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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1720338115PMC PMC5879697
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1720338115

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1. Distribution of biomass production. (A) County-level biomass production density (tonnes per hectare) in 2020 for the basecase scenario in BT16, potential geologic storage sites for CO2, and currently existing pipelines for CO2. The highest producing counties are located in the midwestern Corn Belt and the Southeast United States. (B) Distribution of annual biomass production per county (megatonnes). The production of biomass is skewed heavily to low values, typically below 0.1 Mt biomass.
Fig. 1. Distribution of biomass production. (A) County-level biomass production density (tonnes per hectare) in 2020 for the basecase scenario in BT16, potential geologic storage sites for CO2, and currently existing pipelines for CO2. The highest producing counties are located in the midwestern Corn Belt and the Southeast United States. (B) Distribution of annual biomass production per county (megatonnes). The production of biomass is skewed heavily to low values, typically below 0.1 Mt biomass.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2. Site-specific achievable injection rates (megatonnes per year per well) and aggregated storage capacity by basin (gigatonnes). Injection rates are calculated using site-specific data, while the storage capacity data are provided by USGS. Both injection rates and storage capacities show a wide range of values, but areas with high injection rates tend to also have large storage capacities, such as the Gulf region, the Illinois basin, and western North Dakota.
Fig. 2. Site-specific achievable injection rates (megatonnes per year per well) and aggregated storage capacity by basin (gigatonnes). Injection rates are calculated using site-specific data, while the storage capacity data are provided by USGS. Both injection rates and storage capacities show a wide range of values, but areas with high injection rates tend to also have large storage capacities, such as the Gulf region, the Illinois basin, and western North Dakota.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3. Distribution of basin storage capacities on a logarithmic scale, and the percentage of the storage basin filled from the cumulative biomass overlaying the storage basin by the year 2100. The storage capacities span orders of magnitude, ranging from 400 Mt CO2 to more than 100 Gt CO2. Two of the basins, Black Warrior Basin and Kansas Basin, reach capacity by the end of the century.
Fig. 3. Distribution of basin storage capacities on a logarithmic scale, and the percentage of the storage basin filled from the cumulative biomass overlaying the storage basin by the year 2100. The storage capacities span orders of magnitude, ranging from 400 Mt CO2 to more than 100 Gt CO2. Two of the basins, Black Warrior Basin and Kansas Basin, reach capacity by the end of the century.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4. Distribution of technical potential of BECCS. (A) Map of technical potential of CO2 that would be available from biomass in 2020, under the BT16 basecase scenario. Regions with highest CO2 potential and colocated storage sites are northern Illinois basin, the Gulf region, and western North Dakota. The CO2 potential in each county translates to a power capacity of 0.1, 12, and 29 MW for the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles, respectively. (B) Cumulative sum of the potential CO2 in counties with a suitable storage site for 2020 and 2040. The lower bound of the range indicates the base case scenario, while the higher bound indicates the 4% yield increase scenario. The range of uncertainty is much larger for 2040 than for 2020.
Fig. 4. Distribution of technical potential of BECCS. (A) Map of technical potential of CO2 that would be available from biomass in 2020, under the BT16 basecase scenario. Regions with highest CO2 potential and colocated storage sites are northern Illinois basin, the Gulf region, and western North Dakota. The CO2 potential in each county translates to a power capacity of 0.1, 12, and 29 MW for the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles, respectively. (B) Cumulative sum of the potential CO2 in counties with a suitable storage site for 2020 and 2040. The lower bound of the range indicates the base case scenario, while the higher bound indicates the 4% yield increase scenario. The range of uncertainty is much larger for 2040 than for 2020.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. ; Global CCS Institute The Global Status of CCS: 2017 (Global CCS Inst, Docklands, VIC, Australia, 2017).
  2. ; Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Letter Report: Task Force on RD&D strategy for CO2 Utilization and/or Negative Emissions at the Gigatonne Scale (US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 2016).
  3. MH Langholtz, BJ Stokes, L Eaton 2016 Billion-Ton Report (US Department of Energy, Washington, DC) Vol I, 1–411 (2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–105 of 105

Related

See all

Metadata

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
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2018-03-12
Volume
115
Issue
13
Pages
3290-3295
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1720338115
PMC
PMC5879697
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
Licence
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 › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › 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