 The next session is going to be on BEX or bioenergy plus carbon capture and storage. So to contrast BEX with some of the other carbon dioxide removal strategies or negative emission strategies, one of the benefits of BEX is it both provides bioenergy plus carbon capture all at the same time. So the basic idea of BEX is that you grow plants which are capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, you take that bioenergy and you convert it to electricity or liquid fuels. And in the process you can store the carbon emissions so you get sort of two for one. And if we look, if we compare that to DAC for example, you know DAC basically requires as we've heard a lot of energy and it doesn't produce energy. So that's not to say that DAC isn't good and isn't going to be useful, but really I think the key benefit is that you get two services or two benefits for one basic investment. So joining us today to talk about this are two fantastic speakers. As you heard from Sarah earlier, Kat Reynolds from Drax was not able to join us today but we do have someone to take her place. So our first speaker is going to be Matthew Langholz. He's a natural resource economy in the bioenergy group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He's the principal investigator of the Supply Analysis Project at Oak Ridge and his interests include biomass energy resource economics, short rotation woody crops, bioenergy with CCS and bioenergy from forest resources. He also brings the international experience with agroforestry extension in Latin America with the Peace Corps and also has worked on a number of other commercial and private sector projects. And he also brings experience in working in the Gulf Coast context for BEX in particular. So our next speaker will be Eja J. Beck from Stanford University. She's a PhD student actually just about to wrap up in energy resources engineering and she works on energy systems analysis, particularly focused on decarbonization of the electricity sector, including assessing the roles of BEX and decarbonizing electricity production. She recently completed a multi-year study together with NRDC E3 in Princeton University on lowest cost pathways to meet 100% clean energy in the California grid. And also as part of a Stanford team, she led an effort to assess the near term potential of bioenergy plus CCS in the US. She'll be talking about that work today. And she was also a part of the Net Zero America project led by Princeton University. And finally, for the Q&A session, we also have Abhishek Kasturi who's a PhD student from Georgia Tech and he works on the engineering aspects of BEX. So at this point, I'd like to turn it over to Matthew who will begin to make his prepared remarks. Here with Abhishek Kasturi, the backing up on the engineering aspects of this. So the 2018 IPCC report includes BEX among its solutions to becoming carbon neutral by 2050. So if we're really great at reducing emissions in the near term, then maybe we don't need BEX and if we're not so good at reducing emissions, maybe we need a lot of BEX. So illustrative pathways two, three and four include BEX as part of the solution to carbon neutrality. They estimate globally the potential disquest or about five gigatons per year of CO2 through BEX in the range of $100 to $200 per ton CO2. There's been previous research on the potential for BEX in the US looking at the potential of a sequester in the Western US, potential to sequester CO2 from corn ethanol plants, a relatively pure stream, maybe a low hanging fruit of BEX. And an analysis of the potential scale of BEX in the US and this research builds on that last piece there by adding cost to the potential scale. And we use the carbon avoidance cost curve where you have your levelized cost of electricity from BEX, your levelized cost of electricity from a reference scenario like coal or natural gas to give you how much more expensive this system is than a reference scenario. You have emissions from a reference scenario and emissions from your BEX scenario. If these emissions are negative, you have minus a negative. So you have a total avoided CO2 emissions which gives you your dollar per ton CO2. Note that this includes not just sequestered CO2 but also avoided CO2 emissions. I might come back to that towards the end. So our modeling approach. We include county level biomass feedstocks from the 2016 Billion Tundra report. We use a geographical information systems facility fighting a siting model account for biomass, logistics and transportation CO2 emissions and costs in a biomass logistics model. We use a power engineering model to account for CCS efficiencies and economics and we have CO2 assumptions in multiple parts of the supply chain from a CO2 model from Argonne National Lab. I'm just gonna touch on the first two steps here and happy to follow up as there may be interest in the other aspects here. So on the feedstock side, we use county level biomass resources from the 2016 Billion Tundra report available at this link. And this is biomass feedstocks kind of as a function of price and scenario assumptions. So a really high level look at biomass resources in the US in the near term using about 365 million tons of biomass largely wastewood to energy and corn grain to ethanol. We also have resources that exist today but are unused about 100 million tons each of waste forest land resources and agricultural residues. Each one of these resource types is a chapter in the Billion Tundra report and it's is its own deep dive involving economics and sustainability availability and all that stuff. So just a real high level for the near term in this analysis. We look at forest land resources and agricultural residues. If there is a demand market signal for biomass energy crops over time you could see growth of energy crops over time. And the long-term scenario in this BEX analysis adds energy crops to those resources and the total supply looks something like this near term supply long-term supply different types of biomass at different available at different price points. And we have the spatial availability of those different types of resources corn stover for example that exists today and energy crops that potentially could exist in the future. Our siting model where we basically just down select for those saline sequestration basins and avoid wetlands protected lands, slow hazard areas and just identify lands that we think might be suitable for BEX. And that results in these white points here a subset of candidate facilities where we simulate potential demand for BEX sites. So our scenarios in our analysis like I mentioned we have near term long-term biomass resource supply in our biomass logistics. We have conventional logistics, bails and chips advanced logistics where we pelletize simulate pelletizing simulate integrated gasification combined cycle and pulverized combustion systems. And we kind of run these models incrementally seeing kind of the cheapest 10% of available CO2 that we can sequester 20% and march it forward up to 90%. And that allocation looks something like this. So like near term, long term, this is an example from IGCC. This is conventional bails and chips. This is pelletized. Anyways, like these concentrations of these blue dots here that's kind of like the low hanging 10% where BEX might start. And the yellow aggregations are the 50%. If you capture 50% of the or the cheapest 50% of the CO2 what that aggregation might look like. The red being a 90% we're not suggesting that we would push it out that far because it's the higher fruit, if you will. Overall results tend to look something like this where you might have some net benefit in soil organic carbon. You have emissions and harvest transportation and losses at the power plant. And you have CO2 captured and some net capture rate. And it increases with demand and our carbon avoidance cost curves look like this. So here's that coal reference scenario and the natural gas combined cycle reference scenario, near term biomass supplies and then three long term supplies looking at IGCC conventional logistics, IGCC pelletized biomass and pulverized coal also pelletized biomass. Oh, and just to mention these are different axes here. So just if you're interpreting that keep that in mind. So in summary, we're looking at carbon avoidance costs in the range of about $40 to $140 per ton CO2. And I just want to mention, of course, our equation includes not just sequestered CO2 but also avoided emissions. And honestly, it's not clear to me at this point if everyone is handling that the same. So part of the reason why this starts relatively low is because like I say, in the denominator we also have avoided emissions from a reference scenario. So be interested to follow up and see if we're all looking at that the same way. We're looking at potential sequestration of about 180 million tons per year in a near term feedstock scenario about 700 million tons in a long-term scenario, consistent at least in the range, I believe, with results from BAIC et al. who I didn't know I would be speaking with today. So I'm glad I tied you there. So if you looked at this 180 million tons per year up to 2040 and if you looked at this 740 million tons per year up to 2100 then the US could sequester maybe 45, 46 billion tons of CO2 by 2100 which is about 30% of pathway number two or about 4% of the target for pathway number four. So the US can contribute something to global CO2 sequestration targets with BAICs. But realistically, we're not gonna be able to do all this with BAICs. There are competing demands for the biomass resources, some future work, I'm sure others are thinking about, you know, that in the last session, Claude mentioned the need for carbon-free steam and power is there a synergy between BAICs and BAC? There are opportunities to use liability wood for stains, hurricane debris, beetle kill. There's some real environmentally economically low hanging fruit opportunities to do this, I believe, and there are other logistics scenarios that can improve efficiencies. Grateful for the opportunity, back to you, Sally. Okay, well, thank you very much, Matthew. Ej, let's move on to you. Thanks for having me and really excited to be a part of this discussion today. So today I'll be discussing the study that Matt briefly mentioned on geospatial analysis of near-term potential for carbon-negative bioenergy in the US. As Sally had mentioned before, there are different components of BAICs. We first need the biomass. You then need to transport it often with rail or by trucks, and then you have to capture the CO2 at some point, and then that produces some form of energy. But once the CO2 is captured, we need to transport the CO2 and store it. Now, most studies, previous studies that have been assessing the potential of BAICs have focused on the availability of the biomass often. But in the near-term, the transportation of both biomass and CO2 may be the larger limiting factor for BAICs deployment. And that's because transportation of biomass is not economic over long distances due to the low energy content and high moisture content. And also, as the previous session discussed, establishing and building new CO2 pipelines is not only costly, but will also be very time consuming as well. And so what we tried to do in this study was to determine the near-term potential for BAICs in the U.S. by looking at regions with co-located biomass and suitable storage sites. So we conducted geospatial analysis of biomass availability as well as suitable storage sites. And throughout this presentation, I'll be going through each one of these maps and we'll discuss the results and the implications. So first, let's think about biomass availability. So the biomass data comes from the billion ton study that Matt had mentioned. And this is the county level biomass availability in 2040. So in 2020, though, the total available biomass in the U.S. that could be used for BAICs is approximately 370 to 400 megatons of CO2. Now, if you look at the mix of this, 50% of it is agricultural residue, 40% of it is woody biomass and residue, and only 10% is dedicated energy crops. But as we go into 2040, the total available biomass increases significantly to over 1,000 megatons of CO2 per year, 70% of which is now dedicated energy crops. So we'll briefly discuss the implications of this assumption later on, but it's a pretty large amount of biomass or CO2 that is able to be sequestered. So now let's take a look at the storage sites. In thinking about storage sites, we care about basically the storage capacity of each of the storage sites. So how much CO2 can a site store? And we get data on these storage sites from the USGS National Assessment of Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources. So first, storage capacity. There needs to be sufficient capacity and USGS estimates that the aggregated storage capacity is about 3,000 gigatons. And so given the previous slide, we said that we have at most 1,700 megatons, which is approximately 1.7 gigatons of CO2. So we assume, I think based on that, it's safe to assume that aggregate storage capacity is likely not going to be a limiting factor for near-term backs. But when we consider regional storage capacities, we can see that they do vary drastically. And so this is a map that shows the different storage capacities across the different basins that we analyzed. And so you can see that across different regions, the storage capacity varies widely. California is pretty favorable, as well as the Gulf region. So we wanted to see if regional storage capacity could be a limiting factor for backs in the future. So we did a simple analysis. We basically assumed that all the CO2 from the biomass produced on top of that storage site will be sequestered in that site. And we took the timeframe from 2020 to 2100, so long-term storage of CO2. And this is basically what resulted. So each of the bars here indicate the storage capacities of the different basins that we considered for storage. And note that this is a logarithmic scale, so there's a lot of difference across the different basins. The orange dots then indicate the percentage of storage sites that can be utilized from 2020 to 2100. And so you can see that in most cases, the storage capacity used remains below 10 or even 20%, meaning there likely isn't a limitation in the amount of CO2 that can be stored from backs in these storage sites. But two storage sites in particular, the Black Warrior Basin located in Mississippi, and the Kansas Basin located in Kansas actually fill capacity by the end of the century. You can see that it's on the top of that. And you can see that both storage sites actually have capacities of less than a gigaton. And so from this analysis, we conclude that storage sites with capacities of less than a gigaton may not be suitable for bex deployment, largely due to the risks associated with limited capacity in the long run. So next we'll move on to another storage site characteristic, which is injectivity. So injectivity is a characteristic that determines the rate at which CO2 can be sequestered within a given storage site. And lower injectivity storage sites indicate higher risks of pressure buildup during injection, as well as a higher percentage or risk of leakage. And so storage injectivity is something that can be calculated given the porosity, permeability, and depth of each storage site, all of which data that we did have from the USGS analysis. And so then we created a map of looking at the different injectivities across the different storage sites. And you can see that the scale here ranges briefly, but you can see the grayed out parts range from zero to 0.25 megatons of CO2 injected per year. And we assume that storage sites with injectivity of less than 0.2 megatons of CO2 per year might not be suitable for injection because of this low injectivity risk. And to put that number into scale, right now most commercial scale injection projects globally are at the scale of approximately a megatons of CO2 per year. So anything below a quarter of that might not be suitable for commercial scale deployment of BEX and regional injectivity, of course, widely varied across a different region. So finally, we've looked at the biomass, we've looked at the capacity, and we've looked at the injectivity, and we've come up with our final results. And so this is a map that shows the co-located biomass potential and storage sites. So these are the areas that we think would be the most suitable for near-term BEX deployment because of the presence of both biomass and suitable storage sites. And this is all of the potential that could be assessed without any transportation infrastructure. And you can see that approximately a third of the biomass-producing counties are co-located with the storage site, which translates to about 1,000 counties in the US, which is really not in trivial. And so going back to our total potential that we were talking about, in 2020, if the total available potential was approximately 400 metric tons of CO2 per year, you can see that there are only approximately 100 that are co-located with a storage site. And just to put that number into context, the current US CO2 emissions is approximately 5,000 megatons of CO2 per year. So all in all, it's not a huge chunk of the pie in negative emissions, but it is still a pretty large share of it. And in 2040, because of the increase in the biomass potential, we see that the near-term potential of co-located storage and biomass capacity increases up to 360 to 630 megatons of CO2 per year. Now, I wanna put that number into context a bit further as well. So what I did was take a figure from Peters and Gideon that looked at the BEX deployment rates across different integrated assessment models. And these different lines show different models and different analyses. And you can see that the black line there is the median of these models on the amount of BEX potential that needs to be deployed to meet the two-degree C goal for the US. And what you'll see there then is that the median in 2045 is approximately 400 megatons of CO2 per year. And so you can see that that falls very nicely within our kind of estimated near-term potential of 360 to 630 megatons of CO2 per year. But there is of course a caveat and this goes back to where this biomass is coming from. And you'll see that this biomass mix is approximately 70% of energy crops. And energy crops right now aren't currently commercially deployed across the US. And so there needs to be a lot of time in developing these energy crops and making sure that they are kind of at the scale that we need them to be to make sure that we are able to access this potential. And so in another word, without any energy crops if we aren't able to develop it in time the 2040 negative emissions benefit from BEX could be as low as approximately 100 megatons of CO2 per year. So that's just something to consider as well. And so in conclusion, we found that approximately 30% of the biomass potential in the US is overlapping with a storage site. And this results in negative emissions potential in the US of approximately 100 to 400 megatons of CO2 per year in the long run. The BEX potential as you can see on the map on the left is pretty widespread, but there are areas where hotspots that seem very favorable for deployment particularly in the Gulf region there. And so what we hope that this analysis can do is help define the near-term opportunities that minimize the social and economic barriers to BEX deployment as well. Now, before I pass it back to Sally I also wanted to briefly introduce another study that I was part of which is the Net Zero America project. And this was a study that what looked at pathways infrastructure and impact of reaching a net zero carbon economy in 2050 in the US. And one of the main conclusions that came out for this was that I've highlighted it there is that among a lot of different things that need to happen, bioenergy and other zero carbon fuels and seed spots is going to be an incredibly important pillar in making sure we reach a net zero carbon economy. And just as proof of that, I won't go into too much depth into the details but this shows basically across the different scenarios we looked at how much of the biomass was utilized. And essentially all of the biomass that we put out as available in 2050 is utilized by 2050 emphasizing the importance of this fuel in reaching a net zero economy. And what's interesting though is that the biomass is used in a lot of different ways. There are some that are negative emissions technologies as you can see the ones with carbon capture are negative emissions. And the most prominent negative emission technology is actually producing hydrogen with biomass. And so it just kind of shows the potential of biomass to be served as a negative emission potential while not only producing electricity but also other very important types of fuel such as hydrogen. And in this scenario, we also did do a very downscaled spatial resolution but instead we now added the ability to build CO2 transportation pipeline not only for biomass but for a lot of other industrial sources as well. So you can see that the national CO2 transfer and storage network looks something like this. And you can see that the green dots are really widespread across all of the US. And so if we really want to access the biomass effectively there will need to be a form of CO2 pipeline that's built effectively as well. But in good news, the CO2 pipeline as the previous session members mentioned could be utilized for a lot of other sources such as DAC and industry. And so with that, I will finish my slide and pass it back to Sally. Thank you. Okay, well, thank you very much, Ije. And thank you, Matthew. That was both fantastic talks. I want to go and start with Matthew. You sort of gave us a teaser at the very end talking about the synergies between BEX and DAC. Would you like to elaborate on that a little more? I added that during the tea up here. It's something I've thought of before and I've only thought of it, but I think we have to look at it. You need power for DACs, you need power for DAC and bioenergy with CCS maybe could contribute to that. That's really all I was thinking open to any suggestions. Okay, all right. Yeah, no, thank you very much. I've been thinking about that for quite a while as well. Okay, all right. Ije, I want to go back to you and ask you a little bit about what you learned from the California Energy Electricity System modeling work that you did and you included the potential for bioenergy plus CCS in those modeling studies. Could you just say a little bit about the approach you used to those studies and say how much BEX was used and what did it provide a valuable contribution to decarbonizing the electricity sector? Yeah, of course. So in the model, we were using a very detailed electricity system model that not only looked at the capacity needs in the future of meeting future load and policy goals, but also making sure we simulated the model on an annual basis to make sure reliability was given. And so we had a pretty conservative assumption on the amount of BEX that could be deployed and the study was specifically for California. And so what we assumed was that all of the existing biomass power plants in California could be retrofit. So that just for perspective is not a lot. It's approximately 500 megawatts, not even a gigawatt of capacity. But even with that small amount of BEX, the model even with a high cost chose to make sure that those resources were retrofitted with carbon capture and storage for two reasons. The first one is just the negative emissions potential that came from deploying BEX within the system really helped make sure that other resources, such as gas, could operate in the system and maintain reliability throughout the year. And the second one, of course, is that the amount of energy that was produced was actually very valuable as well. So what we saw in simulating the system with BEX is that not only was BEX very built despite the high cost, but also that it was operated on an annual basis on a constant manner to provide that energy as well as negative emissions potential. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so we will start with a question now from the audience. And so this is from Ole Agason. The question is that electrification of light duty vehicles is likely to reduce the demand for ethanol. And today we blend about 10% into gasoline. So as that demand drops for ethanol, can you imagine that those same cropland could be switched to other energy crops and what might that be? And particularly in the context of something that might be more of a drop in fuel that would be a one-for-one substitute for diesel or gasoline. If I could take a stab, the short answer is yes. We're absolutely considering that. So I think it's about 290 million acres of cropland about, I want to say, a third of that in corn. And I want to say about half of that, maybe a third of that to a half of that. I'm not sure don't quote me going to ethanol. So you're talking about tens of millions of acres of new land available. And in the mix, that alone would cover the amount of energy cropland based that we're talking about, which was about 8% at the high end, 8% of ag land going to energy crops. And I could go further into strategies to do that. We're not talking about putting it up. Basically there are probably agricultural lands where perennial energy crops have environmental and economic benefits and potentially advantages. OK, thanks. So maybe just to follow up on that, if you looked at 2040, both the work that you talked about and EJ talked about the importance of these bioenergy crops, what mechanisms are in place today or what mechanisms would be needed in the future to stimulate that kind of development? The price, the market signal, farmers respond to changing markets all the time. And they can respond to demand for biomass energy crops or anything else. OK, so incentives, all right. Just on the perspective of BEX and developing a lot of different negative emissions technology, whether that's to produce electricity or fuel, I think another large limitation is, again, the transportation of CO2 and the availability of storage sites. So going back to what was mentioned in the previous session, there needs to be a large push to establish CO2 storage sites and a potential network that farmers can easily access. And if there is a price later, take advantage of. But I think without that, the transition will be very difficult to make. So it's a chicken and an egg problem, but I think the CO2 storage and transportation network might be the easier thing to develop because it can be utilized across a lot of different industries and sectors as well. OK, thank you, EJ. So Matt, back to you on this issue of competition with food, competition for food crops and land and so forth. This is one of the elephant in the room issues about BEX. So and particularly in the context of the international experience that you've had, what can you tell us about competition for land between food and bioenergy crops? Yep, so in our, so we use the policy analysis system economic model that simulates the US agricultural sector. And it includes demands for food, feed, fiber, ethanol that might be becoming outdated and exports. And we satisfy those demands before we add energy crops. There's about 5% annual variability of crop land in the US every year. And we're talking about using up to 8% of crop land or pasture land for biomass energy crops. So we're looking at this in ways that perennial biomass energy crops could be put in, say, streamside management zones or marginal lands or complement the agricultural systems in ways that don't compromise food production and do enhance environmental benefits improve biodiversity, reduce nitrogen runoff to waterways improve water quality, things like that. So just depends on how we do it. Okay, all right, so another question in the vein of sort of some of the risks of BEX. So what percentage are you assuming for the agricultural residue that would be available for BEX? And it's over 20% removal of the stover, for example, can negatively impact soil health and yield. So what are your assumptions and how is this concern being addressed? So it's constrained with two erosion models, WEPS and Russell too, I might be hard-pressed to spell those all out right now. In summary, we capture about half of the total stover supply at a maximum. So about 100 million tons per year stover, that's about half of the total stover actually available. And basically there are, so in the middle of the corn belt where you have an abundance of growth, you have an abundance of stover and in that area, stover can kind of be a liability for production. And that's where we concentrate our stover availability. When you get on drier lands, that's where we don't harvest, we don't, our modeling doesn't capture stover in drier areas because it's needed there for wind and water erosion. Till versus no-till agriculture could play a big role in this. If you're doing no-till agriculture, then potentially you can get a lot more stover. There are different trade-offs here. Okay, all right, so maybe we'll have a question for Abishak that this is from one of our attendees that isn't direct capture at an industrial source more efficient compared to BEX. So, and how can you sort of justify the economics of investing in BEX as opposed to traditional capture? So maybe you could tell us a little bit about the efficiency of bioenergy conversion and then how might that compare to other industrial sources? So I think one of the main things that BEX provides us is that it helps us produce energy as well so we can sell that electricity. And another thing would be that I believe BEX is significantly cheaper than direct air capture, at least the technologies that are available today. And we did a bit of research and we found that, for example, if we pelletize our biomass feed, we can use them in polarized combustion plants with very little modification to the existing system. So there are quite a few positive towards BEX that, or there, hope that answers that question. Okay, all right, so a related question I don't think we got into on soil carbon is that, we looked at BEX in the context of capturing the emissions when they're combusted and so forth, but what about sort of the co-benefits of trying to do BEX in such a way that you could really rebuild soil carbon stocks and get more bang for the buck, so to speak? I'll take a stab, yeah, absolutely. And we roughly quantify that in our analysis out of crop specific and crop land source specific, soil organic, carbon change assumptions. So how much additional CO2, excuse me, how much additional carbon can you sequester in soils when you transition from that perennial crop, say corn for ethanol like we were talking about, maybe I'm mixing up an annual crop like that corn to ethanol we mentioned before and convert it to a deep-rooted perennial switchgrass that you replant maybe once every 10 years instead of every year. Just by avoiding annual tillage, you increase soil organic carbon and it's definitely a big additional benefit. Okay, well, thank you very much. We've come to the end of our session, but I think this was really informative and very helpful. And this is clearly a topic on one hand, it's very exciting. And on the other hand, we hear from people who are concerned about the impacts of large-scale deployment of becks on other ecosystem values, food and so forth. So I think that as we look into the future that we're gonna see a lot of interesting developments in this area. So thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and we will turn this back over to Sarah.