Cited by 105Forest Biomass Utilization and ManagementRenewable energy and sustainable power systemsBioenergy crop production and management

Geospatial analysis of near-term potential for carbon-negative bioenergy in the United States

Open access
Baik, Ejeong, Sanchez, Daniel L., Turner, Peter A., Mach, Katharine J., Field, Christopher B., Benson, Sally M.·2018·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is widely utilized in ambitious climate mitigation scenarios as a negative-emissions technology. However, the future technical potential of BECCS remains uncertain. Two significant deployment barriers that have largely been overlooked by previous studies are the suitability of existing storage sites and the availability of transportation of biomass and/or CO 2 . This study assesses the near-term deployment potential of BECCS in the United States in the absence of long-distance transportation networks. Considering these constraints, 30% of the projected available 2020 biomass resources can be utilized for BECCS, yielding a negative-emissions potential of 100 Mt CO 2 ⋅y −1 . The analysis further pinpoints areas with colocated resources that could be prioritized for near-term deployment of BECCS.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1720338115

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • An important limitation for CO2 sequestration in subsurface pore space is the maximum injectivity achievable in a given reservoir, which is 0.001-60 MtCO2/yr in the U.S. in sedimentary reservoirs.

    “An important limitation for CO 2 sequestration in subsurface pore space is the maximum injectivity achievable in a given reservoir, which is 0.001-60 MtCO 2 /yr in the U.S. in sedimentary reservoirs”

    From An Overview of the Status and Challenges of CO2 Storage in Minerals and Geological Formations (2019) · cites this paper as Baik et al., 2018

    The Results and Discussion report a calculated range of 0.001–60 Mt CO2 per year for U.S. storage formations and describe injectivity as a constraint. But that range is explicitly per single well in a county, used as a proxy for a storage site's maximum injectivity; the claim omits the per-well qualification and presents it as the maximum for a reservoir. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Our ERW CDR range is comparable with large-scale implementation of BECCS in USA by 2040 (0.3-0.6 Gt CO2 yr -1), as constrained by biomass productivity, location and capacity of CO2 storage sites.

    “For example, our ERW CDR range is comparable with large-scale implementation of BECCS in USA by 2040 (0.3-0.6 Gt CO2 yr -1 ), as constrained by biomass productivity, location and capacity of CO2 storage sites 24 .”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [43]US Environmental Protection Agency 2016 40 CFR Appendix Table C-1 to Subpart C of Part 98: Default CO2 emission factors and high heat values for various types of fuel. Available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/appendix-Table_C-1_to_subpart_C_of_part_98. Accessed November 19, 2017 11645578

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baik, E., Sanchez, D. L., Turner, P. A., Mach, K. J., Field, C. B., & Benson, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Carnegie Institution for Science (US)
Corresponding author
Baik, Ejeong
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2018-03-12
Volume
115
Issue
13
Pages
3290-3295
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2794140740
Cited by
105
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3
FWCI
7.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung (UDBGA, 10704)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Renewable energy and sustainable power systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
Keywords
bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal, biomass resources, biomass transportation, CO2 transport, climate change mitigation, United States
MeSH terms
Biodegradation, Environmental, Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Conservation of Energy Resources, Environmental Monitoring, Humans, United States, Biomass, Biofuels, Bioengineering, Climate Change, Carbon Sequestration

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