochar production. In Malaysia, palm oil waste
operational temperatures in the range of 400-600◦ C (Awalludin et al., (Mazaheri et al., 2010a,) (Mazaheri et al., 2010b) and rice husks (Naqvi
7
et al., 2014) have been used for bio-oil production (Herman et al., 2016) process provides direct mitigation of CO2, which is a necessary compo
at both pilot and lab-scale (Halim and Swithenbank, 2016). The third nent of the BECCS systems. Continued research and development of
most important product is gas production. It can be concluded that the pyrolysis-BECCS systems to improve the yield of the pyrolysis process
pyrolysis process is currently in operation at an industrial scale for all will further support the commercialisation of such systems.
three types of pyrolysis products. Bio-oil, biochar, and gaseous pro
duction system coupled with CO2 capture can lead to a highly CO2
negative and poly-generation process. The commercial plants are on 2.4. Liquefaction
medium scale, currently operating at a range of 40-180 ton/day for
bio-oil, and gas production in Japan, Canada, Malaysia, and Germany Liquefaction is a process where biomass is thermally treated at
(Kan et al., 2016). There are many processes in which pyrolysis liquid higher temperatures and pressures to ensure the propagation of the re
fuels can be converted into transport fuels through various pathways, action is only in a liquid medium without removing the moisture
and the integration of CCS technology could be a worthwhile option for (Behrendt et al., 2008; Chan et al., 2019; Huang and Yuan, 2015). Two
BECCS (Brown, 2019; Sánchez-Reinoso et al., 2020). types of liquefaction processes exist; direct liquefaction and hydrother
The pyrolysis process can also be used for the production of bio- mal liquefaction (Behrendt et al., 2008; Demirbas, 2009). This process
diesel and for power generation, as illustrated in Fig. 5. As reported in requires a solvent such as water, as illustrated in Fig. 7. The biomass is
the literature, the typical cost of bio-oil is 1.49-3.69 $/gal (Brown, decomposed into different fractions, called bio-oil or liquid fuel frag
2019). In addition, the use of catalysts in the pyrolysis process is ments, through various reaction mechanisms such as dehydration,
important to enhance the yield. The use of catalysts is practical in both polymerisation, de-polymerisation, oxidation, and isomerisation (Kang
in-situ and ex-situ pyrolysis processes, as depicted in Fig. 6. The cost of et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2017). Liquefaction has attracted widespread
bio-oil is reported in the range of 4.20-4.27 $/gal for in-situ and ex-situ interest in the last two decades due to its benefits, such as hydrothermal
configurations. liquefaction, which is advantageous over pyrolysis because it eliminates
With regard to the technical residence level of the pyrolysis tech the drying process, which conserves energy and minimises the overall
nology, the production of biochar and bio-oil is at the full-scale com cost of the process (Wu et al., 2018). In addition, from a BECCS
mercial level, although the challenges include product quality, cost, and perspective, there are no CO2 emissions associated with this process
process efficiency. The pyrolysis process is not well known for gaseous contrary to the drying process. The liquefaction process has been
products such as H2, although it has recently been considered in poly- extensively studied on the lab-scale level to determine the optimum
generation systems because pyrolysis provides additional products in operating conditions and maximise fuel production (Aysu and Küçük,
the form of gas, oil and biochar thus providing additional cost benefits 2013; Chan et al., 2019; Liu and Zhang, 2008; Yip et al., 2009). In the
(Chen et al., 2021). The main challenges are catalyst sintering, lack of last decade, process parameters were investigated for liquefaction pro
awareness to use bio-oil, and separation technology of biochar from cesses such as temperature, heating rate, biomass particle size, solvent
bio-oil (Chan et al., 2019). The future prospectuses are the use of bio-oil and catalyst, loading ratio, and most importantly pressure (Akhtar and
and biochar as a fertiliser in addition to fuel production (Meier and Faix, Amin, 2011; Brand et al., 2014; Dimitriadis and Bezergianni, 2017),
1999). In the case of BECCS, by considering all aspects and problems noting that most studies involved lab-scale level systems (Aysu et al.,
such as cost, soil availability, global and domestic policies, a scenario 2016; Aysu and Küçük, 2013). In the lab scale, bio-oil production was
developed for CO2 mitigation results in negative emissions of 2.2 between 13.2-80% of bio-oil with the remainder as gaseous fuel (Hassan
GtCO2/yr (Caldecott et al., 2015). It can be concluded that the pyrolysis et al., 2014; Mazaheri et al., 2010a), (Mazaheri et al., 2010b) (Mazaheri
et al., 2010c). Whereas, in the case of direct liquefaction, the hydrogen
Fig. 5. Pyrolysis process for bio-oil and biochar production and upgrading to fuels.
8
Fig. 6. Catalytic pyrolysis process.
Fig. 7. Liquefaction process flow sheet for fuel production.
yield was found in the range of 2-81.2 mol/gC reacted for different process. The mitigation of CO2 using the liquefaction process is
biomass at elevated temperatures compared to hydro-liquefaction addressed by the following:
(Azadi et al., 2012; Byrd et al., 2011; Kıpçak et al., 2011; Lee and
Ihm, 2009). The operating cost of the liquefaction process is reported to 1 Conversion of biomass into a valuable liquid fuel (bio-oil) without
be similar to fast pyrolysis. However, it requires a higher capital in removing moisture can replace fossil fuel-based oils.
vestment due to the difference in biomass conversion and liquefaction 2 No pre-treatment required, which reduces the process cost, time, and
pressures. Biomass liquefaction costs range between 2.52-4.44 $/gal associated CO2 emissions.
based on the technology level (Brown, 2019). 3 The introduction of thermochemical liquefaction enables gaseous
Liquefaction is an important process within BECCS systems as the fuel production, which enhances its marketable products.
capture of CO2 is not necessarily relevant due to the nature of the
9
Many researchers have reviewed the challenges and limitations of methanol etc. The use of biomass in gasification with CCU/S can
the liquefaction process, which has only been implemented on lab-scale result in negative CO2 emission products.
and pre-pilot scales (Chan et al., 2019; Demirbas, 2009; Elliott et al., 3 Liquid product bio-oil: biochar and bio-oil are the major components
2015). The major change required is to adopt a continuous batch process of pyrolysis and liquefaction. These products can be converted into
for better economic performance (Elliott et al., 2015). The most fully commercial quality products such as gasoline, diesel, and
important aspect for commercialisation is the engineering design and ethanol as illustrated in Fig. 8. The upgrading of bio-oil involves
operational activities. Tran et al. (2016a) highlighted the engineering gasification and other processes, as illustrated in Fig. 8. Brown et al.
challenges and suggested that the plug flow reactor design is useful (2019) presented a cost analysis of many fuel upgrading systems
technology. For this process, high transportation costs and product from biomass through gasification and other techniques as detailed
branding are barriers to economic feasibility (Chan et al., 2019; Demi in Table 5.
rbas, 2009). It can be concluded that whilst the liquefaction process
remains in lab-scale, continued research and development is required to The application of biochar has been traditionally used as a soil
accelerate commercialisation. In future, it can represent a vital compo amendment strategy. However, it is very useful in agro-industries, which
nent of the BECCS process, which produces liquid fuels and eliminates supports the removal of carbon from the atmosphere and into the soil
CO2 emissions, the economic and environmental benefits of which can (Xu et al., 2016). Biochar is a useful value-added product or by-product
be evaluated using tools such as life cycle assessment (Dong et al., 2018; of the thermochemical processes detailed above gasification (Duku
Yuan and Eden, 2015). et al., 2011), pyrolysis (slow, intermediate, and fast pyrolysis) (Bridg
The TRL is a point-based framework system used to understand the water, 2012), and combustion (Kumar and Gupta, 2009). The biochar
technical status of a process or technology from the idea generation/ quality, quantity (yield), and distribution of other products and ther
concept to the full commercialisation for which output products are sold mochemical processes are highly dependent on its conditions (Qam
in the market and used by consumers (Nakamura et al., 2013; Rybicka brani et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2020). Recently, many studies have
et al., 2016). This TRL framework is point based system which ranges reported the importance and utilisation of biochar as a soil enhancer
from 1-9 in acceding order and describes the technical maturity (Con (Agegnehu et al., 2015). Typically, biochar is enriched with carbon (C
row, 2011). The points are divided into three stages lab-scale (1-3), 65-90%) (Qambrani et al., 2017) besides carbon, hydrogen (H), oxygen
pilot-scale (4-6), and commercial-scale (6-9) commercial plant or fully (O), and inorganic elements (K, Ca, Na, P) are also present in biochar
industrialised (Rybicka et al., 2016). The TRL for each technology rep while, nitrogen (N) and sulphur (S) are found as trace elements (Cha
resenting BECCS and BECCU/S systems is provided in Table 4. Some of et al., 2016). Continuous leaching of soil nutrients through the water
the individual technologies have higher TRLs as compared to the overall affects soil fertility by increasing the cation exchange capacity (CEC).
BECCS system as illustrated in Table 4. (Gough et al., 2018; Gough and Biochar also controls nutrient leaching and maintains the natural nu
Upham, 2010). trients or soil fertility. The soil CEC can be increased by using pyrolysis
biochar. Furthermore, biochar contains significant amounts of nutrients,
such as N, K, and P; thus it maintains the soil’s NPK amount and im
2.5. Thermochemical conversion products
proves soil fertility (Sohi et al., 2009). The cost of biochar production is
directly related to feedstock costs, production technique, and trans
This section discusses the products of thermochemical conversion
portation (Chen, L. et al., 2018). According to Sorensen et al. (2018), the
processes, upgrading products, and associated economic performance.
cost of biochar production is approximately 150-260 $/ton and depends
Gasification and combustion are well known for power and gaseous fuel
on the type of feedstock, noting that it is less for agricultural biomass as
generation, whereas pyrolysis and liquefaction are used for the pro
compared to wastewater sewage and poultry. By contrast, biochar from
duction of chars and liquid fuels. Many studies have reported different
waste wood and bagasse range between 150-260 $/ton (Sorensen and
process configurations and their diversified array of products. The pre
Lamb, 2018). Other researchers estimate the cost to range from 0-2000
cision of techno-economic and environmental analyses are based on
$/ton depending on location, pyrolysis expenses, feedstock, and other
data availability, with uncertainty reaching up to 30% due to the risk
production costs although the average cost is 350 $/ton (Kulyk, 2012;
considerations related to the new technologies (Brown, 2019). The most
Sorensen and Lamb, 2018).
important products and applications of the thermochemical conversions
The use of biochar has the potential for CO2 mitigation. It has been
process as described below.
determined that biochar production from forest residue and biomass
produced a smaller global warming potential (GWP) than direct burning
1 Power and electricity: heat and electricity are the major products of
(Puettmann et al., 2020). Puettmann et al. (2020) examined the envi
combustion and gasification (Brown, 2019). The production of heat
ronmental impact of biochar produced from forest residues using an
and electricity from biomass can be a CO2 neutral process. The
air-curtain burner and Oregon Kiln. The GWP are 0.25-0.31 CO2eq/ton
integration of CO2 capture and utilisation makes the process CO2
using biochar solutions incorporated (BSI) system, whereas for Oregon
negative.
Kiln and Air-curtain burner are 0.11 CO2eq/ton and 0.16 CO2eq/ton
2 Hydrogen and syngas: hydrogen and syngas are the major products
respectively. Zhang et al. (2019) reviewed the potential negative im
of the gasification process that can be directly used as a fuel or used
pacts of biochar applications and highlighted potential contamination
as feedstock for many chemical products such as ammonia, urea and
Table 4
Technical residence level of thermochemical conversion technologies for BECCS.
Technology BECCS BECCU/S References
Product TRL with CCS Products TRL with CCS/U
Combustion Heat, Electricity Commercial - - (Boot-Handford et al., 2014; CSLF, 2018)

Gasification Syngas, heat Commercial Ethanol, bio-diesel. Demonstrated (Clausen et al., 2010; Gough and Upham, 2010; Kemper, 2015; Mølnvik
electricity EOR, commercial et al., 2013; Stavrakas et al., 2018)
Pyrolysis Biochar, bio-oil, Commercial Biochar Commercial

syngas coordinator,
Liquefaction Bio-oil Lab-Pilots - - (Aysu and Küçük, 2013; Liu and Zhang, 2008)
scale
10
Fig. 8. Pyrolysis process for fuel productions.
kgCO2eq/ton feedstock for switchgrass (Gaunt and Lehmann, 2008;

Table 5
Roberts et al., 2010). Bartocci et al. (2016) performed a life cycle
Cost analysis of biomass conversion into products.
analysis for biochar production and found that biochar in the soil con
Capital cost (US Electricity cost (US tributes to 50% of the total negative emissions of the process. One tone
$/kW) $/kWh)
of Miscanthus biomass was considered in this study as the unit system,
Gasification to power 1600 0.05 and total negative emissions of -737 kgCO2eq/ton were achieved when
Pyrolysis (Lignocol) to 1200 0.088
-0.81 kgCO2eq/kg from biochar was used. The use of a biochar can
power
Pyrolysis to power 0.08 provide -368 kg CO2eq/ton or feedstock dried as a carbon sink by using
Direct combustion to 600 0.075 biochar as soil (Bartocci et al., 2016). According to an estimate, the 0.5
power to 1.7 PgC/yr can be converted into elemental C (a form of biochar) that
Capital cost Operating cost Product can be used as a sink for atmospheric CO2 (Lal, 2016). Table 6 sum
(US$ million) (US$ million) cost
(US$)
marises the emission potential of different thermochemical processes.
Gasification and 103 18.2 $2.80/kg
fermentation to PHA PHA 3. Carbon capture approaches, technologies, and utilisation
with co-product H2
Gasification to FTL 341 50.8 $1.45/gal
Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) has gained significant traction
Gasification to mixed 137 34.9 $1.01/gal
alcohols as a climate change mitigation scenario by providing a solution for CO2
Gasification to methanol 224 60.6 $0.70/gal removal and its conversion into valuable products such as chemicals and
Gasification to hydrogen 282 52.1 $0.29/gal fuels (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015). Moreover, the production of
Direct liquefaction 424 158 $2.57/gal chemicals from CO2 has advantages over that from petrochemicals, as it
Bio-oil fermentation to 69 39.2 $1.57/gal
can be considered as a renewable source, cheaper and less harmful
ethanol
Bio-oil gasification to 4029 852 $1.55/gal (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015; Tapia et al., 2018). The CCS and
liquid fuels CCU frameworks comprise of the capture of CO2 from the source point,
Fast pyrolysis and hydro- 287 109 $3.09/gal its compression and transport to the sink point to be either stored or
processing
utilised. The different pathways for CCS and CCU are listed in Fig. 9
(Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015).
from biochar, negative alterations of soil biota, negative effect on soil
properties, biochar migration, and impact of biochar on GHG emissions.
The carbon negative emission is reported in the range of (442-1248-
11
Table 6
The potential of different thermochemical processes.
Process Feedstock Function Scope GHG Net energy value (NEV) Ref.
Unit
Pyrolysis and hydroprocessing (gasoline) Forest residue 1 km, 1 MJ Cradle-to- 117 g/km 1.09MJ/km (Hsu, 2012)
grave
Pyrolysis and hydroprocessing (diesel) Forest residue 1 km, 1 MJ Cradle-to- 98 g/km 0.92 MJ/km (Hsu, 2012)
grave
Pyrolysis and hydrogenation (diesel) Whole trees, 1 MJ Well-to- 35.4 to 42.3 1.55 and 1.90 (Wong et al.,
forest wheel gCO2eq/MJ 2016)
and
agriculture
HTL and hydroprocessing (diesel) Microalgae 1 MJ Well-to- − 11.4 gCO2eq/MJ 1.23 (Bennion et al.,
pump 2015)
Pyrolysis and hydroprocessing (diesel) Microalgae 1 MJ Well-to- 210 gCO2eq/MJ 2.27 (Bennion et al.,
pump 2015)
IBGCC with CO2 removal Energy crop 1 MJ Cradle-to- 178 kg/MWh 0.296 (Carpentieri
grave et al., 2005)
Gasification to hydrogen Waste 1 MJ Cradle-to- 140000-160000 4.2 TJ per TJ of hydrogen (Koroneos et al.,
(biomass–gasification–electricity–electrolysis) biomass grate kgCO2eq/TJ H2 2008)
from cotton,
olive, rice,
corn
Gasification to hydrogen (biomass–gasification–steam Waste 1 MJ Cradle-to- 20000-40000 2.4 TJ per TJ of hydrogen (Koroneos et al.,
reforming–PSA) biomass grate kgCO2eq/TJ H2 2008)
from cotton,
olive, rice,
corn
HTL for bio-oil production Oil palm 1 kg Cradle-to- 2.29 kgCO2eq per 1.92 MJ for (Chan et al.,
biomass grate litre of bio-oil transportation and 2016)
heating
0.53 kWh for electricity
3.1. CO2 capture approaches C + H2 O → H2 + CO (2)
There are three main approaches for carbon capture, namely, pre- CO + H2 O →CO2 + H2 (3)
combustion, post-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion. The type of
fuel used, the CO2 concentration and pressure of the stream to be treated Biomass and natural gas can also be reformed to produce syngas, and
are essential criteria to select the most viable and efficient technology the amount of H2 produced can also be increased by the water-gas shift
for carbon capture (Olajire, 2010). While post-combustion is a beneficial reaction. The steam reforming reaction converts the CH4 into CO and H2
approach to be used for low CO2 concentration streams, pre-combustion by means of an endothermic reaction that occurs at approximately
is used for processes with high CO2 concentration streams (Anwar et al., 700◦ C to 850◦ C. Following this, an exothermic reaction associated with
2018). The post-combustion approach is considered as the most mature partial oxidation enables the transformation of CH4 to CO2 Equation 4
technology and it can be implemented for coal and gas-fired power and (5) (Anwar et al., 2018).
plants, whilst the pre-combustion system is more suitable for coal CH4 + H2 O→CO + 3H2 (4)
gasified power plants (Leung et al., 2014). The post-combustion system
is considered a relatively easier approach to implement as a retrofitting 2CH4 + O2 → CO2 + 4H2 (5)
option in current power plants due to the possibility of installing
post-combustion systems in existing plants. However, the 3.1.2. Post-combustion
pre-combustion and oxyfuel combustion systems require unique con The post-combustion system captures carbon post syngas combus
figurations and can only be integrated with newly built power plants tion and prior to the release of emissions into the atmosphere as illus
(Aghaie et al., 2018). These approaches are also applicable and have trated in Fig. 10b. This approach has been implemented in many natural
potential for biomass-based plants for energy production without any gas-fired power plants (Anwar et al., 2018). Furthermore, this technol
modification. ogy can easily be integrated with power plants and does not require
substantial configurational modifications or pre-arrangements as
3.1.1. Pre-combustion compared to the other carbon removal systems. One additional advan
The pre-combustion system is characterised by removing the CO2 tage of this technology is the ease at which process parameters can be
prior to the combustion of the gas as illustrated in Fig. 10a. This removal regulated without interrupting the main operation of the power plant as
system is applicable for high carbon concentration streams, typically it is implemented at the final stage of the processing system (Ben-
higher than 20% of the total volume Leung et al., 2014). This system is Mansour et al., 2016). This process is equally useful for gasification and
characterised by first gasifying the fuel with a controlled quantity of combustion-based power plants operating with coal or biomass.
air/oxygen or steam. Gasification is a partial oxidation reaction that
generates syngas, mainly CO and H2. Later, the reaction products are 3.1.3. Oxy-fuel combustion
then fed into a catalytic reactor along with steam, where a water-gas In this system, an air separation unit is utilised to detach N2 from O2
shift reaction takes place. This reaction enables the CO to react with prior to combustion. Oxygen is then fed to an oxy-fuel boiler along with
H2 and produce CO2 and more H2 (Equations 1-(3) (Anwar et al., 2018). fuel to produce syngas that is only composed of carbon and water due to
At this stage, the CO2 is captured and H2 can be utilised to power gas the prior separation of nitrogen as illustrated in Fig. 10c. The CO2 is
turbines or combined cycles, fuel cells, gas boilers, etc (Olajire, 2010). separated from water without the need to desulphurise and remove NOx
2C + O2 + H2 O → H2 + CO + CO2 (1) components from the syngas, which represents the main advantage of
12
Fig. 9. Listed option of CCU and CCUS options and their TRL (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015).
this system (Anwar et al., 2018). The CO2 in the flue gas is available in solvent. For physical absorption, a physical solvent such as dimethyl
high concentrations, approximately 80% to 98% based on the type of ether of polyethene glycol (DPEG) absorbs the CO2, leaving out the other
fuel fed (Leung et al., 2014). Subsequently, the separated water is gases because of their low solubility as compared to CO2. Liquid ab
condensed and resent to the boiler. A part of the flue gas is recycled in sorption is more economically feasible for low CO2 concentration
the boiler to maintain the required operating temperature. However, streams, contrary to solid absorption, demonstrating lower costs for high
this technology is still confronted with several challenges, principally CO2 concentration streams (Zhang et al., 2020). A solvent absorbs the
associated with the high energetic load needed for oxygen separation CO2 for liquid absorption and strips it out following a set of chemical
(Anwar et al., 2018). The air separation unit can lead to an intensive reactions. The solvent can then be regenerated and reused again after
energy cost that might be increased by 7% compared to a power plant either a heating or depressurising process depending on the solvent
without a carbon capture system (Leung et al., 2014). used. The most used solvents are Monoethanolamine (MEA), Dieth
anolamine (DEA), Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA), Diglycol-amine
(DGA), and potassium carbonate, etc., (Leung et al., 2014; Samanta
3.2. CO2 Capture technologies et al., 2012). The reactions of MEA or DEA with CO2 are characterised by
high reaction rates, in which a zwitterion is first formed and reacts with
Several carbon capture separation methods have been studied in the CO2 forming a proton (Eq. 6). This later reacts with the amine producing
literature, some of which have been successfully implemented into a carbonate (Eq. 7), which then reacts with water forming bicarbonate
small- or large-scale power plants. The choice of the carbon capture and a free amine (Eq. 8). As for MDEA and tertiary amines, they have
separation method directly depends on the plant’s economic cost and relatively low reaction rates with CO2 as compared to other primary or
operational parameters, along with the status and gas composition of the secondary amines (Eq. 9) (El Hadri et al., 2017).
flue stream to be treated. These methods are further discussed in the
R1 R2 NH + CO2 ↔ R1 R2 NH + COO− (6)
paragraphs below, and their advantages and disadvantages are sum
marised in Table 7 (Leung et al., 2014).
R1 R2 NH + R1 R2 NH + COO− ↔ R1 R2 NH + + R1 R2 NCOO− (7)
3.2.1. Absorption
R1 R2 NCOO− + H2 O ↔ R1 R2 NH + HCO−3 (8)
The absorption method is considered as the most mature approach
for CO2 removal. Absorption can be based on a liquid, solid or hybrid
13
Fig. 10. CO2 capture options (a) pre-combustion, (b) post-combustion and (c) oxy-fuel combustion (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015).
R1 R2 R3 + CO2 + H2 O ↔ R1 R2 R3 NH + + HCO−3 (9) alternative to amine-based solvents, with the aim of reaching competi
tive efficiencies. The application of chemical absorption by piperazine
MEA has been proven to be the most efficient amine-based solvent promoted potassium carbonate in a biomass based power plant, and
thus far, achieving more than 90% CO2 removal rates (Leung et al.,
concluded an overall energy efficiency of 43.8%, as reported by Ghiat
2014). It is used in the form of an aqueous solution with an MEA con et al. (2020a).
centration of 20% to 30% wt. However, the main issue related to MEA is
the energy intensive requirements needed during the regeneration of the 3.2.2. Adsorption
solvent. For example, a study demonstrated that integrating a carbon
Adsorption is a process where CO2 adheres to a solid surface sorbent
capture system based on chemical absorption using MEA with a such as zeolites, activated carbon, lithium zirconate, hydrotalcite, and
coal-based power plant can reduce electricity costs up to 80% (Samanta
calcium oxides (Leung et al., 2014). The term adsorption refers to the
et al., 2012). Amine based solvents also pose some other environmental adhesion of a substance to a surface. Contrary to absorption, this process
and technical issues related to the solvent degradation with increased
happens at the surface level rather than the bulk level (Ben-Mansour
temperatures resulting in the reduction of the regenerated solvent, et al., 2016). The choice of the ideal adsorbent depends on many aspects
equipment corrosion, and noxious emissions to the environment. The
principally related to the volume of CO2 to be removed, kinetics, the
use of minerals-based absorption process can address the above issues. adsorbent’s pore size and structure, etc. The most used physical
For instance, potassium carbonate has been studied as a potential
14
Table 7 oxygen (Yang et al., 2008). The metal oxide and the fuel undergo a
Advantages and disadvantages of carbon separation methods. reduction and oxidation respectively, generating water and CO2. The
Carbon Advantages Disadvantages water is then easily separated from the CO2 by condensation without
separation extensive energy requirements. Moreover, the metal can be oxidised and
methods regenerated for reuse. Metal oxides used in this application involve
Absorption -High CO2 removal rate (90%). -Energy-intensive small particles such as FeO3, CuO, NiO, and Mn2O3 (Leung et al., 2014).
-Maturity of the technology. regeneration process. The chemical looping process provides CO2 capture for waste to energy
-Solvent regeneration by TSA -Noxious environmental processes with economic aspects (Haaf et al., 2020).
or PSA. impacts due to solvent
degradation.
Adsorption -High CO2 removal rate (85%) -Energy-intensive desorption 3.2.5. Cryogenic distillation
-Recycling of the absorbent process. The cryogenic distillation method consists of separating a gas from
Membrane -Clean gas after fuel oxidation -Unsuitable for low CO2 the other components through the difference in phase change between
separation (only water and CO2). concentrations.
them, whereby the substance to be separated is liquefied or solidified
-No regeneration needed. -Potential sensitivity to some
-Modular system. components (ie. Sulphur). and removed from the mixture. This method requires a multicomponent
Chemical -High CO2 removal rate (80%). -No large-scale plant is phase diagram of CO2 and the other available substances in the gas to be
looping -Able to remove other gases. available yet. treated, in which the freezing zone of CO2 is determined (White et al.,
Cryogenic -High CO2 removal rate and -High energy requirements. 2003). The system operates by first pre-cooling the flue gas, then further
distillation purity.
-Mature technology.
cooling is applied by a heat exchanger. The gas is then sent to the
Hydrate-based -Low energy requirements. -New technology. distillation column, comprising of several trays or stages, and CO2 is
separation -Use of non-hazardous and non- -Appropriate for high CO2 collected from the bottom stage of the column (Song et al., 2019). This
toxic materials. concentrations. separation approach is best suited for flue gases present at high pressures
-Large storage capacity.
and can be applied to pre-combustion or oxy-fuel combustion systems.
-Ability to remove other
components (i.e: Sulphur). Similarly, it can also be used for gasification process that utilise biomass
-High pressure CO2 collected as a feedstock. Cryogenic distillation has shown a great potential for
(omitting CO2 compression for applications with liquid CO2 production (White et al., 2003). Moreover,
storage). this approach can reach higher CO2 capture efficiencies as compared to
other methods, reaching 99.99% along with a CO2 purity of 99.99%
adsorbent is zeolite has a micro-porous structure (Anwar et al., 2018). (Song et al., 2019). However, one of the main challenges of this sepa
The CO2 fixed on the solid sorbent can then be stripped either by tem ration method is the presence of water with CO2, which can pose a
perature or pressure swing adsorption techniques, whereby either serious problem of blockage, inhibiting CO2 from freezing. Hence, water
pressure or temperature are increased after adsorption to desorb the CO2 needs to be removed before the cryogenic cooling phase, which entails a
(Leung et al., 2014). The calcium carbonate is a cheap adsorbent and large energy penalty (White et al., 2003). Integrating this separation
studied for in-situ and ex-situ processes in the gasification process (Khan approach with a power plant can lead to a 50% increase in the overall
et al. 2019; Shahbaz et al., 2017b). One of the main advantages of this operating cost. Advancements in this separation technology are ongoing
method is the low energy requirements needed for sorbent regeneration, with prospects to propose new cryogenic systems that eliminate the
high capacity of adsorption, good sorbent stability and durability water blockage issue and improve the system’s energetic and exergetic
(Ben-Mansour et al., 2016). efficiencies. Systems such as cyclic or reactive distillation, and heat in
tegrated columns have been proposed to improve the technical perfor
3.2.3. Membrane separation mance of this technology (Song et al., 2019).
Selective semi-permeable membranes can be used to separate CO2
from a stream. The working principle behind this process is the filtration 3.2.6. Hydrate-based separation
of one or more substances through a selective membrane and the gen Hydrate-based separation of CO2 entails exposing the flue gas to
eration of a particular permeate. These membranes can be organic and water at high pressures, through which CO2 can easily form hydrates
made from a polymeric material, or inorganic such as carbon, ceramic, with water as compared to the other gases due to their distinct phase
zeolite or metallic materials. The choice of the type of membrane is equilibrium. One of the main advantages of this separation method is the
based on its permeability and selectivity. Membrane separation has low energy requirements ranging around 0.57 kWh/kg of CO2 captured
some benefits over the other separation methods, such as absorption and (Leung et al., 2014). This system is more applicable for pre-combustion
adsorption, because no energy is required for regeneration, and it is technology than post-combustion because of the relatively high CO2
adaptive for integration with other systems (Olajire, 2010). However, concentration and the high pressure of the gas, which supports the hy
one of the problems faced by this method is the condition of the flue gas drate formation. In contrast, the exhaust gas from the post-combustion
to be treated, where a low CO2 concentration and low pressure are technology needs to undergo extra processing, namely compression,
unfavourable and can lower the efficiency of the carbon removal system hence introducing more cost. Moreover, this separation approach has
(Leung et al., 2014). Other problems stemming from this method are other technical, environmental, and economic advantages. The mate
related to the occasional low separation levels, which necessitate the rials used are non-hazardous and non-toxic, the system encompasses a
implementation of a multi-stage arrangement for the system and the large storage capacity, it can capture sulphur based-components without
sensitivity of the membrane to certain substances such as sulphur having to implement additional processes for desulphurisation, and
(Olajire, 2010). For example, in a coal-based power plant, implementing finally the CO2 is collected at high pressures which eliminate any further
a multi-stage structure helped reach a system’s efficiency of 90% for the compression before storage or sequestration and its associates costs
separation of CO2 with 95% purity (Anwar et al., 2018). (Babu et al., 2015).
A suite of technologies for CO2 capture, transport, storage, and uti
3.2.4. Chemical looping lisation continues to be developed as they typically progress in a series of
The concept of chemical looping is similar to oxy-fuel combustion, scale-up steps: (1) bench or laboratory scale, (2) pilot-scale, (3)
where a metal oxide replaces the oxygen introduced with the fuel and demonstration scale, and lastly (4) commercial scale. Bui et al. (2018)
acts as an oxygen carrier (Leung et al., 2014). This process is also known detailed the latest technological progress of various CCUS pathways
as unmixed combustion because it omits the direct contact of fuel with along with their respective TRL’s. The various CO2 capture methods and
separation technologies depend on multiple process and technology
15
aspects, namely the type of CO2 source, the quantity and composition of Table 8
the flue stream, the point of emissions, the commercial viability in terms Technology readiness level (TRL) of CO2 conversion technologies (Alper and
of technological maturity (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015). Yuksel Orhan, 2017).
TRL Laboratory bench- pilot Demonstration plant Full industrial
plant scale (Applied R (Emerging) production
3.3. CO2 Conversion technologies for BECCS/U system & D) (Mature)
Chemical Carboxylic acid • Fuels, including • Salicylic acid

Carbon dioxide is utilised in a wide range of industrial processes. The
•
• Lactone synthesis DME • Cyclic
use of CO2 is evident in the petroleum sector and chemical industries, • Organic carbonates • CO2 hydrogenation carbonate
food production and the food sector, i.e. the processing of beverages • Isocyanates to formic acid • Methanol
(Al-Yaeeshi et al., 2019). There are two different usage types reported in • Dry reforming • Urea
• CO2 based polymers
the literature: captive (integrated process) and non-captive. Captive
processes use CO2 in the supply chain as an intermediary commodity,
and do not require CO2 from external sources. Alternatively, non-captive exhaust gas that is emitted to the atmosphere and should be considered
CO2 is used as an external source in processes where CO2 is needed. as avoided by accounting for a mitigation cost for CO2 capture and
Non-captive CO2 is therefore also called merchant CO2. It is exchanged storage depending on the different fuels used at the source as described
between markets, and is in reality, the form of CO2 whose demand could in Table 10 (Huang and Tan, 2014; Metz et al., 2005). Biomass plants are
increase. CO2 can be used in many manufacturing processes as a feed currently only available at a small in scale (< 100 MWe). Consequently,
stock or as an additive. The most popular physical implementation ways the resulting CO2 capture costs are comparatively high compared to
of use are in pest control, solid carbon dioxide snow applications, me fossil alternatives. For example, in a 24 MWe biomass IGCC plant, the
chanical processes chemical analysis, wastewater treatment, green capture of 0.19 MtCO2 per yr is estimated to be approximately 82 $/ton
houses, beverage processing, enhanced oil and gas recovery, and as CO2 (300 $/tonC), corresponding to an increase in electricity costs of
firefighting foam, coolant or cryogenic agent, blanket or inert gas, or approximately 80$ per MWh due to the CO2 capture process (Huang and
cleaning agent. The total consumption of non-captive CO2 is approxi Tan, 2013).
mated at 80 megatons per annum (Mt/a) (Schüwer et al., 2015a). A brief
overview of the amounts utilised in different processes is illustrated in 4. The way forward for BECCS
Fig. 11.
CO2 is a carbon source for the many carbon-based chemicals pro The CCS segment of BECCS technologies requires large investment
duced, such as CH4, CH3OH, etc, which can replace oil and gas primary throughout the project phases from development to implementation and
sources. However, there is debate around the practicality of CO2 uti maintenance. One of the main issues related to CCS deployment is the
lisation in terms of industrial-scale implementation and the extent of the relatively new aspect of the technology and lack of prior and long-
market potential. The chemicals that can be made from CO2 have established experiences mostly in underdeveloped and developing
commercial use such as methanol, urea and Dimethyl carbonate (DMC) countries, in which banks appropriate high risks thus increasing the cost.
(Boot-Handford et al., 2014). For instance, CO2 is an unlimited resource Moreover, policy and commercial incentives are necessary to promote
for currently existing mature technologies, and various valuable chem CCS systems. Therefore, supporting decisions such as carbon credits,
icals such as methanol, ammonia, Dimethyl Ether (DME) with a carbon tax, allocating grants, state-owned enterprises (SOE) have sup
reasonable profit as depicted in Table 8 (Alper and Yuksel Orhan, 2017). ported the implementation of CCS projects in operation (Brad Page,
Whereas some emerging technologies are near commercialisation such 2019). For instance, the Illinois Industrial project received a financial
as dry reforming and DME production (Alper and Yuksel Orhan, 2017). support of 140 million dollars from the US Department of Energy, and is
The conversion of CO2 into many chemicals with their CO2 mitiga achieved 20 $/ton of CO2 as carbon credit (Pour, 2019). The cost of the
tion ability in addition to their global demand and market value is BECCS system varies between 15 to 400 $/ton of CO2 depending on the
provided given in Table 9 (Huang and Tan, 2014). type of industry from which the CO2 is captured. For instance, the cost of
The main components within a system that captures and stores/ BECCS from biomass gasification ranges between 30-76 $/ton of CO2
utilises carbon dioxide (CCS/U) are available commercially in one form and from biomass combustion, the range is between 88-288 $/ton of
or another. However, only a few are commercialised in fully integrated CO2 (Consoli, 2019). The implementation of BECCS technology is
CCS/U systems (Rubin, 2006). The CO2 captured is separated from the
Fig. 11. The share of CO2 utilised in different processes (Boot-Handford et al., 2014; Schüwer et al., 2015a).
16
Table 9 allocated for food production, however, it may affect biodiversity.

Mitigation ability of different CO2 conversion approaches with their global Although, biomass wastes can be made available for BECCS operations,
demand. there remains unresolved challenges related to the lack of aggregated
Product Reaction Potential Market Ref. logistics, and certainty of feedstock hence increasing the costs and
of CO2 scale operational uncertainties of this technology (Galik, 2020).
reduction (annual)
(ton CO2/
ton of
product)
4.1. Bioenergy and CO2 Trade for global BECCS deployment
Microalgae 1.8 Global (Huang and

The transportation of biomass and thus the trade of bio-energy trade
demand: Tan, 2014;
1,350 Mt Tan, 2013) between countries is possible as with other energy sources. However,
Market value: challenges for this resource include storage and transports costs, which
$22.2 billion is slightly higher due to the lower density and seasonal availability of
Urea 2NH3 + CO2 → 0.735-0.75 Global (Heffer and biomass (Bui et al., 2017; Shahbaz et al., 2020b). Several types of
[H2N-COO] production: Prud’homme,
[NH4] 198.4 MT 2013)
biomass (palm kernel shell, coconut shell, Empty fruit bunches
Market value: (pressed), and pellets have high densities, low moisture content, and
[H2N–COO] $59.5 billion high higher heating values that can be transported at very relative low
[NH4] → cost (Proskurina et al., 2019). If BECCS systems are to be commercial on
NH2CONH2 +
a global level and form part of the global energy trade, biomass supply
H2O
Polycarbonate CO2 + 0.5 Global (Tan, 2013) chains should be competitive and integrate treatment processes such as;
Propylene demand: 3.6 densification, drying, and production of pellets (CSLF, 2018).
Oxide → Mt In 2006, the international biomass trade was 0.9 EJ (direct) and 0.6
Polyether Market value: EJ (indirect) and is increasing rapidly (Heinimö and Junginger, 2009).
carbonate $14.4 billion
Methanol CO2 + 3H2 → 1.375 Global (Huang and
In comparison, this trade magnitude is very low compared to the uti
CH3OH + H2O production: Tan, 2014) lisation of energy within biomass equivalent to 50 EJ/year, which is
75 Mt mostly consumed locally (Heinimö and Junginger, 2009). In fact, the
Market value: potential for global energy trade by 2050 is estimated to be in the range
$36 billion
of 80-150 EJ in 2050 (Hansson et al., 2006). Proskurina et al. (2019)
Dimethyl 2CH3OH + 1.457 Global (Tan, 2013)
Carbonate CO2 → (CH3O) demand: 0.24 detailed the trade of important biomass and biofuels, including the
(DMC) 2CO + H2O Mt production and consumption origin through a detailed geographical
R1R2(OMe)2 Market value: representation of the trade routes. The most important biomass and
+ CO2 → DMC $280 million biofuel types traded are pellets, palm oil, ethanol, run wood, charcoal,
+ R1OR2
and biodiesel, etc. The production of Pallets has increased from 14.2 to
R1OR2 +
2MeOH → 28.2 Mt from 2010 to 2015, whilst the international trade was 15.6 Mt
R1R2(OMe)2 (Proskurina et al., 2019; Thrän et al., 2017). The global forest residue
+ H2O production is about 14281 Mt, and the major producer are Russia
Dimethyl CO2 + 3H2 → 1.913 Global (Tan, 2013)
(5718Mt), Indonesia (2218Mt), the USA (2078Mt), Brazil (1613 Mt),
Ether CH3OH + H2O demand: 6.3
(DME) 2CH3OH → Mt
and China is (873Mt). The other major countries are northern and
CH3OCH3 + Market value: Nordic European countries and India (Tripathi et al., 2019). The ma
H2O $3.2 billion jority of agricultural residue from important crops such as wheat, rice,
CO2 + H2 → palm oil, maize, soya bean, rapeseed oil and sugarcane are primarily
CO + H2O
produced in China, India, USA, South America and South-East Asia
produced about 3287 Mt (Bentsen and Felby, 2010; Tripathi et al.,
further challenged by certain socio-economic, environmental and bio 2019). USA, EU, Ukraine, Canada and Russia used 79% of total world
physical obstacles. For instance, the cultivation and use of biomass for wood pellets for energy and heating purposes. The EU produced 35% of
energy and industrial purposes compete with food systems for land and its consumption of pellets locally and imported the remainder from
water resources (Muscat et al., 2019). This poses a significant concern North America especially from Canada (Heinimö and Junginger, 2009;
for food security by potentially increasing food prices. This challenge Lamers et al., 2015). Japan and South Korea are also imported 4 and 3
can be mitigated by using biomass crops that directly compete with food Mt solid biomass waste to fulfil their energy demand (Lamers et al.,
crops such as sugarcane, corn, and waste biomass. Furthermore, biomass 2015). Lamers et al. (2015) mapped the solid biomass trade made be
can be cultivated in peripheral and degraded lands, distinct from lands tween Europe, USA, South Korea and Japan (importer) and southeast
Asia, South America, Canada, Russia, South Africa and Australia
Table 10
Cost of fuel production with and without CO2 capture and storage (Huang and Tan, 2014).
Without CCS With capture and geological storage With capture and enhanced oil recovery
Cost of electricity(US$ Cost of electricity(US$ Mitigation cost(US$/tCO2 Cost of electricity(US$ MWh-1)( Mitigation cost(US$/tCO2
MWh-1) MWh-1) avoided) Huang and Tan, 2014) avoided)
Integrated Coal 41-61 55-91 14-53 40-75 (-7)-31

Gasification
Combined
Cycle Power Plant
Natural Gas 31-50 43-77 38-91 37-70 19-68
Combined
Cycle Power Plant
Pulverised Coal 43-52 63-99 30-71 49-81 9 – 44
Power Plant
17
(exporter). The total global production of bioethanol is 91.5 Mt, mostly within an efficient framework (GCCUS, 2020). Some studies have been
produced in the USA and Brazil, whilst the main importers are EU, performed to evaluate the economic potential of BECCS supply chains
Japan, South Korea with the total trade volume as 70 Peta Joule(PJ) (d’Amore and Bezzo, 2017; Lainez-Aguirre et al., 2017). According to a
(Lamers et al., 2015; Renewable Fuels, 2016). Biodiesel is related to the study by Amore and Bezzo (2017), the estimated cost is between 27–38
vegetable oil trade. Malaysia and Indonesia have produced more than €/ton of CO2 for the European system by considering CO2 capture,
90% of Palm oil, which is exported to China, India, Pakistan, EU and the storage, and supply chains costs. It is important to note that the CO2
Middle East (Heinimö and Junginger, 2009; Heinimö et al., 2013). capture cost was 70% of the overall cost of CCS and transportation,
Matzenberger et al. (2015) studied the bioenergy trade considering the whereas transportation and sequestration cost was approximately only
biomass utilisation potential, regional cooperation, trade issues and 10% of total cost of the system (d’Amore and Bezzo, 2017). In the
estimated that the bioenergy trade will increase from 700 Mt to more follow-up study, the societal risks for CCS systems was assessed in terms
than 2,500 Mt by 2030. The European Union is committed to expanding of potential incidents, i.e. leakage, which can impact CCS adoption.
domestic utilisation of biomass based fuels, whilst exporting surplus Going forward, any societal risk factors and the lower cost of trans
biomass (Hoefnagels et al., 2014). For instance, Goh et al. (2014) portation as compared to the capture cost should be considered by policy
explored bioenergy scenarios for the Netherlands, including local and makers when planning for the implementation of international CO2
international trade. supply chain (d’Amore et al., 2018). A minimal investment in CO2
While many developing countries produce large quantities of transportation infrastructure can draw very rapid expansions of the
biomass waste, they lack in technology and infrastructure, whereas BECCS system internationally. Hetland et al. (2014) investigated the
developed countries are well equipped with the necessary technology, operational issues for CO2 transportation systems in three projects
although are challenged with biomass feedstock shortages (Foust et al., within Europe, namely Don Valley project (UK), Dutch ROAD project
2015; Souza et al., 2017). Within the biomass supply chain, the crucial (UK), and the Spanish Compostilla, and concluded that CO2 trans
parameters to enhance efficiency include: pre-treatment processes portation through pipes is very much possible by overcoming issues
(densification, drying), material loss, distance transportation, time, cost, related to restart and shutdown of operations in pipelines to ensure a
scale, and mode of operations. According to a study by Hamelinck et al. smooth and continuous flow. Munkejord et al. (2016) reviewed the re
(2005), the total cost of delivery of western biomass residue to Latin ported studies for CO2 transportation through pipes and ships and sug
America is approximately (70-90€/tdry or 3.7-4.7/GtHHV) and 40€/tdry gested that the transportation of CO2 is possible across the different parts
and 2.1€/GtHHV for the case of Latin biomass residue to Europe. The cost of the globe.
of electricity in western power plants using imported Latin biomass is Generally, countries can strategise where they can partake in the
3.5€cent/kwh, which is compatible with fossil fuel-based electricity BECCS supply chain, i.e., through importing and exporting biomass
costs. Whereas, the methanol produced in Latin America is available in feedstock or CO2. For instance, biomass feedstock trade can include raw
Europe at a cost of 8-10€/GJHHV (Hamelinck et al., 2005). The use of biomass residues such as rice husk, coconut shells, wheat straw, and
energy and emissions of CO2 in the supply chain are critical factors for wood in the form of pellets from South and East Asia, Africa and Europe
carbon neutrality. The CO2 emission is approximately 2-9 kgCO2/GJ, or and can produce energy and other products (biochar, fertiliser, meth
7-32 kg/MWh for Latin and European biomass, which is almost 90% less anol, and methane, etc). Middle-eastern countries, which are primarily
than fossil fuels, although in the case of energy, it is approximately driven by the petroleum sector for energy, especially those within the
1.25MJprimary/MJdelivered, which is slightly higher than coal equivalent Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are strategically located and can
to 1.0MJprimary/MJdelivered (Hamelinck et al., 2005). This demonstrates participate in different segments within the BECCS supply chains as they
that the trade of bioenergy is possible and profitable with more efficient have strong connectivity with Africa, South Asia and Europe. Considered
transportation and technology. one of the global hubs for fossil fuel-based energy since they contain
Captured CO2 can be transported to storage facilities within the 49.6 % of the world’s crude oil and 29.6% of the world’s natural gas
capture vicinity or across the globe through special trucks, pipelines, reserves, they produce, utilise and trade crude oil, petrol, diesel, natural
and ships (Styring et al., 2011). Incidentally, the IPCC estimates that the gas, liquid natural gas (LNG) and other derivative products (Al-Maa
global CCS potential representing a CO2 storage capacity of 500 GtC mary et al., 2017). Incidentally, in the light of growing demand for
(Azar et al., 2010). The CO2 is liquefied at ambient temperature and high energy, climate change, and the need to extend the life time of finite
pressure of 8Mpa to store for long periods of time and transport over resources, these GCC countries are introducing policies to increase the
long distances. In 2014, the transported capacity of CO2 via pipeline was share of renewable and alternative sources within the energy mix. By
150 MtCO2/yr using a pipeline of 6560 km (de Coninck and Benson, 2030, the GCC countries target renewable energy increases in the order
2014). The transport and storage of CO2 in to enable CCS storage may of Bahrain (5%), Kuwait (10%), Oman (10%), Qatar (20%). KSA (30%)
face some issues related to the safety of transportation infrastructure and and UAE (7%) (Chaichan et al. 2015).
location sites. Currently, the majority of major BECCS projects are The GCC countries can leverage the well established local hydro
located in ethanol fermentation plants, and half of these projects use CO2 carbon industry and its advanced infrastructure for the co-utilisation of
for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), thus highlighting the importance of biomass within existing systems and processes to produce existing
CO2-EOR as a driver for commercialising BECCS systems (CSLF, 2018). products as reported in many studies (Kazi et al., 2021; Kogbara et al.,
Carbon dioxide can be utilised in various applications within the pro 2020; Mazzoni et al., 2020). In addition, the bio-methane or SNG can be
duction of chemicals such as polymer, methane, ethanol, and methanol, produced from combustible and organic wastes and after compression
amongst others (Pour et al., 2017), in which the estimated potential for into bio liquefied natural gas (Bio-LNG) can be transported using
CO2 in these applications is 10, 1, and 176 Mt polymer, methanol, and existing LNG infrastructure (AlNouss et al., 2019; Aranda et al., 2014;
methane respectively (Schüwer et al., 2015b). Batidzirai et al., 2019; Ferella., 2015). Furthermore, the hydrocarbon
Noting that CO2 can be captured from various sources, transported to industry, which is a large source for CO2, can expand to integrate various
storage facilities and utilised within a specified jurisdiction, the suc capture technologies and utilise the captured CO2 to supplement the
cessful and efficient implementation of BECCS system is closely related production of various chemicals such as methanol, ethanol and
to the extent to which BECCS national and international chains operate ammonia. The GCC countries can play an important role within the
comprising of; CO2 source and capture system, transportation, storage, BECCS/U supply chain, either through exporting surplus CO2 to sup
and utilisation locally or across the border. The importance of which was plement international BECCS supply chains or by importing biomass to
recently exemplified in a “Global Chains of CO2 Capture, Utilisation and drive local national BECCS/U supply chains. Such decisions would be
Storage” conference held in China in December 2020, in which CO2 heavily influenced by market dynamics and logistical capacities. A
capture, cross border shipping, and utilisation methods were discussed further consideration would relate to leveraging existing energy routes
18
in the export of CO2 or if the situation would arise, import biomass. Table 11
However, an analysis of total local biomass potential would need to be Barriers and recommendations for BECCS commercialisation.
studied initially. Technologies Problems and barriers Recommendations & future
As such, deployment and commercialisation of BECCS systems can be prospects
sustained through transboundary supply chains in addition to those that Combustion • Emissions of heavy metals, • Integration of heavy metal
are only within local boundaries. Such mechanisms can create unex SOx and NOx (Jenkins et al., technology with the
plored markets for biomass and CO2, generate economic benefits, 2019). combustion process.
enhance carbon markets, and reduce environmental impacts through • Costly and less energy • Chemical looping combustor
efficient process (CLC) and other processes
compounded negative emission goals. • Process efficiency is still low should be investigated more
especially for high moisture to improve process
4.2. Technology barriers and recommendations content biomass. efficiency.
• Tested at the lab scale for
BECCS and requires to scale
The commercialisation of BECCS processes and realisation of BECCS
up (Boot-Handford et al.,
networks is driven by technical, social, and economic factors with 2014).
stakeholder engagement, including researchers, investors, industries, Gasification • Suitable and cheap, • Integration of more suitable
and governments. The technical issues and recommendations related to although the regeneration technologies for BECCS such
biofuel production along with carbon capture and storage are provided of catalysts still poses an as the IGCC and CHP.
issue for the product yield • Need further economic and
in Table 11. (Shahbaz et al., 2017c). LCA studies to support the
• Tar reduction and removal bio-refinery concept.
4.3. BECCS Network process requires research
and development (Inayat
et al., 2019).
The BECCS network encompasses various nodes and technologies
Pyrolysis • Low quality of bio-oil, up- • Increase the use of biochar as
and is highly dependent on the biomass source, transportation and plant gradation and low thermal soil conditioner, which is the
location as detailed below. stability (Hu and Gholiza natural remedy for CO2
deh, 2019; McKendry, sequestration.
i Biomass diversity and sources: although, biomass is widely available 2002). • No pilot and commercial
• Catalyst sintering, prior in study for BECCS available.
in many forms, there are issues related to its availability and sus usage of biochar and bio-oil • Need of techno-economical
tainability of supply, seasonal availability (Chan et al., 2019), se (Chan et al., 2019; Hu and and LCA studies.
lection of biomass dedicated for food and energy, geographic Gholizadeh, 2019). • Need of scale up
distribution, biomass-based energy crops are restricted by many • Coke formation and demonstration.
separation of bio-oil and
governments, storage of biomass on the source sites is costly, and
biochar technology is costly
biomass quality can be affected by weather (CSLF, 2018). (Hu and Gholizadeh, 2019).
ii Transportation: the cost and time of transportation of biomass are • Lack of research in the
major challenges for the commercialisation of BECCS. The main is integration of the process
sues related to biomass transportation are varying biomass proper with bio-oil up-gradation.
• Separation of CO2 from
ties, low density, moisture content, type and size, along with loading produced gases.
and unloading issues, lack of compression technologies on-site (Bui Liquefaction • Lab scale process, no • Requires further research to
et al., 2017). The cost/kg of biomass is high, which affects the overall continuous process optimise the system.
cost of the BECCS system. The operation of transportation can be cost available (Chan et al., 2019; • Up-scaling of the process
Elliott et al., 2015). with a continuous reactor.
and energy effective using new and developed technologies such as
• Process conditions and • Need of techno-economic
compression technologies, weather resistance systems and low-cost reactor configuration are and LCA studies.
methods and practices. not optimised for product • Good potential for BECCS for
iii Location: plants are usually far away from the source of biomass yield (Tran, 2016b). future prospectus.
which adds to the cost of transportation and reflects negatively on • Very limited type of biomass
tested.
the cost of the whole BECCS process. Moreover, most of the plants • No process integration and
operate on one type of biomass, which may inhibit year-round polygeneration (Elliott
operation due to the seasonality of the biomass production and et al., 2015).
lack of storage (Gough and Upham, 2010). BECCS systems should be CCS i. The processes of CO2 capture are well established with
i. Capture commercial viability with some still at the research or pilot stages
designed to operate on different types of biomass or blend different
ii. and are not commercialised yet due to the high process costs
biomass types. Many pilot plant projects demonstrated waste Transportation (Chrysostomidis et al., 2013; de Coninck and Benson, 2014).
biomass blending as a successful practice (Bui et al., 2017; Keller iii. Storage ii. The CO2 transported is 150 million ton CO2 per year but within a
et al., 2019). limited region. The transportation issues include the CO2
temperature, pressure, hydrate formation, and safety issues which
all induce high costs (Chrysostomidis et al., 2013; de Coninck and
Evidently, there are barriers for the large-scale commercialisation of Benson, 2014).
BECCS systems. As such, the choice of the components and technologies iii. The geographical storage capacity is not evenly distributed.
of the BECCS network should be carefully studied, such that the indus Problems associated with ocean and groundwater pollution and
trial products and processes are selected based on the type of biomass or the accumulation of CO2 with high pressures are also present.
Proper networking, investment and research is needed for safe
biomass blend to achieve an efficient, profitable and sustainable system
operations and full commercialisation (Chrysostomidis et al.,
aggregation. Some of the techno-economic–social and stakeholder in 2013; de Coninck and Benson, 2014; Kemper, 2015).
teractions are further detailed below.
4.4. Social system the globe to be reluctant to use bio-based energy products (Gough and
Upham, 2010; Köberle, 2019). The proper and effective marketing and
One of the most important factors affecting BECCS commercialisa awareness of bio-energy can provide substantial development for BECCS
tion is social awareness, which has seen less focus as compared to the systems (Creutzig et al., 2015). Governments should launch campaigns
other factors. Notably, there is a perceived reluctance from users around through media and other sources to support bio-fuel use and explain its
19
effect on climate and waste management. Schools and universities are investors should be interconnected to understand better the market
also a well-positioned platform that can provide short courses and demand in the long term (Ayuso et al., 2011; Foley et al., 2017), whilst
training programs for capacity building amongst students and employers investors, governments and researchers should collaborate to enhance
(Bui et al., 2017). green technologies, i.e. BECCS systems and contribute towards climate
change mitigation. Finally, end-user participation and satisfaction is key
4.5. Polices, laws, and global networking to the success of BECCS systems. The challenges related to commerci
alisation is given in Fig. 12.
There is a lack of policies and laws to support the commercialisation
of BECCS, and some existing laws and policies such as carbon taxing and 5. Conclusion
carbon credit are not fully conducive to the sector (Schüwer et al.,
2015c). As such, it is necessary to develop integrated frameworks and This review provides detailed compartmental insight and analysis on
policies to support biomass utilisation, carbon capture, carbon markets, BECCS systems with regard to previous and ongoing research and ex
biomass supply and inventory, subsidy on biofuels, forest protection, a plores the status and potential of thermochemical conversion processes
collaboration between industrialised countries and agro-based coun (combustion, gasification, pyrolysis and liquefaction) to integrate with
tries, and policies on energy trade should support bio-energy (Bui et al., CCS schemes to support CO2 mitigation. Furthermore, the technical level
2017). Decision-makers should enforce policies to encourage the public readiness for each BECCS constituting technology has been discussed in
and private sector to invest in CO2 mitigation actions and system net detail and highlighted throughout the review. Evidently, extensive ef
works. Moreover, policymakers should enhance the marketing and forts have been conducted to ensure that BECCS is an economically
branding of bio-fuels (Gough and Upham, 2010; How et al., 2019), and feasible technology whilst considering the total CO2 mitigation potential
more investments should be directed towards research and development and the efficient utilisation of CO2 and its by-products. In terms of
to enhance the technology. thermochemical conversion processes, combustion and gasification
processes are mature, and have the potential to be applied within BECCS
4.6. Economy and Cost systems to some extent successfully at a commercial scale. Furthermore,
the integration of CHP, BIGCC, and CLC processes with CCS demon
The high investment costs, low value of biomass utilisation and the strates that BECCS is ready for implementation as many pilot and
minimal involvement of small and medium scale enterprises due to high commercial projects are in the process of inception. For the case of py
capital costs are the main barriers for BECCS commercialisation (Bui rolysis, there is less focus on its integration within BECCS, although it
et al., 2017; Gough and Upham, 2010). The cost of biofuels is still not has a mitigation potential 2.2 GtCO2/yr by 2020-2050, and it is fully
fully able to compete with fossil-fuel-based energy prices. Hence, commercialised for the production biochar, which is used as a perma
cost-effective processes are required, and varied local and international nent C soil conditioner and the production of bio-oil. The main challenge
markets should be explored where oil prices are high. for pyrolysis is that it has not been previously been coupled with CCS
within BECCS systems as discussed for which the potential has been
4.7. Carbon Tax highlighted. The liquefaction process is relatively new and has been
tested only at lab scale and requires substantial more development for its
There exist two types of carbon pricing; carbon tax and cap-and- commercialisation and coupling with CCS, which makes it an important
trade. The carbon tax method revolves around a fixed price of carbon prospect for the implementation of the BECCS framework. A compre
for every ton of CO2 emitted (Xu et al., 2016). The cap-and-trade method hensive analysis of CCS methods has also been conducted, in which
consists of setting a limit to CO2 emissions over a given period (cap), and respective advantages and disadvantages and their potential for specific
enables companies to trade emission credits between them (He et al., process integration within the BECCS framework is highlighted.
2015). Governments are responsible for allocating permits to industries, Furthermore, CCS technologies and the possibilities of CO2 conversion
entailing the maximum level of emissions they are allowed to release. into value-added products to convert BECCS into BECCU/S has been
Current carbon prices vary immensely, from 1-139 $/ton CO2-e. How discussed. It also highlights the importance of international chains of
ever, there is a need for these prices to rise to the range of 40-80$/ton CO2 capture and storage (CCS) for bioenergy trade in the BECCS domain
CO2-e in order to attain the reduction target set in the Paris agreement. to provide a guideline for researchers and policymakers. In conclusion,
Currently, 25 countries still hold carbon prices below 25 $/ton CO2-e, effective collaboration between researchers, governments, and in
although some others are more willing to increase the prices, such as dustries, is necessary to overcome techno-economic-socio and stake
France, where carbon prices moved from 38 $/ton CO2 to 55m$/ton CO2 holder challenges, and for the successful implementation, deployment
(Bush, 2020). and optimisation of BECCS systems, along with its multi-nodal supply
chain, as part of efforts to move the energy sector towards carbon
4.8. Networking between stakeholders for commercialisation neutrality and then towards a negative emissions sector. Finally, the
outcomes of this review are useful for researchers in identifying research
The gap between stakeholders is a major barrier for the commerci gaps within BECCS studies and establish areas for further work. It can
alisation of BECCS systems due to the lack of confidence and non- also provide insight for commercial enterprises that are considering
commercial connectivity (How et al., 2019). The reinforcement of the investment decisions, in addition to national and international policy
representative entities within supply chains and eco-systems such as making institutions.
end-users, suppliers, investors, governments, and researchers will sup
port this technology’s rapid and sustainable development (How et al., Author Statement
2019; Pucci et al., 2018). From the research & development perspective,
researchers require the necessary technical information to perform Muhammad Shahbaz: Conceptualisation, Writing original draft,
comprehensive analyses and develop more robust models and tech Editing
niques to improve product quality and to lower costs. In addition, the Ahmed AlNouss: Conceptualisation, writing original draft
research and development also required for the integration of technol Ikhlas Ghiant: Conceptualisation, Writing original draft
ogies, supply chain, storage, and transportation of raw materials and Samar Elkhalifa: Writing original draft
products. More comprehensive eco-system representatives should Hamish Mackey: Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing
champion engineering and technical responsibilities, implement policies Gordon Mckay: Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing
and investment schemes to develop the industrial sector. Suppliers and Tareq A-Ansari: Conceptualisation, Writing - Review & Editing,
20
Fig. 12. Stakeholder coordination for BECCS Commercialisation.
Resources, Supervision, Project Administration Anwar, M.N., Fayyaz, A., Sohail, N.F., Khokhar, M.F., Baqar, M., Khan, W.D., Rasool, K.,
Rehan, M., Nizami, A.S., 2018. CO2 capture and storage: a way forward for
sustainable environment. J. Environ. Manage. 226, 131–144.
Declaration of Competing Interest Aranda, G., van der Drift, A., Smit, R.W., 2014. The Economy of Large Scale Biomass to
Substitute Natural Gas (bioSNG) Plants. ECN.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Awalludin, M.F., Sulaiman, O., Hashim, R., Nadhari, W.N.A.W.J.R., Reviews, S.E., 2015.
An overview of the oil palm industry in Malaysia and its waste utilization through
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence thermochemical conversion, specifically via liquefaction. Renewable Sustainable
the work reported in this paper. Energy Rev. 50, 1469–1484.
Aysu, T., Durak, H., Güner, S., Bengü, A.Ş., Esim, N., 2016. Bio-oil production via
catalytic pyrolysis of Anchusa azurea: effects of operating conditions on product
Acknowledgement yields and chromatographic characterization. Bioresour. Technol. 205, 7–14.
Aysu, T., Küçük, M.M., 2013. Liquefaction of giant fennel (Ferula orientalis L.) in
The authors would like to thank Hamad Bin Khalifa University for supercritical organic solvents: effects of liquefaction parameters on product yields
and character. J. Supercrit. Fluids 83, 104–123.
supporting this research. Open access funding provided by the Qatar Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M.Á., García-Castro, R., Ariño, M.Á., 2011. Does stakeholder
National Library, Qatar. engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? Industrial Management &
Data Systems.
Azadi, P., Khan, S., Strobel, F., Azadi, F., Farnood, R., 2012. Hydrogen production from
References cellulose, lignin, bark and model carbohydrates in supercritical water using nickel
and ruthenium catalysts. Appl. Catal. B 117-118, 330–338.
Abdelaal, A., Pradhan, S., AlNouss, A., Tong, Y., Al-Ansari, T., McKay, G., Mackey, H.R., Azar, C., Lindgren, K., Obersteiner, M., Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D.P., den Elzen, K.M.G.J.,
2020. The impact of pyrolysis conditions on orange peel biochar physicochemical Möllersten, K., Larson, E.D., 2010. The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets
properties for sandy soil. Waste Manag. Res. 1–10. and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Clim. Change
Abdullah, N., Sulaiman, F., 2013. The oil palm wastes in Malaysia, biomass now- 100 (1), 195–202.
sustainable growth and use. InTech. 1 (3), 75–93. Babu, P., Linga, P., Kumar, R., Englezos, P., 2015. A review of the hydrate based gas
Agegnehu, G., Bass, A.M., Nelson, P.N., Muirhead, B., Wright, G., Bird, M.I., 2015. separation (HBGS) process for carbon dioxide pre-combustion capture. Energy 85,
Biochar and biochar-compost as soil amendments: effects on peanut yield, soil 261–279.
properties and greenhouse gas emissions in tropical North Queensland, Australia. Bartocci, P., Bidini, G., Saputo, P., Fantozzi, F., 2016. Biochar pellet carbon footprint.
Agricult. Ecosyst. Environ. 213, 72–85. Chem. Eng. Trans. 50, 217–222.
Aghaie, M., Rezaei, N., Zendehboudi, S., 2018. A systematic review on CO2 capture with Basu, P., 2018. Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis and Torrefaction: Practical Design and
ionic liquids: Current status and future prospects. Renewable Sustainable Energy Theory. Academic press.
Rev. 96, 502–525. Batidzirai, B., Smeets, E.M.W., Faaij, A.P.C., 2012. Harmonising bioenergy resource
Ahmad, A.A., Zawawi, N.A., Kasim, F.H., Inayat, A., Khasri, A., 2016. Assessing the potentials-Methodological lessons from review of state of the art bioenergy potential
gasification performance of biomass: a review on biomass gasification process assessments. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 16 (9), 6598–6630.
conditions, optimization and economic evaluation. Renewable Sustainable Energy Batidzirai, B., Schotman, G.S., van der Spek, M.W., Junginger, M., Faaij, A.P.C., 2019.
Rev. 53, 1333–1347. Techno-economic performance of sustainable international bio-SNG production and
Akhtar, J., Amin, N.A.S., 2011. A review on process conditions for optimum bio-oil yield supply chains on short and longer term. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 13 (2), 325–357.
in hydrothermal liquefaction of biomass. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 15 (3), Behrendt, F., Neubauer, Y., Oevermann, M., Wilmes, B., Zobel, N., 2008. Direct
1615–1624. liquefaction of biomass. Chem. Eng. Technol. 31 (5), 667–677.
Al-Maamary, H.M.S., Kazem, H.A., Chaichan, M.T., 2017. The impact of oil price Bellamy, R., Fridahl, M., Lezaun, J., Palmer, J., Rodriguez, E., Lefvert, A., Hansson, A.,
fluctuations on common renewable energies in GCC countries. Renewable Grönkvist, S., Haikola, S., 2021. Incentivising bioenergy with carbon capture and
Sustainable Energy Rev. 75, 989–1007. storage (BECCS) responsibly: comparing stakeholder policy preferences in the United
Al-Yaeeshi, A.A., Al-Ansari, T., Govindan, R., 2019. A network model-based optimisation Kingdom and Sweden. Environ. Sci. Policy 116, 47–55.
analysis for the utilisation of CO2 in Qatar’s chemical industries. in: Kiss, A.A., Ben-Mansour, R., Habib, M.A., Bamidele, O.E., Basha, M., Qasem, N.A.A.,
Zondervan, E., Lakerveld, R., Özkan, L. (Eds.). Computer Aided Chemical Peedikakkal, A., Laoui, T., Ali, M., 2016. Carbon capture by physical adsorption:
Engineering. Elsevier, pp. 295–300. materials, experimental investigations and numerical modeling and simulations–a
Al-Yaeeshi, A.A., AlNouss, A., McKay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2020a. A simulation study on the review. Appl. Energy 161, 225–255.
effect of CO2 injection on the performance of the GTL process. Comput. Chem. Eng. Bennion, E.P., Ginosar, D.M., Moses, J., Agblevor, F., Quinn, J.C., 2015. Lifecycle
136, 106768. assessment of microalgae to biofuel: Comparison of thermochemical processing
Al-Yaeeshi, A.A., Govindan, R., Al-Ansari, T., 2020b. Quantitative risk assessment and pathways. Appl. Energy 154, 1062–1071.
management for CO2 utilisation industrial network. in: Pierucci, S., Manenti, F., Bentsen, N.S., Felby, C., 2010. Technical potentials of biomass for energy services from
Bozzano, G.L., Manca, D. (Eds.). Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier, current agriculture and forestry in selected. and no. Forest & Landscape Working
pp. 1909–1914. Papers (55-2010), 3.
Al-Yaeeshi, A.A., Govindan, R., Al-Ansari, T., 2020c. Techno-economic-based dynamic Birol, F., 2019. Key world energy statistics. International Energy Agency, p. 81 https://
network design for optimum large-scale carbon dioxide utilisation in process www.connaissancedesenergies.org/sites/default/files/pdfactualites/Key_World_
industries. J. Cleaner Prod. 275, 122974. Energy_Statistics_2019.pdf. (Access date: 16-04-2021).
AlNouss, A., McKay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2019. A techno-economic-environmental study Boot-Handford, M.E., Abanades, J.C., Anthony, E.J., Blunt, M.J., Brandani, S., Mac
evaluating the potential of oxygen-steam biomass gasification for the generation of Dowell, N., Fernández, J.R., Ferrari, M.-C., Gross, R., Hallett, J.P., Haszeldine, R.S.,
value-added products. Energy Convers. Manage. 196, 664–676. Heptonstall, P., Lyngfelt, A., Makuch, Z., Mangano, E., Porter, R.T.J.,
AlNouss, A., Parthasarathy, P., Shahbaz, M., Al-Ansari, T., Mackey, H., McKay, G., 2020. Pourkashanian, M., Rochelle, G.T., Shah, N., Yao, J.G., Fennell, P.S., 2014. Carbon
Techno-economic and sensitivity analysis of coconut coir pith-biomass gasification capture and storage update. Energy Environ. Sci. 7 (1), 130–189.
using ASPEN PLUS. Appl. Energy 261, 114350. Brad Page, G.T., Beck, Alex Zapantis Lee, Consoli, Chris, Havercroft, Ian, Liu, Harry,
Alper, E., Yuksel Orhan, O., 2017. CO2 utilization: Developments in conversion Loria, Patricia, Schneider, Annya, Tamme, Eve, Townsend, Alex, Temple-
processes. Petroleum 3 (1), 109–126. Smith, Lucy, Rassool, Dominic, Zhang, Tony, 2019. The Global Status of CCS 2019.
Global CCS Institute, Australia https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wpcontent/
21
uploads/2019/12/GCC_GLOBAL_STATUS_REPORT_2019.pdf. (Access date: 12-04- D’Amore, F., Mocellin, P., Vianello, C., Maschio, G., Bezzo, F., 2018. Economic
2021). optimization of European supply chains for CO2 capture, transport and
Brand, S., Hardi, F., Kim, J., Suh, D.J., 2014. Effect of heating rate on biomass sequestration, including societal risk analysis and risk mitigation measures. Appl.
liquefaction: differences between subcritical water and supercritical ethanol. Energy Energy 223, 401–415.
68, 420–427. D’Amore, F., Bezzo, F., 2017. Economic optimization of European supply chains for CO2
Bridgwater, A.V., 2012. Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading. capture, transport and sequestration. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 65, 99–116.
Biomass Bioenergy 38, 68–94. Demirbas, A., 2009. Biorefineries: current activities and future developments. Energy
Brown, R.C., 2019. Thermochemical Processing of Biomass: Conversion into Fuels, Convers. Manage. 50 (11), 2782–2801.
Chemicals and Power. John Wiley & Sons. Detz, R.J., van der Zwaan, B., 2019. Transitioning towards negative CO2 emissions.
Bui, M., Adjiman, C.S., Bardow, A., Anthony, E.J., Boston, A., Brown, S., Fennell, P.S., Energy Policy 133, 110938.
Fuss, S., Galindo, A., Hackett, L.A., Hallett, J.P., Herzog, H.J., Jackson, G., Dimitriadis, A., Bezergianni, S., 2017. Hydrothermal liquefaction of various biomass and
Kemper, J., Krevor, S., Maitland, G.C., Matuszewski, M., Metcalfe, I.S., Petit, C., waste feedstocks for biocrude production: a state of the art review. Renewable
Puxty, G., Reimer, J., Reiner, D.M., Rubin, E.S., Scott, S.A., Shah, N., Smit, B., Sustainable Energy Rev. 68, 113–125.
Trusler, J.P.M., Webley, P., Wilcox, J., Mac Dowell, N., 2018. Carbon capture and Dit, M., 2007. Palm kernel shell (PKS) is more than biomass for alternative fuel after
storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ. Sci. 11 (5), 1062–1176. 2005. In: Proceedings of Chemistry and Technology Conference.
Bui, M., Fajardy, M., Mac Dowell, N., 2017. Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS) performance Dong, J., Tang, Y., Nzihou, A., Chi, Y., Weiss-Hortala, E., Ni, M., 2018. Life cycle
evaluation: Efficiency enhancement and emissions reduction. Appl. Energy 195, assessment of pyrolysis, gasification and incineration waste-to-energy technologies:
289–302. theoretical analysis and case study of commercial plants. Sci. Total Environ. 626,
Bush, M.J., 2020. How to end the Climate Crisis, Climate Change and Renewable Energy. 744–753.
Springer, pp. 421–475. Donnison, C., Holland, R.A., Hastings, A., Armstrong, L.M., Eigenbrod, F., Taylor, G.,
Byrd, A.J., Kumar, S., Kong, L., Ramsurn, H., Gupta, R.B., 2011. Hydrogen production 2020. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): finding the win–wins for
from catalytic gasification of switchgrass biocrude in supercritical water. Int. J. energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services-size matters. GCB Bioenergy 12
Hydrogen Energy 36 (5), 3426–3433. (8), 586–604.
Caldecott, B., Lomax, G., Workman, M., 2015. Stranded carbon assets and negative Dowd, A.-M., Rodriguez, M., Jeanneret, T., 2015. Social science insights for the bioCCS
emissions technologies. industry. Energies 8 (5), 4024–4042.
Carbo, M.C., Smit, R., van der Drift, B., Jansen, D., 2011. Bio energy with CCS (BECCS): Duku, M.H., Gu, S., Hagan, E.B., 2011. Biochar production potential in Ghana-a review.
Large potential for BioSNG at low CO2 avoidance cost. Energy Procedia 4, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 15 (8), 3539–3551.
2950–2954. Dütschke, E., Wohlfarth, K., Höller, S., Viebahn, P., Schumann, D., Pietzner, K., 2016.
Carpentieri, M., Corti, A., Lombardi, L., 2005. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an Differences in the public perception of CCS in Germany depending on CO2 source,
integrated biomass gasification combined cycle (IBGCC) with CO2 removal. Energy transport option and storage location. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 53, 149–159.
Convers. Manage. 46 (11), 1790–1808. El Hadri, N., Quang, D.V., Goetheer, E.L.V., Zahra, M.R.M.A., 2017. Aqueous amine
Chan, Y.H., Cheah, K.W., How, B.S., Loy, A.C.M., Shahbaz, M., Singh, H.K.G., Yusuf, N.a. solution characterization for post-combustion CO2 capture process. Appl. Energy
R., Shuhaili, A.F.A., Yusup, S., Ghani, W.A.W.A.K., Rambli, J., Kansha, Y., Lam, H.L., 185, 1433–1449.
Hong, B.H., Ngan, S.L., 2019. An overview of biomass thermochemical conversion Elliott, D.C., Biller, P., Ross, A.B., Schmidt, A.J., Jones, S.B., 2015. Hydrothermal
technologies in Malaysia. Sci. Total Environ. 680, 105–123. liquefaction of biomass: Developments from batch to continuous process. Bioresour.
Chan, Y.H., Tan, R.R., Yusup, S., Lam, H.L., Quitain, A.T., 2016. Comparative life cycle Technol. 178, 147–156.
assessment (LCA) of bio-oil production from fast pyrolysis and hydrothermal Fan, J.-L., Xu, M., Wei, S., Shen, S., Diao, Y., Zhang, X., 2021. Carbon reduction potential
liquefaction of oil palm empty fruit bunch (EFB). Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 18 of China’s coal-fired power plants based on a CCUS source-sink matching model.
(6), 1759–1768. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 168, 105320.
Chaichan, M.T., Kazem, H.A., Kazem, A.A., Abaas, K.I., Al-Asadi, K.A.H., 2015. The effect Foley, A., Smyth, B.M., Pukšec, T., Markovska, N., Duić, N., 2017. A Review of
of environmental conditions on con-centrated solar system in desertic weathers. Int. Developments in Technologies and Research that have had a Direct Measurable
J. Sci. Eng. Res. 5, 850–856. Impact on Sustainability Considering the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
Chen, L., Chen, Q., Rao, P., Yan, L., Shakib, A., Shen, G., 2018. Formulating and Elsevier.
optimizing a novel biochar-based fertilizer for simultaneous slow-release of nitrogen Foust, T.D., Arent, D., de Carvalho Macedo, I., Goldemberg, J., Hoysala, C., Nigro, F.E.B.,
and immobilization of cadmium. Sustainability 10 (8), 2740. Richard, T.L., Saddler, J., Samseth, J., Somerville, C.R., 2015. Energy Security.
Chen, S., Soomro, A., Yu, R., Hu, J., Sun, Z., Xiang, W., 2018. Integration of chemical National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
looping combustion and supercritical CO2 cycle for combined heat and power Ferella, F., 2015. In: An integrated approach for the generation of renewable energy from
generation with CO2 capture. Energy Convers. Manage. 167, 113–124. biomass and waste streams 10th Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy.
Chen, W.-H., Farooq, W., Shahbaz, M., Naqvi, S.R., Ali, I., Al-Ansari, T., Saidina Amin, N. Dubrovnik, Croatia. Water and Environment Systems At.
A., 2021. Current status of biohydrogen production from lignocellulosic biomass, Fridahl, M., Lehtveer, M., 2018. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS):
technical challenges and commercial potential through pyrolysis process. Energy Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers. Energy Res. Soc.
226, 120433. Sci. 42, 155–165.
Cherubini, F., Peters, G.P., Berntsen, T., StrØMman, A.H., Hertwich, E., 2011. CO2 Fuss, S., Lamb, W.F., Callaghan, M.W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., Beringer, T.,
emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and de Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Luderer, G., Nemet, G.F.,
contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy 3 (5), 413–426. Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente, J.L.V., Wilcox, J., del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M.,
Chrysostomidis, I., Perumalpillai, S., Bohm, M., Crombie, M., Beynon, E., Lee, A., 2013. Minx, J.C., 2018. Negative emissions—Part 2: costs, potentials and side effects.
CO2 capture project’s CCS stakeholder issues review and analysis. Energy Procedia Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (6), 063002.
37, 7832–7839. Galik, C.S., 2020. A continuing need to revisit BECCS and its potential. Nature Climate
Claude, V., Courson, C., Köhler, M., Lambert, S.p.D., 2016. Overview and essentials of Change 10 (1), 2–3.
biomass gasification technologies and their catalytic cleaning methods. Energy Fuels Gambhir, A., Butnar, I., Li, P.-H., Smith, P., Strachan, N., 2019. A review of criticisms of
30 (11), 8791–8814. integrated assessment models and proposed approaches to address these, through
Clausen, L.R., Elmegaard, B., Houbak, N., 2010. Technoeconomic analysis of a low CO2 the lens of. BECCS. Energies 12 (9), 1747.
emission dimethyl ether (DME) plant based on gasification of torrefied biomass. Gaunt, J.L., Lehmann, J., 2008. Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar
Energy 35 (12), 4831–4842. sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (11),
Collins, M., Knutti, R., Arblaster, J., Dufresne, J.-L., Fichefet, T., Friedlingstein, P., 4152–4158.
Gao, X., Gutowski, W.J., Johns, T., Krinner, G., 2013. Long-term climate change: Ghiat, I., Al-Ansari, T., 2021a. A review of carbon capture and utilisation as a CO2
projections, commitments and irreversibility, Climate Change 2013-The Physical abatement opportunity within the EWF nexus. J. CO2 Utiliz. 45, 101432.
Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Ghiat, I., Mahmood, F., Govindan, R., Al-Ansari, T., 2021b. CO2 utilisation in agricultural
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, greenhouses: a novel ‘plant to plant’approach driven by bioenergy with carbon
pp. 1029–1136. capture systems within the energy, water and food Nexus. Energy Convers. Manage.
Conrow, E.H., 2011. Estimating technology readiness level coefficients. J. Spacecraft 228, 113668.
Rockets 48 (1), 146–152. Ghiat, I., AlNouss, A., McKay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2020a. Biomass-based integrated
Consoli, C., 2019. Bioenergy and Carbon Capture Storege. Global CCS institute. gasification combined cycle with post-combustion CO2 recovery by potassium
Creamer, A.E., Gao, B., 2016. Carbon-based adsorbents for postcombustion CO2 capture: carbonate: techno-economic and environmental analysis. Comput. Chem. Eng.,
a critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (14), 7276–7289. 106758
Creutzig, F., Ravindranath, N.H., Berndes, G., Bolwig, S., Bright, R., Cherubini, F., in: Ghiat, I., Govindan, R., Namany, S., Al-Ansari, T., 2020b. Network optimization
Chum, H., Corbera, E., Delucchi, M., Faaij, A., 2015. Bioenergy and climate change model for a sustainable supply network for greenhouses. In: Pierucci, S., Manenti, F.,
mitigation: an assessment. Gcb Bioenergy 7 (5), 916–944. Bozzano, G.L., Manca, D. (Eds.), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier,
CSLF, 2018. Technical summary of bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) task pp. 1885–1890.
force. https://www.cslforum.org/cslf/sites/default/files/documents/Publications/ Goh, C.S., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., 2014. Monitoring sustainable biomass flows: general
BECCS_Task_Force_Report_2018-04-04.pdf. (Access date: 19-04-2021). methodology development. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 8 (1), 83–102.
Cuéllar-Franca, R.M., Azapagic, A., 2015. Carbon capture, storage and utilisation Gough, C., Mander, S., Thornley, P., Lea-Langton, A., Vaughan, N., 2018. Understanding
technologies: a critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental negative emissions from BECCS. Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage
impacts. J. CO2 Utiliz. 9, 82–102. (BECCS): Unlocking Negative Emissions, p. 3.
de Coninck, H., Benson, S.M., 2014. Carbon dioxide capture and storage: issues and Gough, C., Upham, P., 2010. Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): a
prospects. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 243–270. review. Tyndall Centre Climate Change Res. 147. Working Paper.
22
Gough, C., Upham, P., 2011. Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS or Keller, M., Kaibe, K., Hatano, H., Otomo, J., 2019. Techno-economic evaluation of BECCS
Bio-CCS). Greenhouse Gases 1 (4), 324–334. via chemical looping combustion of Japanese woody biomass. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas
GCCUS, 2020. In: International Conference on “Global Chains of CO2 Capture, Utilization Control 83, 69–82.
and Storage” (Online) http://www.gcr.cuhk.edu.hk/events_detail.php?id=120. Kemper, J., 2015. Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review. Int. J.
(Accessed 05-05 2021). Greenhouse Gas Control 40, 401–430.
Haaf, M., Anantharaman, R., Roussanaly, S., Ströhle, J., Epple, B., 2020. CO2 capture Khan, Z., Inayat, A., Yusup, S., Ahmad, M.M., 2015. Kinetic parameters determination
from waste-to-energy plants: Techno-economic assessment of novel integration using optimization approach in integrated catalytic adsorption steam gasification for
concepts of calcium looping technology. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 162, 104973. hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (29), 8824–8832.
Halim, S.A., Swithenbank, J., 2016. Characterisation of Malaysian wood pellets and Khan, Z., Yusup, S., Aslam, M., Inayat, A., Shahbaz, M., Raza Naqvi, S., Farooq, R.,
rubberwood using slow pyrolysis and microwave technology. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis Watson, I., 2019. NO and SO2 emissions in palm kernel shell catalytic steam
122, 64–75. gasification with in-situ CO2 adsorption for hydrogen production in a pilot-scale
Hamelinck, C.N., Suurs, R.A.A., Faaij, A.P.C., 2005. International bioenergy transport fluidized bed gasification system. J. Cleaner Prod. 236, 117636.
costs and energy balance. Biomass Bioenergy 29 (2), 114–134. Kıpçak, E., Söğüt, O.Ö., Akgün, M., 2011. Hydrothermal gasification of olive mill
Hammond, G.P., Spargo, J., 2014. The prospects for coal-fired power plants with carbon wastewater as a biomass source in supercritical water. J. Supercritical Fluids 57 (1),
capture and storage: A UK perspective. Energy Convers. Manage. 86, 476–489. 50–57.
Hansson, J., Berndes, G., Börjesson, P., 2006. The prospects for large-scale import of Köberle, A.C., 2019. The value of BECCS in IAMs: a Review. Curr. Sustain./Renew.
biomass and biofuels into Sweden–a review of critical issues. Energy Sustain. Energy Reports 6 (4), 107–115.
Develop. 10 (1), 82–94. Kogbara, R.B., Yiming, W., Iyengar, S.R., Onwusogh, U.C., Youssef, K., Al-Ansary, M.,
Hassan, S., Ishak, M.A.M., Ismail, K., 2014. Co-liquefaction of rubber seed and low rank Sunifar, P.A., Arora, D., Al-Sharshani, A., Abdalla, O.A.E., Al-Wawi, H.M., 2020.
coal: effect of weight ratio and temperature. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 186, Recycling industrial biosludge for buffel grass production in Qatar: impact on soil,
511–518. leachate and plant characteristics. Chemosphere 247, 125886.
He, P., Zhang, W., Xu, X., Bian, Y., 2015. Production lot-sizing and carbon emissions Koornneef, J., van Breevoort, P., Hamelinck, C., Hendriks, C., Hoogwijk, M., Koop, K.,
under cap-and-trade and carbon tax regulations. J. Cleaner Prod. 103, 241–248. Koper, M., Dixon, T., Camps, A., 2012. Global potential for biomass and carbon
Heffer, P., Prud’homme, M., Fertilizer outlook 2013 –2017. Paper No.: A/13/78, dioxide capture, transport and storage up to 2050. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 11,
Chicago, IL, p. 8. 117–132.
Heinimö, J., Junginger, M., 2009. Production and trading of biomass for energy – An Koornneef, J., van Breevoort, P., Noothout, P., Hendriks, C., Camps, A., 2013. Global
overview of the global status. Biomass Bioenergy 33 (9), 1310–1320. potential for biomethane production with carbon capture, transport and storage up
Heinimö, J., Lamers, P., Ranta, T., 2013. International trade of energy biomass–an to 2050. Energy Procedia 37, 6043–6052.
overview of the past development. Natural Gas 114, 21. Koroneos, C., Dompros, A., Roumbas, G., 2008. Hydrogen production via biomass
Hetland, J., Barnett, J., Read, A., Zapatero, J., Veltin, J., 2014. CO2 transport systems gasification—A life cycle assessment approach. Chem. Eng. Process. 47 (8),
development: status of three large European CCS demonstration projects with EEPR 1261–1268.
funding. Energy Procedia 63, 2458–2466. Kraxner, F., Nilsson, S., Obersteiner, M., 2003. Negative emissions from BioEnergy use,
Herman, A.P., Yusup, S., Shahbaz, M., Patrick, D.O., 2016. Bottom ash characterization carbon capture and sequestration (BECS)—the case of biomass production by
and its catalytic potential in biomass gasification. Proc. Eng. 148, 432–436. sustainable forest management from semi-natural temperate forests. Biomass
Hoefnagels, R., Resch, G., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., 2014. International and domestic uses Bioenergy 24 (4-5), 285–296.
of solid biofuels under different renewable energy support scenarios in the European Kulyk, N., 2012. Cost-benefit analysis of the biochar application in the US cereal crop
Union. Appl. Energy 131, 139–157. cultivation.
Hoogwijk, M., Faaij, A., de Vries, B., Turkenburg, W., 2009. Exploration of regional and Kumar, S., Gupta, R.B., 2009. Biocrude production from switchgrass using subcritical
global cost–supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops at abandoned water. Energy Fuels 23 (10), 5151–5159.
cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy Lainez-Aguirre, J.M., Pérez-Fortes, M., Puigjaner, L., 2017. Economic evaluation of bio-
33 (1), 26–43. based supply chains with CO2 capture and utilization. Comput. Chem. Eng. 102,
How, B.S., Ngan, S.L., Hong, B.H., Lam, H.L., Ng, W.P.Q., Yusup, S., Ghani, W.A.W.A.K., 213–225.
Kansha, Y., Chan, Y.H., Cheah, K.W., Shahbaz, M., Singh, H.K.G., Yusuf, N.a.R., Lal, R., 2016. Biochar and soil carbon sequestration. Agricult. Environ. Appl. Biochar 63,
Shuhaili, A.F.A., Rambli, J., 2019. An outlook of Malaysian biomass industry 175–197.
commercialisation: Perspectives and challenges. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. Lamers, P., Hoefnagels, R., Junginger, M., Hamelinck, C., Faaij, A., 2015. Global solid
113, 109277. biomass trade for energy by 2020: an assessment of potential import streams and
Hsu, D.D., 2012. Life cycle assessment of gasoline and diesel produced via fast pyrolysis supply costs to North-West Europe under different sustainability constraints. Gcb
and hydroprocessing. Biomass Bioenergy 45, 41–47. Bioenergy 7 (4), 618–634.
Hu, X., Gholizadeh, M., 2019. Biomass pyrolysis: A review of the process development Laude, A., Ricci, O., Bureau, G., Royer-Adnot, J., Fabbri, A., 2011. CO2 capture and
and challenges from initial researches up to the commercialisation stage. Journal of storage from a bioethanol plant: Carbon and energy footprint and economic
Energy Chemistry 39, 109–143. assessment. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (5), 1220–1231.
Huang, C.-H., Tan, C.-S., 2014. A Review: CO2 Utilization. Aerosol and Air Quality Lee, I.-G., Ihm, S.-K., 2009. Catalytic Gasification of Glucose over Ni/Activated Charcoal
Research 14 (2), 480–499. in Supercritical Water. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (3), 1435–1442.
Huang, H.-j., Yuan, X.-z., 2015. Recent progress in the direct liquefaction of typical Lehmann, J., Czimczik, C., Laird, D., Sohi, S., 2009. Stability of biochar in soil. Biochar
biomass. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 49, 59–80. Environ. Manag. 183–206.
Inayat, A., Ghenai, C., Naqvi, M., Ammar, M., Ayoub, M., Hussin, M.N.B., 2017. Lenton, T.M., 2010. The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future
Parametric study for production of Dimethyl Ether (DME) as a fuel from palm atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon Manag. 1 (1), 145–160.
wastes. Energy Procedia 105, 1242–1249. Leung, D.Y.C., Caramanna, G., Maroto-Valer, M.M., 2014. An overview of current status
Inayat, M., Sulaiman, S.A., Inayat, A., Shaik, N.B., Gilal, A.R., Shahbaz, M., 2020a. of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Modeling and parametric optimization of air catalytic co-gasification of wood-oil Rev. 39, 426–443.
palm fronds blend for clean syngas (H2+CO) production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. Li, J., Hou, Y., Wang, P., Yang, B., 2019. A review of carbon capture and storage project
Inayat, M., Sulaiman, S.A., Kurnia, J.C., Shahbaz, M., 2019. Effect of various blended investment and operational decision-making based on Bibliometrics. Energies 12 (1),
fuels on syngas quality and performance in catalytic co-gasification: A review. 23.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 105, 252–267. Li, J., Yin, Y., Zhang, X., Liu, J., Yan, R., 2009. Hydrogen-rich gas production by steam
Inayat, M., Sulaiman, S.A., Shahbaz, M., Bhayo, B.A., 2020b. Application of response gasification of palm oil wastes over supported tri-metallic catalyst. Int. J. Hydrogen
surface methodology in catalytic co-gasification of palm wastes for bioenergy Energy 34 (22), 9108–9115.
conversion using mineral catalysts. Biomass Bioenergy 132, 105418. Liew, J.X., Loy, A.C.M., Chin, B.L.F., AlNouss, A., Shahbaz, M., Al-Ansari, T.,
Ipcc, C.C., 2014. Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the Govindan, R., Chai, Y.H., 2021. Synergistic effects of catalytic co-pyrolysis of corn
fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. cob and HDPE waste mixtures using weight average global process model.
Cambridge University Press Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Renewable Energy 170, 948–963.
Jafari, M., Cao, S.C., Jung, J., 2017. Geological CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers: Liu, H., Ma, M., Xie, X.a., 2017. New materials from solid residues for investigation the
Implication on potential solutions of China’s power sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. mechanism of biomass hydrothermal liquefaction. Ind. Crops Prod. 108, 63–71.
121, 137–155. Liu, Z., Zhang, F.-S., 2008. Effects of various solvents on the liquefaction of biomass to
Jenkins, B.M., Baxter, L.L., Koppejan, J., 2019. Biomass combustion. Thermochemical produce fuels and chemical feedstocks. Energy Convers. Manage. 49 (12),
Process. Biomass 49–83. 3498–3504.
Johansson, T.B., Patwardhan, A.P., Nakićenović, N., Gomez-Echeverri, L., 2012. Global Loy, A.C.M., Gan, D.K.W., Yusup, S., Chin, B.L.F., Lam, M.K., Shahbaz, M., Unrean, P.,
Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future. Cambridge University Press. Acda, M.N., Rianawati, E., 2018. Thermogravimetric kinetic modelling of in-situ
Kazi, M.-K., Eljack, F., El-Halwagi, M.M., Haouari, M., 2021. Green hydrogen for catalytic pyrolytic conversion of rice husk to bioenergy using rice hull ash catalyst.
industrial sector decarbonization: costs and impacts on hydrogen economy in qatar. Bioresour. Technol. 261, 213–222.
Comput. Chem. Eng. 145, 107144. Luis, P., Van der Bruggen, B., 2013. The role of membranes in post-combustion CO2
Kan, T., Strezov, V., Evans, T.J., 2016. Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis: a review of capture. Greenhouse Gases 3 (5), 318–337.
product properties and effects of pyrolysis parameters. Renewable Sustainable Madadian, E., Haelssig, J.B., Pegg, M., 2020. A comparison of thermal processing
Energy Rev. 57, 1126–1140. strategies for landfill reclamation: methods, products, and a promising path forward.
Kang, S., Li, X., Fan, J., Chang, J., 2013. Hydrothermal conversion of lignin: a review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 160, 104876.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 27, 546–558.
23
Maraver, D., Sin, A., Royo, J., Sebastián, F., 2013. Assessment of CCHP systems based on Pour, N., 2019. Status of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage—Potential and
biomass combustion for small-scale applications through a review of the technology Challenges, Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage. Elsevier, pp. 85–107.
and analysis of energy efficiency parameters. Appl. Energy 102, 1303–1313. Pour, N., Webley, P.A., Cook, P.J., 2017. A sustainability framework for bioenergy with
Markusson, N., Ishii, A., Stephens, J.C., 2011. The social and political complexities of carbon capture and storage (BECCS) technologies. Energy Procedia 114, 6044–6056.
learning in carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Global Environ. Pradhan, S., Abdelaal, A.H., Mroue, K., Al-Ansari, T., Mackey, H.R., McKay, G., 2020.
Change 21 (2), 293–302. Biochar from vegetable wastes: agro-environmental characterization. Biochar 2 (4),
Matzenberger, J., Kranzl, L., Tromborg, E., Junginger, M., Daioglou, V., Sheng Goh, C., 439–453.
Keramidas, K., 2015. Future perspectives of international bioenergy trade. Proskurina, S., Junginger, M., Heinimö, J., Tekinel, B., Vakkilainen, E., 2019. Global
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 43, 926–941. biomass trade for energy— Part 2: Production and trade streams of wood pellets,
Mazaheri, H., Lee, K.T., Bhatia, S., Mohamed, A.R., 2010a. Sub/supercritical liquefaction liquid biofuels, charcoal, industrial roundwood and emerging energy biomass.
of oil palm fruit press fiber for the production of bio-oil: Effect of solvents. Bioresour. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 13 (2), 371–387.
Technol. 101 (19), 7641–7647. Pucci, T., Casprini, E., Galati, A., Zanni, L., 2018. The virtuous cycle of stakeholder
Mazaheri, H., Lee, K.T., Bhatia, S., Mohamed, A.R., 2010b. Subcritical water liquefaction engagement in developing a sustainability culture: Salcheto winery. J. Bus. Res. 119,
of oil palm fruit press fiber for the production of bio-oil: Effect of catalysts. 364–376.
Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2), 745–751. Puettmann, M., Sahoo, K., Wilson, K., Oneil, E., 2020. Life cycle assessment of biochar
Mazaheri, H., Lee, K.T., Bhatia, S., Mohamed, A.R., 2010c. Subcritical water liquefaction produced from forest residues using portable systems. J. Cleaner Prod. 250, 119564.
of oil palm fruit press fiber in the presence of sodium hydroxide: An optimisation Puig-Arnavat, M., Bruno, J.C., Coronas, A., 2010. Review and analysis of biomass
study using response surface methodology. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (23), gasification models. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 14 (9), 2841–2851.
9335–9341. Qambrani, N.A., Rahman, M.M., Won, S., Shim, S., Ra, C., 2017. Biochar properties and
Mazzoni, L., Janajreh, I., Elagroudy, S., Ghenai, C., 2020. Modeling of plasma and eco-friendly applications for climate change mitigation, waste management, and
entrained flow co-gasification of MSW and petroleum sludge. Energy 196, 117001. wastewater treatment: A review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 79, 255–273.
McKendry, P., 2002. Energy production from biomass (part 2): conversion technologies. Rajabi, M., Mehrpooya, M., Haibo, Z., Huang, Z., 2019. Chemical looping technology in
Bioresour. Technol. 83 (1), 47–54. CHP (combined heat and power) and CCHP (combined cooling heating and power)
McLaren, D., 2012. A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions systems: a critical review. Appl. Energy 253, 113544.
technologies. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 90 (6), 489–500. Read, P., 2008. Biosphere carbon stock management: addressing the threat of abrupt
Meier, D., Faix, O., 1999. State of the art of applied fast pyrolysis of lignocellulosic climate change in the next few decades: an editorial essay. Clim. Change 87 (3-4),
materials — a review. Bioresour. Technol. 68 (1), 71–77. 305–320.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H., Loos, M., Meyer, L., 2005. IPCC Special Report on Ren, T., Patel, M.K., 2009. Basic petrochemicals from natural gas, coal and biomass:
Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage. Policy Stud.. Energy use and CO2 emissions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53 (9), 513–528.
Mohan, T., 2007. An integrated approach for techno-economic and environmental Renewable Fuels, A., 2016. Fueling a High Octane Future: 2016 Ethanol Industry
analysis of energy from biomass and fossil fuels. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/ Outlook. Renewable Fuels Association, Washington, DC.
handle/1969.1/4898. (Access date: 18-04-2021). Rhodes, J.S., Keith, D.W., 2005. Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with
Moldenhauer, P., Sundqvist, S., Mattisson, T., Linderholm, C., 2018. Chemical-looping carbon capture and storage. Biomass Bioenergy 29 (6), 440–450.
combustion of synthetic biomass-volatiles with manganese-ore oxygen carriers. Int. Roberts, K.G., Gloy, B.A., Joseph, S., Scott, N.R., Lehmann, J., 2010. Life cycle
J. Greenhouse Gas Control 71, 239–252. assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic, and climate
Molino, A., Chianese, S., Musmarra, D., 2016. Biomass gasification technology: The state change potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2), 827–833.
of the art overview. J. Energy Chem. 25 (1), 10–25. Rosenzweig, C., Parry, M.L., 1994. Potential impact of climate change on world food
Mølnvik, M.J., Aarlien, R., Røkke, N.A., 2013. BIGCCS Centre-Supporting large-scale CCS supply. Nature 367 (6459), 133–138.
implementation. Energy Procedia 37, 6544–6552. Onyango, D.O., 2014 Pyrolysis: An alternative technology for municipal solid waste
Munkejord, S.T., Hammer, M., Løvseth, S.W., 2016. CO2 transport: data and models – a management.
review. Appl. Energy 169, 499–523. Rubin, E., 2006. Summary of the IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and
Muratori, M., Bauer, N., Rose, S.K., Wise, M., Daioglou, V., Cui, Y., Kato, E., Gidden, M., storage. https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/journal_contribution/Summary_of_the_
Strefler, J., Fujimori, S., 2020. EMF-33 insights on bioenergy with carbon capture IPCC_Special_Report_on_Carbon_Dioxide_Capture_and_Storage/6073484/1. (Access
and storage (BECCS). Clim. Change 163 (3), 1621–1637. date: 21-04-2021).
Muscat, A., de Olde, E.M., de Boer, I.J.M., Ripoll-Bosch, R., 2019. The Battle for Biomass: Rybicka, J., Tiwari, A., Leeke, G.A., 2016. Technology readiness level assessment of
A Systematic Review of Food-Feed-Fuel Competition. Global Food Security, 100330. composites recycling technologies. J. Cleaner Prod. 112, 1001–1012.
Nakamura, H., Kajikawa, Y., Suzuki, S., 2013. Multi-level perspectives with technology Saidur, R., Abdelaziz, E.A., Demirbas, A., Hossain, M.S., Mekhilef, S., 2011. A review on
readiness measures for aviation innovation. Sustainability Sci. 8 (1), 87–101. biomass as a fuel for boilers. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 15 (5), 2262–2289.
Naqvi, M., Yan, J., Dahlquist, E., 2012. Bio-refinery system in a pulp mill for methanol Saito, S., Udatsu, M., Kitamura, H., Murai, S., Kato, Y., Maezawa, Y., Watando, H., 2014.
production with comparison of pressurized black liquor gasification and dry Development and evaluation of a new amine solvent at the Mikawa CO2 capture
gasification using direct causticization. Appl. Energy 90 (1), 24–31. pilot plant. Energy Procedia 51, 176–183.
Naqvi, M., Yan, J., Fröling, M., 2010. Bio-refinery system of DME or CH4 production from Samanta, A., Zhao, A., Shimizu, G.K.H., Sarkar, P., Gupta, R., 2012. Post-combustion CO2
black liquor gasification in pulp mills. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (3), 937–944. capture using solid sorbents: a review. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (4), 1438–1463.
Naqvi, S.R., Jamshaid, S., Naqvi, M., Farooq, W., Niazi, M.B.K., Aman, Z., Zubair, M., Samiran, N.A., Jaafar, M.N.M., Ng, J.-H., Lam, S.S., Chong, C.T., 2016. Progress in
Ali, M., Shahbaz, M., Inayat, A., 2018. Potential of biomass for bioenergy in Pakistan biomass gasification technique – With focus on Malaysian palm biomass for syngas
based on present case and future perspectives. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. production. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 62, 1047–1062.
81, 1247–1258. Sánchez-Reinoso, A.D., Ávila-Pedraza, E.Á., Restrepo-Díaz, H., 2020. Use of biochar in
Naqvi, S.R., Tariq, R., Hameed, Z., Ali, I., Naqvi, M., Chen, W.-H., Ceylan, S., Rashid, H., agriculture. Acta Biológica Colomb. 25 (2), 327–338.
Ahmad, J., Taqvi, S.A., 2019. Pyrolysis of high ash sewage sludge: Kinetics and Schüwer, D., Arnold, K., Bienge, K., Bringezu, S., Echternacht, L., Esken, A., Fischedick,
thermodynamic analysis using Coats-Redfern method. Renewable Energy 131, M., Geibler, J., Höller, S., Merten, F., Perrey, K., Pastowski, A., Witte, K., Schneider,
854–860. C., Terrapon-Pfaff, J., Viebahn, P., 2015a. CO2 ReUse NRW Evaluating gas sources,
Naqvi, S.R., Uemura, Y., Yusup, S.B., 2014. Catalytic pyrolysis of paddy husk in a drop demand and utilization for CO2 and H2 within the North Rhine- Westphalia area
type pyrolyzer for bio-oil production: the role of temperature and catalyst. J. Anal. with respect to gas qualities.
Appl. Pyrolysis 106, 57–62. Schüwer, D., Arnold, K., Bienge, K., Bringezu, S., Echternacht, L., Esken, A., Fischedick,
Olajire, A.A., 2010. CO2 capture and separation technologies for end-of-pipe M., Geibler, J.v., Höller, S., Merten, F., 2015b. CO2 reuse NRW: evaluating gas
applications–a review. Energy 35 (6), 2610–2628. sources, demand and utilization for CO2 and H2 within the North Rhine-Westphalia
Osman, A.I., Abdelkader, A., Johnston, C.R., Morgan, K., Rooney, D.W., 2017. Thermal area with respect to gas qualities; final report.
investigation and kinetic modeling of lignocellulosic biomass combustion for energy Schüwer, D., Arnold, K., Bienge, K., Bringezu, S., Echternacht, L., Esken, A.,
production and other applications. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56 (42), 12119–12130. Fischedick, M., Geibler, J.v., Höller, S., Merten, F., Perrey, K., Pastowski, A.,
Parthasarathy, P., Fernandez, A., Al-Ansari, T., Mackey, H.R., Rodriguez, R., McKay, G., Pietzner, K., Schneider, C., Terrapon-Pfaff, J.C., Viebahn, P., 2015c. CO2 reuse NRW:
2021. Thermal degradation characteristics and gasification kinetics of camel manure Evaluating Gas Sources, Demand and Utilization for CO2 and H2 within the North
using thermogravimetric analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 287, 112345. Rhine-Westphalia area with Respect to Gas Qualities; Final Report. Wuppertal
Patel, M., Kumar, A., 2016. Production of renewable diesel through the hydroprocessing Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Wuppertal.
of lignocellulosic biomass-derived bio-oil: a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Selma, L., Seigo, O., Dohle, S., Siegrist, M., 2014. Public perception of carbon capture
Rev. 58, 1293–1307. and storage (CCS): a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 38, 848–863.
Peake, S., 2018. Renewable Energy-Power for a Sustainable Future. Oxford university Shahbaz, M., Al-Ansari, T., Aslam, M., Khan, Z., Inayat, A., Athar, M., Naqvi, S.R.,
press. Ahmed, M.A., McKay, G., 2020a. A state of the art review on biomass processing and
Pelto, M.S., 2008. Impact of climate change on North Cascade alpine glaciers, and alpine conversion technologies to produce hydrogen and its recovery via membrane
runoff. Northwest Sci. 82 (1), 65–75. separation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45 (30), 15166–15195.
Peltola, P., Saari, J., Tynjälä, T., Hyppänen, T., 2020. Process integration of chemical Shahbaz, M., Al-Ansari, T., Inayat, M., Sulaiman, S.A., Parthasarathy, P., McKay, G.,
looping combustion with oxygen uncoupling in a biomass-fired combined heat and 2020b. A critical review on the influence of process parameters in catalytic co-
power plant. Energy 210, 118550. gasification: current performance and challenges for a future prospectus. Renewable
Pires, J.C.M., Martins, F.G., Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M., Simões, M., 2011. Recent Sustainable Energy Rev. 134, 110382.
Developments on Carbon Capture and Storage: An Overview, 89. Chemical Shahbaz, M., AlNouss, A., Parthasarathy, P., Abdelaal, A.H., Mackey, H., McKay, G., Al-
Engineering Research and Design, pp. 1446–1460. Ansari, T., 2020c. Investigation of Biomass Components on the Slow Pyrolysis
24
Products Yield using Aspen Plus for Techno-Economic Analysis. Biomass Conversion Tapia, J.F.D., Lee, J.-Y., Ooi, R.E.H., Foo, D.C.Y., Tan, R.R., 2018. A review of
and Biorefinery. optimization and decision-making models for the planning of CO2 capture,
Shahbaz, M., Taqvi, S.A., Loy, A.C.M., Inayat, A., Uddin, F., Bokhari, A., Naqvi, S.R., utilization and storage (CCUS) systems. Sustain. Product. Consumpt. 13, 1–15.
2019a. Artificial neural network approach for the steam gasification of palm oil Tripathi, N., Hills, C.D., Singh, R.S., Atkinson, C.J., 2019. Biomass waste utilisation in
waste using bottom ash and CaO. Renewable Energy 132, 243–254. low-carbon products: harnessing a major potential resource. npj Climate Atmosph.
Shahbaz, M., Taqvi, S.A.A., Inayat, M., Inayat, A., Sulaiman, S.A., McKay, G., Al- Sci. 2 (1), 1–10.
Ansari, T., 2020d. Air catalytic biomass (PKS) gasification in a fixed-bed downdraft Thrän, D., Peetz, D., Schaubach, K., Backéus, S., Benedetti, L., Bruce, L., 2017. Global
gasifier using waste bottom ash as catalyst with NARX Neural Network modelling. wood pellet industry and trade study 2017. IEA Bioenergy Task 40.
Comput. Chem. Eng., 107048 Tran, K.-Q., 2016a. Fast hydrothermal liquefaction for production of chemicals and
Shahbaz, M., Yusup, S., Al-Ansari, T., Inayat, A., Inayat, M., Zeb, H., Alnarabiji, M.S., biofuels from wet biomass–the need to develop a plug-flow reactor. Bioresour.
2019b. Characterization and Reactivity Study of Coal Bottom Ash for Utilization in Technol. 213, 327–332.
Biomass Gasification as an Adsorbent/Catalyst for Cleaner Fuel Production. Energy Tran, K.-Q., 2016b. Fast hydrothermal liquefaction for production of chemicals and
Fuels 33 (11), 11318–11327. biofuels from wet biomass – the need to develop a plug-flow reactor. Bioresour.
Shahbaz, M., Yusup, S., Ammar, M., Inayat, A., Patrick, D.O., 2017a. Development of Technol. 213, 327–332.
process flow sheet for syngas production from sorption enhanced steam gasification Uddin, S.N., Barreto, L., 2007. Biomass-fired cogeneration systems with CO2 capture and
of palm kernel shell. Chem. Eng. Trans. 61, 1675–1680. storage. Renewable Energy 32 (6), 1006–1019.
Shahbaz, M., Yusup, S., Inayat, A., Ammar, M., Patrick, D.O., Pratama, A., Naqvi, S.R., Vispute, T., Huber, G., 2008. Breaking the chemical and engineering barriers to
2017b. Syngas production from steam gasification of palm kernel shell with lignocellulosic biofuels. Int. Sugar J. 110, 138–149.
subsequent CO2 capture using CaO Sorbent: an aspen plus modeling. Energy Fuels 31 Wang, M., Joel, A.S., Ramshaw, C., Eimer, D., Musa, N.M., 2015. Process intensification
(11), 12350–12357. for post-combustion CO2 capture with chemical absorption: a critical review. Appl.
Shahbaz, M., yusup, S., Inayat, A., Patrick, D.O., Ammar, M., 2017c. The influence of Energy 158, 275–291.
catalysts in biomass steam gasification and catalytic potential of coal bottom ash in Wang, Y., Zhao, L., Otto, A., Robinius, M., Stolten, D., 2017. A review of post-combustion
biomass steam gasification: a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 73, CO2 capture technologies from coal-fired power plants. Energy Procedia 114,
468–476. 650–665.
Shahbaz, M., Yusup, S., Inayat, A., Patrick, D.O., Pratama, A., 2016. Application of White, C.M., Strazisar, B.R., Granite, E.J., Hoffman, J.S., Pennline, H.W., 2003.
response surface methodology to investigate the effect of different variables on Separation and capture of CO2 from large stationary sources and sequestration in
conversion of palm kernel shell in steam gasification using coal bottom ash. Appl. geological formations—coalbeds and deep saline aquifers. J. Air Waste Manage.
Energy 184, 1306–1315. Assoc. 53 (6), 645–715.
Shahbaz, M., Yusup, S., Inayat, A., Patrick, D.O., Pratama, A., Ammar, M., 2017d. Wong, A., Zhang, H., Kumar, A., 2016. Life cycle water footprint of hydrogenation-
Optimization of hydrogen and syngas production from PKS gasification by using coal derived renewable diesel production from lignocellulosic biomass. Water Res. 102,
bottom ash. Bioresour. Technol. 241, 284–295. 330–345.
Shen, L., Wu, J., Xiao, J., 2009. Experiments on chemical looping combustion of coal Woodley, J.M., 2020. Advances in biological conversion technologies: new opportunities
with a NiO based oxygen carrier. Combust. Flame 156 (3), 721–728. for reaction engineering. React. Chem. Eng. 5 (4), 632–640.
Singh, B., Bouman, E.A., Strømman, A.H., Hertwich, E.G., 2015. Material use for Wu, X.-F., Zhou, Q., Li, M.-F., Li, S.-X., Bian, J., Peng, F., 2018. Conversion of poplar into
electricity generation with carbon dioxide capture and storage: extending life cycle bio-oil via subcritical hydrothermal liquefaction: structure and antioxidant capacity.
analysis indices for material accounting. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 100, 49–57. Bioresour. Technol. 270, 216–222.
Singh, B., Strømman, A.H., Hertwich, E.G., 2011. Comparative life cycle environmental Xu, N., Tan, G., Wang, H., Gai, X., 2016. Effect of biochar additions to soil on nitrogen
assessment of CCS technologies. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (4), 911–921. leaching, microbial biomass and bacterial community structure. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 74,
Smeets, E.M.W., Faaij, A.P.C., 2007. Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050. Clim. 1–8.
Change 81 (3-4), 353–390. Xu, X., Xu, X., He, P., 2016. Joint production and pricing decisions for multiple products
Smeets, E.M.W., Faaij, A.P.C., Lewandowski, I.M., Turkenburg, W.C., 2007. A bottom-up with cap-and-trade and carbon tax regulations. J. Cleaner Prod. 112, 4093–4106.
assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Prog. Energy Yang, H., Xu, Z., Fan, M., Gupta, R., Slimane, R.B., Bland, A.E., Wright, I., 2008. Progress
Combust. Sci. 33 (1), 56–106. in carbon dioxide separation and capture: a review. J. Environ. Sci. 20 (1), 14–27.
Sohi, S., Lopez-Capel, E., Krull, E., Bol, R., 2009. Biochar, climate change and soil: a Yip, J., Chen, M., Szeto, Y.S., Yan, S., 2009. Comparative study of liquefaction process
review to guide future research. CSIRO Land Water Sci. Report 5 (09), 17–31. and liquefied products from bamboo using different organic solvents. Bioresour.
Song, C., Liu, Q., Deng, S., Li, H., Kitamura, Y., 2019. Cryogenic-based CO2 capture Technol. 100 (24), 6674–6678.
technologies: state-of-the-art developments and current challenges. Renewable Xu, Y., Zhu, L., Chang, D., Tsimplis, M., Greig, C., Wright, S., 2021. International Chains
Sustainable Energy Rev. 101, 265–278. of CO2 Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) in a Carbon-Neutral World. Elsevier.
Sorensen, R.B., Lamb, M.C., 2018. Return on investment from biochar application. Crop, Yuan, Z., Eden, M.R., 2015. Recent advances in optimal design of thermochemical
Forage Turfgrass Manag. 4 (1), 180008. conversion of biomass to chemicals and liquid fuels. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 10,
Souza, G.M., Ballester, M.V.R., de Brito Cruz, C.H., Chum, H., Dale, B., Dale, V.H., 70–76.
Fernandes, E.C.M., Foust, T., Karp, A., Lynd, L., Maciel Filho, R., Milanez, A., Yusup, S., Bokhari, A., Trinh, H., Shahbaz, M., Patrick, D.O., Cheah, K.W., Azizan, M.T.,
Nigro, F., Osseweijer, P., Verdade, L.M., Victoria, R.L., Van der Wielen, L., 2017. The Ramli, A., Ameen, M., Osman, N., Ahmad Shuhaili, A.F., Gurdeep Singh, H.K., 2019.
role of bioenergy in a climate-changing world. Environ. Devel. 23, 57–64. Chapter 2 - emerging technologies for biofuels production. in: Pandey, A., Larroche,
Stavrakas, V., Spyridaki, N.-A., Flamos, A., 2018. Striving towards the deployment of bio- C., Dussap, C.-G., Gnansounou, E., Khanal, S.K., Ricke, S. (Eds.). Biofuels: Alternative
energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): a review of research priorities and Feedstocks and Conversion Processes for the Production of Liquid and Gaseous
assessment needs. Sustainability 10 (7), 2206. Biofuels (Second Edition). Academic Press, pp. 45–76.
Styring, P., Jansen, D., De Coninick, H., Reith, H., Armstrong, K., 2011. Carbon Capture Zhang, C.-Y., Yu, B., Chen, J.-M., Wei, Y.-M., 2021. Green transition pathways for cement
and Utilisation in the Green Economy. Centre for Low Carbon Futures New York. industry in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 166, 105355.
Sun, X., Atiyeh, H.K., Li, M., Chen, Y., 2020. Biochar facilitated bioprocessing and Zhang, W., 2010. Automotive fuels from biomass via gasification. Fuel Process. Technol.
biorefinery for productions of biofuel and chemicals: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 91 (8), 866–876.
295, 122252. Zhang, X., Song, Z., Gani, R., Zhou, T., 2020. Comparative economic analysis of physical,
Tan, C.S., 2013. CO2 utilization. Ind. Mater. 316, 86–91. chemical, and hybrid absorption processes for carbon capture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
Tan, R.R., Bandyopadhyay, S., Foo, D.C.Y., 2020. The role of process integration in Zhang, Z., Zhu, Z., Shen, B., Liu, L., 2019. Insights into biochar and hydrochar production
managing resource constraints on negative emissions technologies. Resour. Conserv. and applications: a review. Energy 171, 581–598.
Recycl. 153, 104540.
25

1 s2.0 S0921344921003438 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0921344921003438 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0921344921003438 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resources, Conservation & Recycling 173 (2021) 105734

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

Full length article

A comprehensive review of biomass based thermochemical conversion

1. Introduction towards climate change (Collins et al., 2013; Köberle, 2019). As a

solutions for conversion technologies. It also includes a review of CCS

Fig. 2. Thermochemical conversion process prospects in BECCS development.

2.1. Combustion neutral society. The introduction of BECCS in combustion is techni­

Fig. 3. Biomass combustion process for energy production.

Fig. 6. Catalytic pyrolysis process.

Fig. 7. Liquefaction process flow sheet for fuel production.

Combustion Heat, Electricity Commercial - - (Boot-Handford et al., 2014; CSLF, 2018)

Pyrolysis Biochar, bio-oil, Commercial Biochar Commercial

Fig. 8. Pyrolysis process for fuel productions.

kgCO2eq/ton feedstock for switchgrass (Gaunt and Lehmann, 2008;

3.1. CO2 capture approaches C + H2 O → H2 + CO (2)

Chemical Carboxylic acid • Fuels, including • Salicylic acid

Table 9 allocated for food production, however, it may affect biodiversity.

Microalgae 1.8 Global (Huang and

Integrated Coal 41-61 55-91 14-53 40-75 (-7)-31

Fig. 12. Stakeholder coordination for BECCS Commercialisation.

You might also like

2.1. Combustion neutral society. The introduction of BECCS in combustion is techni