Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Carbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) potential in jet fuel production from forestry residues: A combined Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessment approach

Open access
Fernanda Rojas Michaga, Maria, Michailos, Stavros, Akram, Muhammad, Cardozo, Evelyn, Hughes, Kevin J., Ingham, Derek, Pourkashanian, Mohamed·2022·Energy Conversion and Management
DOI 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115346
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this study, the economic and environmental feasibility of a process configuration based on the Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) concept is assessed. The research analyses the production of jet fuel from forestry residues-derived syngas via the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) technology. Further, the CO2 removed in the syngas cleaning section is not released to the environment, instead it is permanently sequestrated. The produced Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) has the potential to achieve negative emissions. The present research is a one-of-a-kind study for the jet fuel production within the BECCS concept. The process has been modelled within the Aspen Plus and Matlab software to obtain detailed and realistic mass and energy balances. Based on these balances, the technical, economic and environmental parameters have been calculated. Based on a plant that treats 20 dry-t/h of forest residues, 1.91 t/h of jet fuel are produced, while 11.26 t/h of CO2 are permanently stored. The inclusion of the CCS chain in the biorefinery increase the minimum jet fuel selling price from 3.03 £/kg to 3.27 £/kg. The LCA results for global warming show a favourable reduction in the BECCS case, in which negative emissions of −121.83 gCO2eq/MJ of jet fuel are achieved, while without CCS case exhibits GHG emissions equal to 15.51 gCO2eq/MJ; in both cases, the multi-functionality is faced with an energy allocation approach. It is, then, evident the significant environmental advantages of the BECCS process configuration. Nevertheless, financial feasibility can only be attained through the implementation of existing policy schemes and the formulation of new strategies that would reward negative emissions. The application of the UK’s policy “Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation” and a hypothetical scheme that rewards negative CO2 emissions, breaks-even the Minimum Jet fuel Selling Price (MJSP) at 1.49 £/kg for a certificate and carbon price of 0.20 £/certificate and 246.64 £/tonne of CO2.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115346

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 . Fig. 1. Block flow diagram of the BECCS scenario. The boundaries include the units that have been modelled in Aspen Plus. Also, the same boundaries have been used for the economic assessment.
Fig. 1 . Fig. 1. Block flow diagram of the BECCS scenario. The boundaries include the units that have been modelled in Aspen Plus. Also, the same boundaries have been used for the economic assessment.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 2 . Fig. 2. The System Boundary Diagram for the LCA of the BECCS scenario.
Fig. 2 . Fig. 2. The System Boundary Diagram for the LCA of the BECCS scenario.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 4 . Fig. 4. Biomass carbon distribution for the BECCS scenario.
Fig. 4 . Fig. 4. Biomass carbon distribution for the BECCS scenario.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 6 . Fig. 6. Effect of the governing parameters on the MJSP.
Fig. 6 . Fig. 6. Effect of the governing parameters on the MJSP.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 7 . Fig. 7. Effect of the size of the plant on the MJSP.
Fig. 7 . Fig. 7. Effect of the size of the plant on the MJSP.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 8 . Fig. 8. Global Warming impact for the BECCS and BE scenarios for displacement and energy allocation. The fossil jet fuel GWP is shown for comparisons.
Fig. 8 . Fig. 8. Global Warming impact for the BECCS and BE scenarios for displacement and energy allocation. The fossil jet fuel GWP is shown for comparisons.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 9 . Fig. 9. Sensibility analysis on the Global Warming Potential.
Fig. 9 . Fig. 9. Sensibility analysis on the Global Warming Potential.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 10 . Fig. 10. Uncertainty analysis on the GWP for the BECCS scenario.
Fig. 10 . Fig. 10. Uncertainty analysis on the GWP for the BECCS scenario.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 11 . Fig. 11. MJSP and fossil jet fuel price as a function of CO 2 price and number of RTFC (RTFC=£0.2). Interception points indicate CO 2 prices at which MJSP breakseven with fossil jet fuel price.
Fig. 11 . Fig. 11. MJSP and fossil jet fuel price as a function of CO 2 price and number of RTFC (RTFC=£0.2). Interception points indicate CO 2 prices at which MJSP breakseven with fossil jet fuel price.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 12 . Fig. 12. Effect of the RTFCs and the CO 2 price on the MJSP. The break-even line indicates pair of CO 2 price and RTFC at which MJSP breaks-even with the fossil jet fuel price.
Fig. 12 . Fig. 12. Effect of the RTFCs and the CO 2 price on the MJSP. The break-even line indicates pair of CO 2 price and RTFC at which MJSP breaks-even with the fossil jet fuel price.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 11
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 72 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. EEA, EASA, EUROCONTROL. European Aviation Environmental Report 2019. 2019. 10.20289/eüzfd.59424. · doi:10.20289/eüzfd.59424
  2. IRENA. Biofuels for Aviation. 2017. 10.1016/b978-0-12-809806-6.00012-2. · DOI
  3. European Environment Agency, EASA E. European Aviation Environmental Report 2019. vol. 40. 2019.
  4. American Society for Testing Materials, 2019, ASTM D7566–19, standard specification for aviation turbine fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons, Annu B ASTM Stand
  5. ASTM. Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons (ASTM D7566-21). Annu B ASTM Stand 2021:1–38. 10.1520/D7566-21.operated. · doi:10.1520/d7566-21.operated
  6. Chuck CJ. Biofuels for Aviation: Feedstocks, Technology and Implementation. 2016. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Swanson, 2009, Techno-economic analysis of biomass-to-liquids production based on gasification scenarios, ACS Natl Meet B Abstr
  8. Kinder JD, Rahmes T. Evaluation of Bio-derived Sythetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK). 2009. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2010.04.018. · doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2010.04.018
  9. Unnasch S, Riffel B. Review of Jet Fuel Life Cycle Assessment Methods and Sustainability Metrics. 2015.
  10. IPCC. Global warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,. 2018. 10.1002/9780470996621.ch50. · doi:10.1002/9780470996621.ch50
  11. Energy Technologies Institute. Carbon Capture and Storage Potential for CCS in the UK. vol. 1. n.d. 10.1002/ghg3.11. · doi:10.1002/ghg3.11
  12. Wildbolz, 2007, Life cycle assessment of selected technologies for CO 2 transport and sequestration, Environ Eng
  13. Clark D, Stuart H, Cabot T, Freeman PJ, Berens EK, Cabot T, et al. VERFAHREN ZUR CO2- ABSCHEIDUNG UND -SPEICHERUNG 2006;923:920–3.
  14. Manzolini, 2013, CO2 capture in natural gas combined cycle with SEWGS. Part B: economic assessment. Int J Greenh Gas, Control, 12, 502
  15. Taylor, 2014, Advanced biofuel feedstocks – An assessment of sustainability, E4tech, 2, 1
  16. E4Tech. Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes Final report. NNFCC Bioeconomy Consult 2009:1–130.

Cited by

See all 109

Metadata

Authors
Fernanda Rojas Michaga, M., Michailos, S., Akram, M., Cardozo, E., Hughes, K. J., Ingham, D., & Pourkashanian, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Universidad Mayor de San Simón (BO)
Corresponding author
Michailos, Stavros
ORCID
Venue
Energy Conversion and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
255
Pages
115346
ISSN
0196-8904 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115346
OpenAlex
W4213282060
Cited by
109
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 9
FWCI
5.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Energy Conversion and Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Filtration and Separation › Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Advanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Fuel Technology › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Keywords
bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, sustainable aviation fuel, jet fuel production, forest residues, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, syngas cleaning, CO2 sequestration, carbon dioxide removal, techno-economic analysis, life cycle assessment, global warming potential, biorefinery, carbon pricing, carbon credits

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) potential in jet fuel production from forestry residues: A combined Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessment approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115346
The paper
Fernanda Rojas Michaga, M., Michailos, S., Akram, M., Cardozo, E., Hughes, K. J., Ingham, D., & Pourkashanian, M. (2022). Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) potential in jet fuel production from forestry residues: A combined Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessment approach. Energy Conversion and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115346

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.