Diarmaid Clery

@article{19cd31aee87a46acbfd3d03b4ef4f789,

title = {Bringing greenhouse gas removal down to earth: Stakeholder supply chain appraisals reveal complex challenges},

author = {Diarmaid S. Clery and Naomi E. Vaughan and Johanna Forster and Irene Lorenzoni and Clair A. Gough and Jason Chilvers},

doi = {10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102369},

issn = {0959-3780},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-11-01},

journal = {Global Environmental Change},

volume = {71},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) approaches are considered essential in several projections to meet the climate mitigation ambition of the Paris Agreement. Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and afforestation are included extensively in mitigation scenarios but there are concerns about the feasibility of these approaches. This was explored with stakeholders from industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and policy who were involved in interviews and a one-day participatory workshop. Multicriteria mapping (MCM) methodology was used to appraise the ‘real-world’ feasibility of four specific greenhouse gas removal supply chains at a granular level in the UK context. The MCM analysis shows that afforestation performs better in comparison to three BECCS supply chains, on criteria such as business model, social acceptability, and environmental sustainability. This innovative application of the MCM methodology enables the abstract representations of GGR in integrated assessment models to be explored at a more granular level through a supply chain analysis and thus gain a deeper understanding of the issues facing these approaches. The data gathered allows a wide range of technical, environmental, social and political criteria to be systematically applied in appraising the practical performance of different future implementation options for afforestation and BECCS. If these GGR supply chains are to become a reality on the scale required for 1.5 °C global warming, factors such as global cooperation, land availability, and the longevity of policies and incentives were found to be major challenges.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{426a72b6da3d4e0dbf9c6ead8837eec6,

title = {The effect of biomass ashes and potassium salts on MEA degradation for BECCS},

author = {D. S. Clery and P. E. Mason and D. C. Barnes and J. Szuhánszki and M. Akram and J. M. Jones and M. Pourkashanian and C. M. Rayner},

doi = {10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103305},

issn = {1750-5836},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-06-01},

journal = {International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control},

volume = {108},

publisher = {Elsevier BV},

abstract = {This study investigates the comparative impact of inherently different biomass and coal ashes on the laboratory and pilot scale degradation of 30 wt% aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA), relevant to post-combustion CO 2 capture. Thermal and oxidative degradation experiments were carried out at 135 °C and 40 °C respectively with CO 2 loading (0.5 mol CO2/mol MEA), with and without the presence of ash. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data is provided for the major MEA degradation compounds such as N-(2-hydroxyethyl)formamide (HEF) and N-(2-hydroxyethyl)imidazole (HEI) along with the characterisation of a new MEA oxidative degradation product, N-(2-hydroxyethyl)imidazole-N-oxide (HEINO) which had been previously misassigned. Degradation products were quantified using 1H NMR and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC–MS) to assess the impact of potassium and various ashes from combustion (olive, white wood and two types of coal ash) on the rates of amine degradation. Woody biomass fly ashes were found to reduce the presence of the oxidative degradation products. Both types of coal fly ash and the olive biomass ash were found to enhance the formation the newly identified degradation product, HEINO. Solvent samples taken from a pilot scale facility support these laboratory findings.},

note = {Funding Information: D. S. Clery is thankful to the E PSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Bioenergy (Grant number: EP/L014912/1) for the award of a postgraduate studentship. C-Capture would like to thank BEIS for funding under their Energy Entrepreneurs Schemes. We also wish to thank Dr. Adrian Cunliffe for assistance with chromatography analysis and Dr. Meryem Benohoud (Keracol Ltd.) and Oliver Stanfield (UoL) for help with compound characterisation. Thanks are given to the Bio-CAP-UK project (Grant number: UKCCSRC-C1-38) , a joint venture between the S UPERGEN Bioenergy Hub (Grant number: EP/P024823/1) and UKCCSRC (Grant number: EP/K000446/2) . The authors acknowledge that the PACT facilities, funded by the BEIS and the EPSRC, have been used for experimental work reported in this publication. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{150f5c612b9f4a03a7af5a9b7924b531,

title = {The effects of an additive on the release of potassium in biomass combustion},

author = {Diarmaid S. Clery and Patrick E. Mason and Christopher M. Rayner and Jenny M. Jones},

doi = {10.1016/j.fuel.2017.11.040},

issn = {0016-2361},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-02-15},

journal = {Fuel},

volume = {214},

pages = {647–655},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {This study focuses on the effects of an aluminosilicate additive on the fate of potassium during biomass combustion. Such additives have shown some success in mitigating slagging and fouling problems in boilers and furnaces, and the mobility of potassium in combustion systems is one of the key factors dictating ash behaviour. To investigate this, a flame emission spectroscopy technique was used to evaluate the differences in the gas-phase potassium release profiles during the combustion of 5 mm diameter pellets of different biomass suspended in a methane-air flame. The biomass pellets were evaluated with various mixes of an aluminosilicate based additive (5, 15 and 25 wt%). Potassium emission detection, coupled with high speed video of the combustion process, indicated that potassium evolves over the three stages of volatile combustion (a sharp peak in the emission profile), char combustion (a broader peak) and “ash cooking” (a very broad peak over an extended period, long after the end of combustion). In the absence of additive, the three biomass studied (softwood, wheat straw, olive residue) behaved quite differently in terms of potassium release profiles. When the results are normalized for the amount of potassium in the fuel, it is clear that a large fraction of potassium enters the gas phase during the volatile and char combustion of the softwood. Olive residue, releases a lower fraction of potassium during the volatile and char combustion stages, indicating that more potassium is fixed in the ash. In contrast, wheat straw shows a release of potassium during combustion, and then, after a period of “ash cooking”, a substantial gradual release with continued exposure to hot combustion gases. The difference in the emission profiles can be interpreted in terms of the K:Cl ratios and the K:(Si + Al) ratios: high chlorine and/or low (Si + Al) facilitates the release of KCl or KOH to the gas phase, while high (Si + Al) helps to fix K in the solid phase. The addition of the aluminosilicate additive shows a clear reduction in the potassium released from all the biomass pellets, particularly during the char-oxidation and “ash cooking” stages, and the level of additive required is related to the amount of K in the biomass. The potassium emission experiments were complemented by laboratory-scale preparation of ash at different temperatures, and detection of residual potassium in the ash using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS). These results validated the findings and quantified the higher fractions of potassium retained within the ash when additives are used. For the wood ash 70–100% of K is retained in the ash in the presence of additive; for the wheat straw, this figure is 60–80% and for the olive pellets it is 70–100%.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{8233e5df996e4a5aa4477648c6ebb9c1,

title = {The effects of an additive on the release of potassium in biomass combustion},

author = {D. S. Clery and P. E. Mason and C. M. Rayner and J. M. Jones},

doi = {10.1016/j.fuel.2017.11.040},

issn = {0016-2361},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-02-15},

journal = {Fuel},

volume = {214},

pages = {647–655},

publisher = {Elsevier BV},

abstract = {This study focuses on the effects of an aluminosilicate additive on the fate of potassium during biomass combustion. Such additives have shown some success in mitigating slagging and fouling problems in boilers and furnaces, and the mobility of potassium in combustion systems is one of the key factors dictating ash behaviour. To investigate this, a flame emission spectroscopy technique was used to evaluate the differences in the gas-phase potassium release profiles during the combustion of 5 mm diameter pellets of different biomass suspended in a methane-air flame. The biomass pellets were evaluated with various mixes of an aluminosilicate based additive (5, 15 and 25 wt%). Potassium emission detection, coupled with high speed video of the combustion process, indicated that potassium evolves over the three stages of volatile combustion (a sharp peak in the emission profile), char combustion (a broader peak) and “ash cooking” (a very broad peak over an extended period, long after the end of combustion). In the absence of additive, the three biomass studied (softwood, wheat straw, olive residue) behaved quite differently in terms of potassium release profiles. When the results are normalized for the amount of potassium in the fuel, it is clear that a large fraction of potassium enters the gas phase during the volatile and char combustion of the softwood. Olive residue, releases a lower fraction of potassium during the volatile and char combustion stages, indicating that more potassium is fixed in the ash. In contrast, wheat straw shows a release of potassium during combustion, and then, after a period of “ash cooking”, a substantial gradual release with continued exposure to hot combustion gases. The difference in the emission profiles can be interpreted in terms of the K:Cl ratios and the K:(Si + Al) ratios: high chlorine and/or low (Si + Al) facilitates the release of KCl or KOH to the gas phase, while high (Si + Al) helps to fix K in the solid phase. The addition of the aluminosilicate additive shows a clear reduction in the potassium released from all the biomass pellets, particularly during the char-oxidation and “ash cooking” stages, and the level of additive required is related to the amount of K in the biomass. The potassium emission experiments were complemented by laboratory-scale preparation of ash at different temperatures, and detection of residual potassium in the ash using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS). These results validated the findings and quantified the higher fractions of potassium retained within the ash when additives are used. For the wood ash 70–100% of K is retained in the ash in the presence of additive; for the wheat straw, this figure is 60–80% and for the olive pellets it is 70–100%.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{81d1003b021e421e8f8e09663e631846,

title = {Bringing greenhouse gas removal down to earth: Stakeholder supply chain appraisals reveal complex challenges},

author = {Diarmaid Clery and Clair Gough and Naomi Vaughan and Johanna Forster and Irene Lorenzoni and Jason Chilvers},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102369},

issn = {0959-3780},

journal = {Global Environmental Change},

volume = {71},

number = {November 2021},

publisher = {Elsevier BV},

abstract = {Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) approaches are considered essential in several projections to meet the climate mitigation ambition of the Paris Agreement. Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and afforestation are included extensively in mitigation scenarios but there are concerns about the feasibility of these approaches. This was explored with stakeholders from industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and policy who were involved in interviews and a one-day participatory workshop. Multicriteria mapping (MCM) methodology was used to appraise the ‘real-world’ feasibility of four specific greenhouse gas removal supply chains at a granular level in the UK context. The MCM analysis shows that afforestation performs better in comparison to three BECCS supply chains, on criteria such as business model, social acceptability, and environmental sustainability. This innovative application of the MCM methodology enables the abstract representations of GGR in integrated assessment models to be explored at a more granular level through a supply chain analysis and thus gain a deeper understanding of the issues facing these approaches. The data gathered allows a wide range of technical, environmental, social and political criteria to be systematically applied in appraising the practical performance of different future implementation options for afforestation and BECCS. If these GGR supply chains are to become a reality on the scale required for 1.5 °C global warming, factors such as global cooperation, land availability, and the longevity of policies and incentives were found to be major challenges.},

note = {Funding Information: The authors acknowledge support from the Natural Environment Research Council (NE/P019951/1). Many thanks to each of the stakeholders for giving their time to be interviewed and participating in the workshop for this study. Also, thanks are given to the four notetakers during the workshop; Dr Tim Rayner, Dr Laurie Waller, Thomas Ball and Muir Freer. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}