Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

CO2 utilisation in agricultural greenhouses: A novel ‘plant to plant’

approach driven by bioenergy with carbon capture systems within the
energy, water and food Nexus
Ikhlas Ghiat a, Farhat Mahmood a, Rajesh Govindan b, Tareq Al-Ansari a, b, *
a
Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar
b
Division of Engineering Management and Decision Sciences, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Securing the growing populations’ demand for food energy and water whilst adapting to climate change is
Food security extremely challenging. In this regard, bioenergy coupled with carbon capture and storage or utilisation (BECCS/
BECCS U) is an attractive solution for meeting both the population demand, and offsetting CO2 emissions. The purpose
CO2 enrichment
of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of BECCS/U pathways utilising CO2 for agricultural enrichment in
Negative emissions
CO2 fertilisation
enhancing food systems and reducing GHG emissions within the energy, water and food nexus concept. The study
bridges negative emissions with CO2 fertilisation within an integrated system. It consists of a source of CO2
represented by a biomass-based integrated gasification combined cycle with carbon capture, a CO2 network for a
sustainable CO2 supply, and a CO2 sink characterised by agricultural greenhouses. A techno-economic and
environmental analysis of each of these subsystems is conducted, feeding to an overall performance analysis of
the integrated BECCS/U pathway. Results reveal synergetic opportunities between the energy, water and food
subsectors, whereby CO2 is captured from an energy sub-system and is efficiently utilised to enhance food sub-
systems by improving productivity and reducing crop water requirements. Thus, the proposed integrated BECCS/
U system is able to improve food availability by enhancing the food system, increasing the yield by 13.8%, whilst
reducing crop water requirements by 28%. System outputs resulted in a levelised cost of 0.35 $/kg of agricultural
produce when the system is scaled-up, and an abatement of the related environmental burdens throughout the
supply chain by achieving negative CO2 emissions of 24.6 kg/m2.year of cultivated land.

a strategy with significant potential in mitigating climate change with

1. Introduction
In accordance with the Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergov­
ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), mitigation is necessary to
limit the global mean temperature increase to 2 ◦ C. Baseline scenarios
developed by the IPCC, which do not include mitigation policies will
result in a 4.8 ◦ C temperature increase by 2100. It was also reported that
bioenergy with carbon capture and storage or utilisation (BECCS/U) is a
critical mitigation measure required to achieve the 2 ◦ C temperature
target, whereby net negative GHG emissions are attained within the
supply of energy. This measure describes the combination of two miti­
gation technologies; bioenergy with CCUS, and cumulates their climate
impact with the possibility to balance mid-century emissions if imple­
mented on a large scale [1]. Hence, the concept of BECCS/U emerged as
negative emissions.
Bioenergy systems consist of the use of biomass for the direct gen­
eration of heat and power or the production of other forms of energy and
value-added products such as hydrogen, ammonia, urea, and methanol
and are considered as a neutral to slightly positive CO2 emissions sys­
tems [2,3]. For instance, AlNouss et al. [2] demonstrated that the pro­
cess of urea production from biomass emits only 3.93 kg of CO2 per kg of
urea produced. When incorporating carbon capture to these bioenergy
systems, neutral to negative CO2 emissions can be attained if biomass is
considered as a neutral feedstock [4]. However, BECCS/U systems may
not always deliver negative CO2 emissions, in the case of emissions
associated with land use, fertiliser use for biomass cultivation, forestry
biomass exploitation, and extensive supply chain activities [5]. BECCS/
U systems can be carbon neutral over their life cycle when CO2 is

* Corresponding author at: Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha,
Qatar.
E-mail address: talansari@hbku.edu.qa (T. Al-Ansari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113668
Received 23 September 2020; Received in revised form 12 November 2020; Accepted 14 November 2020
Available online 29 November 2020
0196-8904/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
I. Ghiat et al.
Nomenclature
ETc Crop evapotranspiration (mm/day)
Q̇total Total heat transfer rate (W/m2)
Q̇sun Heat transfer rate from solar radiation (W/m2)
Agreenhouse Floor surface area of the greenhouse (m2)
Q̇cover Heat transfer through the cover of the greenhouse (W/m2)
Ucover Cover material heat transfer coefficient (W/m2. ◦ C)
Acover Area of the cover (m2)
Wreq Crop water requirement (mm/day)
Enet, greenhouseNet energy of the greenhouse (MJ/year).
Enet, BECCU Net energy of the integrated BECCS/U system (MJ/year)
EBE Energy produced from the bioenergy-based system (MJ/
year)
ECC Energy used in the carbon capture system (MJ/year)
Etransportation Energy requirements for CO2 transportation (MJ/year).
Ecooling Energy requirements for cooling (MJ/year)
Ewater− RO Energy requirements for reverse osmosis desalination
(MJ/year)
Eproduce Energetic value of the crop produce (MJ/year)
Eprocessing Energy requirements for CO2 processing (MJ/year)
CO2net, BECCU Net environmental emissions of the integrated BECCS/
capture, used and temporarily stored in the final product, but is released
back to the atmosphere with the final product use. Negative emissions
can be reached when CO2 is permanently stored within the product, or
when the time for CO2 re-capture and re-fixation is lower than the time
for the final product utilisation and subsequent CO2 release [6,7]. The
captured CO2 within BECCS/U systems can be stored or utilised. Tran­
sitions from storage to utilisation pathways have gained significant
attention in the past years, mainly because of their valuable benefits
over the storage option in terms of economic and environmental per­
formance [8]. Possible utilisation pathways include mineralisation,
chemical conversion, biological conversion and direct utilisation such as
enhanced oil recovery [9,10]. These utilisation applications present the
possibility to reduce at least 3.7 Gt of CO2 emissions per year, equivalent
to 10% of the global emissions. In addition, the utilisation option en­
ables the generation of additional value-added products in a more sus­
tainable manner, along with the creation of new industries and green
jobs [11]. However, challenges remain for most industrial based uti­
lisation pathways, either associated to the high operating and supply
chain costs, the low process efficiencies, or the long-term environmental
impacts. The mineral carbonation process suffers from high energy costs
related to reaction kinetics, which constrains the large-scale deployment
of this technology. The chemical conversion method is faced with
intensive energy and large catalyst requirements due to the stable aspect
of CO2 which makes its conversion difficult. The enhanced oil recovery
pathway may hold negative environmental burdens related to potential
long term CO2 leakages and flow to other geological mediums [9]. The
biological conversion route consists of utilising CO2 in the production of
various biomass-based products such as fertilisers, food, fodder, and
biogas. In this application, CO2 is used to increase the production and
growth of crops by enhancing the photosynthesis process. The biological
conversion and utilisation of CO2 has been investigated for both agri­
cultural and non-agricultural crops. The non-agricultural crops include,
amongst others, algae, micro-algae and photosynthetic cyanobacteria
which can be used to produce biofuels and bio-chemicals [12]. Studies
focused on either optimising the conversion process of biomass to useful
bio-energy commodities, or assessing the growing medium and culti­
vation activities of the biomass [13,14]. Nayak et al. [15] investigated
the effect of CO2 enrichment along with NaHCO3 for algae cultivation,
which can be processed and used for biodiesel production. This study
2
Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668
U (kg/year)
CO2CC Environmental emissions from the carbon capture system
(kg/year)
CO2BE Environmental emissions from the bioenergy system (kg/
year)
CO2transportation Environmental emissions from transportation (kg/
year).
CO2cooling Environmental emissions from cooling in the greenhouse
(kg/year)
CO2water− RO Environmental emissions from reverse osmosis
desalination (kg/year)
LC Total levelised cost ($)
CAPEXtotal Total capital cost ($)
CAPEXBE Capital cost of the bioenergy system ($)
CAPEXCC Capital cost of the carbon capture system ($)
CAPEXgreenhouse Capital cost of the greenhouse ($)
OPEXtotal Total operating cost ($)
OPEXBE Operating cost of the bioenergy system ($)
OPEXCC Operating cost of the carbon capture system ($)
OPEXgreenhouse Operating cost of the greenhouse ($)
OPEXtransportationOperating cost of transportation ($)
proved that fertlisation improves the productivity of the biomass and its
lipid content which is important for the technical and economic efficient
conversion to biodiesel [15]. On the other hand, the biological conver­
sion approach that is applicable to agricultural crops is beneficial as it
reduces land competition due to enhanced crop production, enables
quicker crop production cycles, and enhances waste recycling and uti­
lisation [9]. It can be perceived as the utilisation route with the most
promising economic and environmental benefits. Furthermore, it con­
tributes towards the availability pillar of food security by enhancing the
production of agricultural food systems [1].
The complex and dynamic interlinkages that exist between energy
water and food resources result in competition, thus challenging the
optimum allocation and management of resources. Hence, it is essential
to analyse the nexus of these three resources and evaluate the potential
trade-offs and synergies. Consequently, the energy, water, and food
(EWF) nexus was promoted in the Bonn conference as an approach to
manage the inherent interdependencies between resources, in support of
efficient resource utilisation [16]. The EWF nexus approach is crucial in
this application, as it enables the management of the inter-linkages be­
tween resource sub-sectors and the identification of synergies and trade-
offs between resources within product systems [17–19]. Several studies
demonstrated the ability of the EWF nexus approach in assessing and
enhancing food systems by means of different methodologies such as the
life cycle assessment (LCA) and agent-based models [18,20]. Others
assessed their food systems within the EWF nexus concept and proposed
new approaches; for example Hajji et al. [21] applied geospatial ana­
lytics in order to manage risks, and Al-Thani et al. [22] optimised
nutritional objectives within food security scenarios. This study dem­
onstrates the integration of the EWF nexus in the context of a BECCS/U
pathway which can increase agricultural yield through CO2 fertilisation.
Carbon dioxide enrichment in agricultural greenhouses is a biolog­
ical conversion application which has demonstrated improvements on
crop yields [23]. The process of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
is principally operated in greenhouse climates because of its enclosed
configuration, which offers control of the internal climate conditions.
Various studies have investigated the effects of CO2 on yield in green­
houses, where crop responses differ depending on the crop type and
growing medium, and where CO2 concentrations between 500 and 1200
ppm exhibited improvements in yield. However, past a certain CO2
I. Ghiat et al.
level, approximately 1200 ppm, the addition of CO2 has a counter-effect
and can damage plants [24–27]. Apart from improving the photosyn­
thetic rate which mirrors in yield improvements, increased CO2 levels
also affect the leaf area, crop evapotranspiration and stomata conduc­
tance [28]. For instance, the crop water use efficiency for a case study on
cucumber was reduced by 40% when enriching with CO2 [29].
Nederhoff [30] demonstrated that when increasing the CO2 levels by
100 ppm, the stomata conductance of the plants studied, sweet pepper,
cucumbers, and tomatoes, decreased by a rate of 3–11%. With Increased
CO2 levels, plants’ evapotranspiration decreases, implying that the
amount of water rejected by the plant to the atmosphere by both tran­
spiration and evaporation is reduced. This phenomena depends on many
parameters, namely climatic conditions such as solar radiation, tem­
perature, and humidity, along with crop type characteristics such as
stomatal conductance, leaf area index, and height of the canopy [28].
Several proposed models in the literature were introduced to quantify
the crop evapotranspiration, and investigate the effects of certain cli­
matic and crop specific parameters on evapotranspiration [31]. The first
proposed model, the Penman-Montheith evapotranspiration model,
combined the energy balance and mass transfer in a single simplified
equation [32]. It can be concluded that CO2 enrichment enhances the
yield and lowers the evapotranspiration by varying quantities and levels
depending on the crop type, climate or microclimate conditions, along
with other cultivation related practices such as the type of irrigation
applied.
Carbon dioxide can be injected in greenhouses either as pure com­
mercial CO2, from burners operating inside the greenhouse, or from
other industrial activities with waste CO2. Burners have proven to be an
efficient and economic option for CO2 enrichment in greenhouses,
however, this approach can introduce other components into the
greenhouse such as NOx and SOx pollutants that can impact plants’
health [23]. Carbon dioxide requires particular care and processing for
safe handling and transportation. Although there are several options for
CO2 transportation such as ships and trucks, CO2 transportation via
pipelines is considered the less costly route, whereby economies of scale
are made possible because of the large capacities of pipelines [33].
However, the cost of CO2 transportation via pipelines differs and can still
vary depending on the operational activities, and the composition and
size of pipelines. Carbon dioxide transportation via pipeline costs
approximately 1–8 $/t of CO2 throughout a 250 km CO2 trajectory, from
source to sink. Govindan and Al-Ansari [34] studied the supply chain
network for CO2 utilisation in greenhouses in the State of Qatar using a
GIS based simulation optimisation. The multi-objective optimisation
considered the economic and environmental dimensions of the distri­
bution network, which is comprised of pipeline and road routes.
Previous studies have investigated CO2 utilisation in agricultural
greenhouses, emphasising the design and optimisation of CO2 enriched
greenhouses, with the consideration of commercial CO2 or in-house
combustion as a source [35–39]. However, CO2 can be obtained from
different systems and applications, which engenders different economic
costs and environmental burdens related to the capture, handling,
transportation and consequently the utilisation of CO2. Hence, it is
necessary to comprehensively assess a CO2 enriched greenhouse system,
by considering the source of the CO2 and the needed operations to safely
handle and supply CO2 to greenhouses. Oreggioni et al. [8] studied the
techno-economic performance of an integrated BECCS/U system utilis­
ing CO2 in agricultural greenhouses from an anaerobic digestion-based
plant dedicated for biomethane production. Findings of this study
demonstrate the technical feasibility and economic benefit of this
approach over the CO2 storage route [8].
It can be concluded that amongst the reviewed literature, integrative
assessments for BECCS/U pathways with CO2 enrichment in agricultural
greenhouses and their negative emissions potential were not explored.
Therefore, a study evaluating the technical, economic and environ­
mental aspects, and covering all the segments and sub-systems of this
pathway (i.e. bio-energy system, carbon capture system, CO2
3
Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668
transportation, greenhouses) is beneficial, and can contribute to a better
understanding of the commercialisation prospects of this utilisation
route. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the techno-
economic and environmental performance of an integrative BECCS/U
system with CO2 utilisation in agricultural greenhouses, from source to
sink, within a broader EWF nexus framework.
The work presented in this study demonstrates its novelty as it in­
vestigates the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of a
novel BECCS/U system, capturing CO2 from a biomass-based integrated
gasification combined cycle (BIGCC) by means of piperazine promoted
potassium carbonate for agricultural greenhouse enrichment. For a case
study in the State of Qatar, it addresses multiple scientific challenges
within an integrated system, encompassing the development of clean
power using waste and the additional contribution towards water and
food security by enhancing food systems. This study also reinforces the
concept of EWF nexus as it demonstrates the presence of synergies be­
tween the intertwined subsectors of energy water and food and en­
compasses EWF resources into an integrated linked system able to meet
the population demand whilst mitigating CO2 emissions. Furthermore,
this study considers a hybrid approach, integrating process models,
supply chain and geospatial analysis in a unique ‘plant to plant’
approach, where CO2 distribution between the power plant and
receiving crop is fully assessed.
The study presented is divided into five sections, with this first
introductory section providing a general overview of the CO2 utilisation
pathway in agricultural greenhouses. The second section proposes a
methodology to study the proposed BECCS/U pathway with CO2
enrichment in agricultural greenhouses and includes two subsections.
The first part of the methodology addresses the utilisation of CO2 in
agricultural greenhouses, whereby the effects of CO2 enrichment are
investigated through a coupled microclimate and empirical crop model.
The second sub-section of the methodology consists of a holistic techno-
economic and environmental performance assessment of the proposed
BECCS/U pathway. The third section entails a case study of the proposed
BECCS/U pathway in the State of Qatar, with a CO2 capture source from
a BIGCC system. The fourth section of this study presents the main
findings and discusses the performance of the BECCS/U pathway.
Finally, the conclusion section summarises the main results, presents
some limitations of this work, and suggests areas for future work.
2. Methodology
This work consists of a sequenced analysis of a novel BECCS/U
pathway from source to sink, or ‘plant to plant’, i.e. power plant to food
plant, which combines into an integrative techno-economic and envi­
ronmental assessment. The first part is based on a study of the effects of
CO2 enrichment in agricultural greenhouses. This involves a coupled
microclimate and empirical crop model assessing the technical perfor­
mance of the enriched food system. The second part entails an integra­
tive study combining the whole supply chain of the proposed BECCS/U
pathway with CO2 capture and enrichment.
A specific integrated BECCS/U pathway is proposed and analysed
within the EWF nexus concept for the State of Qatar. A biomass-based
integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC) with post-combustion
carbon capture is chosen as the CO2 source of the BECCS/U system,
representing the energy sub-sector. The BIGCC technology is chosen
because of its demonstrated efficiency, its clean energy conversion
process for direct power generation and its suitability for integration
with carbon capture systems having high removal rates. BIGCC also
represents one of the most promising and economically attractive BECCS
technology routes [40]. Agricultural greenhouses are chosen as the
BECCS/U utilisation pathway and CO2 sink, and represent the food sub-
sector. Relationships between the energy, water and food sub-sectors are
depicted and are studied within the defined system boundary shown in
Fig. 1. The importance of studying this system within the EWF nexus
concept is emphasised by the need to evaluate the BECCS/U pathway as
I. Ghiat et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668

Fig. 1. Schematic of the case study BECCS/U system within the EWF nexus.

an integrative system, accounting for the direct and indirect in­ Governing equations. The conjugate heat transfer and laminar flow
terdependencies between the EWF nexus sub-systems, and accurately model is governed by a set of equations combining two different models.
estimating resource consumption and the GHG emissions throughout the The heat transfer model depicts the energy conservation principal as
supply chain. presented in Eq. (1) [43].
( → )
∂v →
2.1. CO2 Enrichment in agricultural greenhouses: a CO2 utilisation ρC + v ∇T − k∇2 T + T α∇⋅→ v + τ⋅∇→v =0 (1)
∂t
application
The laminar fluid flow is solved using the Navier-Stokes governing
A microclimate model is designed in COMSOL Multiphysics in efforts equation, defined in Eq. (2) [43].
to depict the effect of solar radiation and outside temperature on the ∂→v
inside temperature of the greenhouse. This data is then used in the next ρ + ρ→
v (∇⋅→
v )+→
v (∇⋅ρ→
v ) + ∇p + ∇⋅τ − ρ→
g =0 (2)
∂t
model, describing the crop property evapotranspiration. In addition,
variations in yield are also estimated with regards to changes observed where ρ is the air density, C the specific heat, k is the thermal conduc­
in leaf conductance linked with diffusivity of pollutants within the tivity, α is the coefficient of thermal expansion, τ is the viscous stress
leaves. The coupled microclimate and empirical crop models are used to tensor, →v is a 2D velocity vector, p is the pressure force, and →g is the
estimate the effects of CO2 enrichment on crop water requirements in­ gravitational force.
side the greenhouse. This information is then used to quantify the
amount of energy requirements for water production used for irrigation 2.1.2. Greenhouse empirical crop model
per annum. Finally, the energy requirements for cooling the greenhouse The Penman-Monteith modified Stanghellini equation is used in this
and the energetic value of the produce are also estimated, to quantify the study to estimate the evapotranspiration as presented in Eq. (3). This
net energetic value of the system. The chronology of the analysis modified equation is more applicable for greenhouse settings rather than
adopted in this study is summarised in Fig. 2. open field crops [44]. Incorporated in this equation is the internal leaf
resistance, which is an important factor in this study because it repre­
2.1.1. Microclimate model in COMSOL sents the parameter that directly changes with CO2 concentration levels.
The temperature inside the greenhouse depends on thermal fluxes To visualise the effect of CO2 enrichment on evapotranspiration CO2
developing from the three heat transfer phenomena radiation, convec­ levels from 415 to 1200 ppm are studied. Parameters used in this
tion and conduction occurring between the external environment and equation are summarised in Table 1 and are further defined in Eqs. (4)–
the boundaries and inside of the greenhouse [41]. The COMSOL Mul­ (16).
tiphysics software is used in the study to develop a greenhouse model ( )
depicting conjugate heat transfer and laminar fluid flow. The fluid flow δ Rn + 2 LAIreρA CA VPD
represents the water circulating in the cooling pipes located at the ET c λ = ( ) (3)
bottom of the greenhouse, and that of air in the greenhouse This soft­ γ 1 + δγ + rrei
ware utilises the finite element method to solve several governing
equations describing multi-physical variables. The multi-physics model The internal resistance can be approximated based on microclimate
chosen is particularly beneficial because it can describe heat transfer in parameters in the greenhouse, in which each parameter has an action on
solids and laminar flow interfaces. In this analysis, a 2D greenhouse the minimum possible canopy resistance, rmin, through a function. These
model is adopted as a simplification of the entire greenhouse. It is functions denote the relative increase to the internal resistance of the
assumed that there exists a symmetry in the heat transfer phenomena canopy when parameters such as the shortwave irradiation,
between the facades of the greenhouse [41,42].

4
I. Ghiat et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668

Fig. 2. Methodology for the CO2 utilisation application.

Table 1 ri = rmin ri (Is ) ri (T0 ) ri (CO2 ) ri (es − ea ) (4)

Stanghellini equation parameters.
The first parameter affecting the minimum internal resistance is the
Symbol Description Unit
solar irradiation, described through the function shown in Eq. (5).
δ Slope of the saturation curve of the psychometric chart (Pa/ ◦ C)
Rn Net radiation (W/m2) Is + C1
ri (Is ) = (5)
Is Short wave irradiation (W/m2) Is + C2
LAI Leaf area index Dimensionless
Air density (kg/m3)
ρA
where Is characterises the mean irradiation and is defined by Eq. (6)
CA Specific heat capacity of air (J/kg. ◦ C)
VPD Vapor pressure deficit (Pa) where As is the coefficient of the shortwave radiation and is equal to
γ Psychometric constant (Pa/ ◦ C) 0.14xLAI [45].
ri Internal crop resistance (s/m)
re External crop resistance (s/m) As I s
Is = (6)
l Characteristic dimension of a leaf (m) 2.LAI
Thermal conductivity (W/m.K)
The second parameter is the effect of the leaf temperature T0 defined
λa
Nu Nusselt number Dimensionless
es Saturation vapor pressure (kPa) through the function in Eq. (7) [45].
ea Actual vapor pressure (kPa)
e (T)
◦
Saturation vapor pressure for temperature T (kPa) ri (T0 ) = 1 + C3 (T0 − Tm )2 (7)
RHmean Mean relative humidity (%)
P Atmospheric pressure (Pa)
The third parameter, and which is of significant importance in this
study is the CO2 concentration, with its relative effect approximated
through the function presented in Eq. (8) [45].
temperature, CO2 concentration, vapor pressure deficit vary. As defined
by Stanghellini [45], the internal resistance can be approximated ri (CO2 ) = 1 + C4 (CO2 − 200)2 (8)
following Eq. (4). The fourth parameter having an effect on the internal resistance is

5
I. Ghiat et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668

the vapor pressure deficit and is estimated in Eq. (9) [45]. internal conductance when enriching with 680 ppm of CO2. The model
proposed was based on a bivariate equation relating the yield to the
ri (es − ea ) = 1 + C5 (es − ea )2
(9) concentrations of pollutants. Another model for soybean crops attemp­
The parameters C1–C5 are taken from an optimisation that generates ted to quantify the yield change in relation to O3 and SO2 uptake and
the best combination of parameters able to well fit observed canopy found an increase of 14.7% in yield when an enrichment level of 680
results of 3 days. In this study, parameter values of C1–C5, and the ppm is applied [47]. Unfortunately, studies in this area and specific to
minimum possible internal resistance rmin achieved at a temperature the major crops are not available. The two aforementioned models are
Tmin are taken from a study by Stanghellini [45] as summarised in used to predict changes in the yield with increasing CO2 enrichment
Table 2. concentrations. This calculation is only conducted to observe the per­
As for the external resistance it can be estimated to a constant value, centage change in yield, and not to predict a yield value. Ambient O3 and
as the air movement inside the greenhouse is relatively constant. SO2 values are taken as 0.025 μmol/mol and 0.001 μmol/mol respec­
tively [47]. Based on variations perceived in the crop internal conduc­
ρA C A l tance in the precedent study with increasing CO2 enrichment levels, the
re = (10)
λa Nu pollutant concentrations are to be varied with the same percentage
The slope of the saturation vapor pressure it can be defined according difference to estimate the change in yield. Therefore, if the leaf
to Eq. (11) using the mean air temperature inside the greenhouse [32]. conductance experiences a reduction of x% between 450 ppm and 1200
[ ( )] ppm, then it can be assumed that the amount of O3 and SO2 penetrating
17.27 T
4098 0.6108 exp T+237.3 the leaves will also be reduced by x%. The two models used are pre­
δ= 103 (11) sented in Eqs. (17) and (18) [47].
(T + 237.3)2
yield = 534.5 − 3988.6[O3 ] − 479.7[SO2 ] + 2661[O3 ][SO2 ] + 10960[O3 ]2
The vapor pressure deficit in (Pa) can be defined according to FAO as
(17)
presented in Eq. (12) [32].
( ) ( )
VPD = (es − ea ) 103 (12) yield = 531exp −
[O3 ]
exp −
[SO2 ]
(18)
0.1325 0.8923
where the saturation pressure, es, can be derived from Tmax and Tmin as
expressed in Eq. (13). 2.1.3. Greenhouse energy and water requirements
◦ ◦ Energy requirements for the greenhouse involve cooling and energy
e (Tmax ) + e (Tmin )
es = (13) needed for water desalination. Cooling requirements Ecooling (MJ/year)
2
for the greenhouse are estimated from the total heat transfer rate Q̇total
with e (T) being the saturation vapor pressure for a given temperature
◦
(W/m2) over the coefficient of performance as presented in Eq. (19)
defined in Eq. (14) [32]. [48,49].
( )
17.27 T Q̇total = Q̇sun + Q̇cover (19)
(14)
◦
e (T) = 0.6108 exp
T + 237.3
With Q̇sun being the heat transfer rate from solar radiation and is
As for the actual vapor pressure, ea, it can be derived from the estimated following Eq. (20).
average relative humidity as displayed in Eq. (15) [32].
Q̇sun = τcover Is Agreenhouse (20)
es RH mean
ea = (15)
100 where τcover is the transmissivity of the cover material, Is is the average
Finally, the psychometric constant is estimated using the pressure solar radiation (W/m2), and Agreenhouse (m2) is the floor surface area of
inside the greenhouse, assumed to be similar to atmospheric pressure as the greenhouse [49].
expressed in Eq. (16) [32]. Q̇cover represents the heat transfer through the cover of the green­
house, estimated in Eq. (21).
γ = 0.665 x 10− 3 P (16)
Q̇cover = Ucover Acover (Tout − Tin ) (21)
Other effects are visualised when enriching the greenhouse with CO2
in terms of yield improvement. Few studies have explained this phe­ where Ucover (W/m2. ◦ C) is the cover material heat transfer coefficient,
nomenon, whereby the increase of CO2 concentrations leads to the Acover (m2) is the area of the cover, Tout is the external temperature, and
decrease of stomata conductance which protects the plants from air Tin is the required air temperature inside the greenhouse [49].
pollutants mainly O3 and SO2. The decrease of stomata conductance is Assuming the irrigation efficiency is 90%, the crop water require­
proportional to the decrease in the plant’s uptake of these pollutants ment is estimated from the evapotranspiration following Eq. (22) [50].
found in the air. Only few simplified and crop specific models were able
to estimate the change of the yield with the change of pollutants diffu­ Wreq =
ET c
(22)
sivity through stomata with varying CO2 concentrations. For instance, a ƞirrigation
model developed by Heagle et al. [46] was able to predict a yield in­ Hence the net energy, Enet, greenhouse (MJ/year) of the greenhouse
crease of 15.4% for soybean crops due to a reduction of 69% in the leaf system is computed as the energy produced minus the energy re­
quirements of the greenhouse as expressed in Eq. (23).
Table 2 Enet,greenhouse = Eproduce − Ecooling − Ewater− (23)
RO
Internal resistance coefficients.
C1 4.3
2.2. Techno-Economic and Environmental Analysis of the BECCS/U
C2 0.54
C3 2.3 × 10− 2 pathway
7
C4 6.1 × 10−
C5 4.3 2.2.1. Technical assessment: net energy value of the integrated system
rmin (s/m) 82 The net energy of the integrated system is calculated according to Eq.
Tmin (◦ C) 24.5
(24):

6
I. Ghiat et al.
Enet,BECCU = EBE − ECC − Etransportation − Ecooling − Ewater− RO + Eproduce
Where EBE and ECC represent the energy produced from the
bioenergy-based system and energy used for the carbon capture
respectively. As for Ecooling, Ewater-RO, and Eproduce, they represent energy
requirements for cooling and production of irrigation water respec­
tively, and the energetic value of the produce. The later values are
retrieved from Section 2.1 as Enet,greenhouse, representing the net energy
from the greenhouse system. The energy used in transporting the CO2
from the power plant to the greenhouses is also calculated based on Eq.
(25), and includes the energy needed for CO2 compression (Eprocessing)
[51].
Etransportation = Cd ρd CF d distance + Eprocessing
With Cd being the trucks’ diesel consumption, ρd the density of
diesel, CFd the calorific value of diesel, the distance is between distri­
bution center and the greenhouse, Eprocessing is the energy needed in
processing CO2 for transportation.
2.2.2. Environmental assessment: net CO2 emissions of the integrated
system
The net environmental emissions are calculated based on the
following Eq. (26).
CO2net,BECCU = CO2CC − CO2BE − CO2transportation − CO2cooling − CO2water−
∓ CO2 not− sequestered
The CO2not-sequestered corresponds to the CO2 not absorbed by the
plants from the injected CO2 in the greenhouse. This latter value is
calculated by subtracting the maximum quantity of CO2 that plants can
absorb during photosynthesis from the injected CO2 amount in the
greenhouse.
2.2.3. Economic assessment: levelised cost of the integrated system
The levelised cost is used for the economic assessment as it measures
the building and operating costs of the project per generated services or
commodities over the lifetime of the project. The levelised cost can also
be perceived as the minimum price of the produced commodity needed
to offset the total costs during the lifetime of the project. This is a
beneficial indicator in this study particularly because it will enable an
adequate and valid comparison between the proposed pathway/system
utilising CO2 in agricultural greenhouses, and that without CO2 uti­
lisation. The calculated levelised cost is based on Eqs. (27)–(30) [52].
∑
20
OPEX total
CAPEX total + (1+i)n
LC = i=1
∑
20
producei
i=1
(1+i)n
CAPEX total = CAPEX BE + CAPEX CC + CAPEX greenhouse
OPEX total = OPEX BE + OPEX CC + OPEX transportation + OPEX greenhouse
CAPEXgreenhouse, CAPEXBE, CAPEXCC represent the capital costs of the
greenhouse, bioenergy system, and carbon capture system respectively.
The operating costs are denoted by OPEXBE for the bioenergy system,
OPEXCC for the carbon capture system, and OPEXgreenhouse for inhouse
greenhouse operations. The term producei denotes the amount of pro­
duce in kg/year. In terms of transportation, compressed liquid CO2 gas
(~8 MPa) is assumed to be transported from the bioenergy-based plant
to the distribution centre via pipeline. Once at the distribution centre,
the CO2 is furthered handled and is stored in 10 kg capacity cylinders.
This step is necessary for the next transportation of CO2 from the dis­
tribution centre to the two greenhouses via road by means of trucks.One
truck is assumed to load a maximum number of 50 cylinders of CO2. The
associated operating cost, OPEXtransportation, is defined as the summation
Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668
(24) of the cost of transport handling via pipeline Cp and truck CT, and the
cost of CO2 processing Cprocessing and storage Cstorage.
OPEX transportation = CP + CT + Cprocessing + Cstorage (30)
3. Case study in the state of Qatar
3.1. CO2 source
This study involves a performance assessment of a source of CO2
from a bioenergy conversion system with carbon capture, which tackles
the technical, economic and environmental aspects of the proposed
system, and is based on work conducted by Ghiat et al. [53]. A biomass
(25)
integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC) with post combustion
carbon capture using potassium carbonate as a solvent is adopted as a
CO2 source for the BECCS/U network (Fig. 3). Date pits are used as the
biomass feedstock due to their dominance in the optimal biomass mix
for syngas production via gasification in a study by AlNouss et al. [54],
and their large abundance as a waste stream in the State of Qatar. In the
proposed system, biomass is first decomposed to its elemental compo­
sition, then fed to a separator for ash elimination, and finally it is gasi­
fied. The produced syngas from gasification is then transferred to the
power generation unit, where syngas is combusted and then expanded in
the combined cycle gas turbine. The exhaust gas from the gas turbine is
RO
then fed to the carbon capture unit, consisting of an absorber and
desorber. At the level of the absorber, the exhaust gas is fed to the lower
(26) stage and the solvent is introduced to the upper stage. The CO2 rich
stream exiting the absorber, known as Rich-out, is fed to the desorber to
strip the CO2 from the solvent, whilst the non-absorbed CO2 (Gas-out) is
emitted back to the environment. The carbon capture unit is charac­
terised by a closed solvent loop, where the solvent is recovered from the
desorber and fed back to the absorber. The BIGCC with carbon capture
system has been modelled and simulated in Aspen Plus in previous work
by Ghiat et al. [53] to evaluate its techno-economic and environmental
performance. The technical assessment involved a thermodynamic
analysis performed to evaluate the system’s overall efficiency, and
sensitivity analyses to determine the best operating parameters. The
economic analysis consists of quantifying the capital (CAPEX) and
operating (OPEX) costs of the integrated BIGCC with carbon capture
system using the Aspen Process Economic Analyser (APEA). In addition,
the environmental assessment involves the computation of net CO2
emissions from the different input and output streams of the hybrid
system. Two scenarios are considered in this analysis; scenario one ac­
counts for CO2 emissions from the BIGCC, and scenario two evaluates
the assumption that CO2 emissions from the BIGCC are null. Scenario
two assumes that the quantity of CO2 absorbed during photosynthesis by
(27)
the biomass and the quantity emitted during gasification is identical.
Reported results indicate that the proposed BIGCC system with car­
bon capture (CC) produced 419 kW of electricity and was able to
(28) captured 80% of the emitted CO2 using piperazine promoted potassium
carbonate. The calculated CAPEX and OPEX costs for proposed system
(29) with a 20 year operating life are summarised in the Table 3 [53]. Ac­
cording to the same study, the environmental assessment conducted for
this system, resulted in positive emissions of 0.095 kg/kWh of CO2 for
the first scenario accounting for CO2 emissions from the BIGCC. The
integrated system with the second scenario assumption of zero emissions
from the BIGCC attained negative emissions of 0.31 kg/kWh of CO2
[53].
3.2. CO2 sink
A previous GIS-based study presented viable potential agricultural
greenhouse locations in the State of Qatar based on balancing the energy
used for CO2 transport and the energy saved from water reduction by
means of CO2 enrichment [55]. These locations are considered in this
study for setting the greenhouse network model, along with a possible
7
I. Ghiat et al.
Fig. 3. BIGCC with carbon capture configuration.
Table 3
Total costs from BIGCC with CC power plant (after Ghiat et al. [53]).
Cost Summary
Total capital cost [$] 15,685,700
Total operating cost [$/year] 3,997,290
biomass-based power plant, and a distribution centre based on the
available pipeline and road routes [56] (Fig. 4). In order to utilise the
entire amount of CO2 captured at the proposed bioenergy system, 18
greenhouses located in the northern area of Al-Khor are considered in
this analysis. The BIGCC power plant with carbon capture is taken to be
located in Doha connected to a distribution centre via an existing
pipeline network used for other applications. The distribution centre is
also connected to the greenhouses’ area via road routes. The proposed
Fig. 4. Potential locations for greenhouses, BIGCC plant, and a distribution
center in the State of Qatar (Modified after Al-Ansari et al. [55]).
8
Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668
distribution centre is 60 km away from the BIGCC plant, and 53 km away
from the agricultural zone with greenhouses.
Tomatoes are chosen as the crop grown in greenhouses located
Northern of Qatar, in order to quantify the effects of CO2 enrichment on
agricultural greenhouses. Tomato crops are chosen in this study, as they
hold one of the largest share amongst the vegetables produced in Qatar
[57,58].However, the methodology introduced in this work is generic
such that it can be extended to other crops and in other geographical
locations. Greenhouse dimensions are assumed to be 50x50x8 m.
External weather data according to the northern location of Al-Khor in
Qatar, delivered from meteorological data stations, are used to estimate
the inside microclimate conditions in the greenhouse along with the
crop evapotranspiration specific to tomatoes.
The optimal temperature during the day for growing tomatoes is
between 18 and 25 ◦ C, hence considering the climate in Qatar it is
necessary to apply cooling to the greenhouse to maintain the inside
temperature within the advisable [32]. The greenhouse considered in
this study has dimensions of 50 m in width and 8 m in height, a pitched
roof, and silica glass as a covering material. Moreover, a cooling system
represented by five water cooling pipes located underneath the crop
level is put in place for this model as displayed in Fig. 5. The materials
used in this study are silica glass, air, and water. Their physical and
chemical characteristics are extracted from the COMSOL database and
are summarised in the Table 4. The model is meshed and solved using
the finite element method as illustrated in Fig. 5.
Varying average outside temperature and solar radiation for each
month of the year specific to Al-Khor location are considered to depict
the variations perceived in the greenhouse internal climate. Accord­
ingly, solar radiation and external air temperature are applied to the
system’s boundary as a heat flux, and inside air temperature is evaluated
for each month. The solution method chosen in this study depicts the
varied temperature gradient within the greenhouse at different levels
from the ground and throughout the horizontal axes for a period of 7 h.
This is particularly beneficial to ensure temperature uniformity
throughout the greenhouse plants.
The microclimate model is fed to the empirical crop model to assess
the evapotranspiration through the Penman-Monteith modified Stan­
ghellini equation. Parameters used in this assessment are relevant to
tomato crops grown in agricultural greenhouses in the State of Qatar as
depicted in Table 5. The crop coefficient Kc is estimated for crop mid-
I. Ghiat et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668

Fig. 5. Greenhouse design in COMSOL.

Therefore, the conventional system used for comparison consists of

Table 4
separate bioenergy and food systems which are not integrated within the
Materials’ chemical and physical characteristics.
BECCS and EWF nexus concepts. Thus, the conventional system does not
Material Thermal conductivity k (W/ Density Heat Capacity Cp (J/kg. benefit from system integration and its induced cross-sectoral opportu­
m⋅K) ρ (kg/ K)
nities. The comparison is evaluated based on several parameters tackling
m3)
the technical, environmental and economic aspects of both pathways.
Air 0.026 1.225 1420 The data used in the calculation of the net energy of the integrated
Water 0.59 1000 4185.5
Silica 1.38 2203 703
BECCS/U system is summarised in Table 6.
glass As for the environmental analysis of the integrated BECCS/U system,
a net photosynthesis rate is assumed based on a study conducted by
Heuvelink, where tomato crops subjected to CO2 levels of 1200 ppm
reach a photosynthesis rate of 45.42 μmol CO2 m− 2.s− 1, considering a
Table 5
Stanghellini equation parameters for case study. dark respiration rate of 0.68 μmol CO2 m− 2.s− 1 [61]. The parameters
used in the calculation of CO2net,BECCU are summarised in Table 7.
Symbol Value Unit
The economic analysis of the integrated BECC/U system consisting of
kc 1.15 Dimensionless the evaluation of the levelized cost of the proposed network of BIGCC
LAI 4.62 Dimensionless
with greenhouses is based on the parameters summarised in Table 8.
ρA 1.117 (kg/m3)
CA 1003.5 (J/kg. ◦ C)
re 185 (s/m)
l 0.043 (m) 3.4. Sensitivity analyses
P 101.325 (Pa)
Several scenarios are examined to demonstrate the techno-economic
and environmental implications of different key system parameters on
season. The leaf area index is a dimensionless variable representing the
the overall performance of the BECCS/U pathway (Table 9).
area of the leaf over the area of the soil surface. The maximum LAI value
for tomatoes grown in a greenhouse under full irrigation was estimated
from a study by Al Mamun Hossain et al. [59] as 4.62.
To calculate the net energy at the level of the greenhouses, silica
glass is chosen as the cover material for the greenhouses with a trans­ Scaling up the system. The proposed system is also studied on a larger
missivity of 0.76. As for the water requirements for irrigation, desali­ scale, whereby economies of scale are made possible and are reflected on
nation of brackish water is the main source for agricultural use in the improvements in terms of economic cost. The scaled-up system sug­
State of Qatar. The energy requirements for water production Ewater− RO gested is able to meet the demand of the state of Qatar in terms of tomato
(MJ/year) are calculated based on the energy needed to desalinate crops grown locally, which represents 35% of its self-sufficiency in to­
aquifer brackish water through the Reverse Osmosis (RO) technology; matoes, similar to the year of 2014 [57]. Benefiting from economies of
estimated around 3 kWh per cubic meter of fresh water produced for scale, particularly in this system, are projected to reduce the main
irrigation purposes [60]. capital costs per unit of produce. Hence, the new expanded system will
utilise the same BIGCC plant fed with a higher biomass rate, a scaled-up

3.3. Integrated BECCU/S system Table 6

Energy balance data.
This section combines the results from the two previous analyses to
Parameter Value Unit
assess the overall system from source to sink. A comparison study is also
Diesel consumption of trucks Cd 0.3 L/km.truck
conducted between the proposed system with CO2 capture and uti­
Density of diesel ρd 0.832 kg/L
lisation in agricultural greenhouses, and a conventional system without Calorific value of diesel CFd 45.5 MJ/kg
capture and utilisation of CO2. It should be noted that the evaluation of Distance between distribution center and Al-Khor area 53 km
the conventional system also consists of a full system assessment, bio­ Energy for CO2 processing for transportation Eprocessing 0.08 kWh/kg
energy system and greenhouses, although it excludes the carbon capture Energy requirements for RO 3 kWh/m3
Energy content of tomatoes 0.8 MJ/kg
segment, the CO2 transport, and the CO2 enrichment in greenhouses.

9
I. Ghiat et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668

Table 7 4. Results and discussion

Emissions data.
Parameter Value Unit Reference 4.1. CO2 utilisation application
CO2 emissions from trucks 0.212 kg/km [62]
CO2 emissions from energy 0.45 kg/kWh [63] 4.1.1. Greenhouse microclimate model
Results for the temperature distribution throughout the greenhouse
are retrieved from the simulation conducted in COMSOL. The simulation
is run for seven hours, and for a representative average solar radiation
Table 8
Levelised cost data.
and external temperature of each month of the year. Fig. 7 depicts the
internal greenhouse temperature distribution for the month of January,
Parameter Value Unit References
and an average temperature around 25 ◦ C is attained at a level of 2 m
Initial greenhouse investment cost 0.96 $/m2 [64] from the ground and away from the walls.
CAPEXgreenhouse
Initial power plant investment cost $ Section 3.1
CAPEXBIGCC
4.1.2. Greenhouse empirical crop model
Initial carbon capture investment cost $ Section 3.1 Temperature results from the microclimate model are used as an
CAPEXCC input in the empirical crop model to evaluate the monthly evapotrans­
Operating cost of the power plant $ Section 3.1 piration of the tomato crops. Variations in the CO2 concentration affect
OPEXBIGCC
the internal crop resistance which in turn impacts the overall crop
Operating cost of the carbon capture $ Section 3.1
segment OPEXCC evapotranspiration. It is observed that the internal crop resistance in­
Cost of pipeline CO2 transport 0.0013 $/kg for 300 [65] creases, and the evapotranspiration decreases with increasing CO2
km concentrations. The total yearly evapotranspiration for the baseline case
Cost of CO2 storage 0.08 $/kg with atmospheric CO2 levels is around 1.134 m3/m2⋅year, as compared
Cost of fertilisers 0.21 $/m2 [64]
Cost of electricity 0.0189 $/kWh [66]
to 0.812 m3/m2⋅year when injecting 1200 ppm concentration of CO2
Cost of diesel 0.5 $/l [67] into the greenhouse (Fig. 8). The yearly evapotranspiration is hence
reduced by approximately 28% between the baseline concentration of
415 ppm and that of 1200 ppm. Therefore, enriching with 1200 ppm of
CO2 is able to reduce the crop water requirements by 28%.
Table 9
Summary of studied scenarios. Moreover, it is observed that the leaf conductance (the inverse of
resistance) decreased by 36% when increasing the CO2 concentration
Sensitivity Aim Scenarios Variables Studied
from 415 ppm to 1200 ppm. Hence, it can be assumed that the pollutants
analyses outputs
SO2 and O3 penetrating the leaf stomata will also decrease by 36% from
Scaling up Study the benefits -Scenario 1: System’s Levelised
ambient levels. Following the two models predicting the change in yield
the of economies of 18 CAPEX and cost
system scale on the greenhouses OPEX. in relation with SO2 and O3 levels, it is found that the yield is increased
economic -Scenario 2: by 14.8% for the first model and 12.9% for the second model. An
performance of 61 additional average yield increase of 13.8% is hence estimated when enriching the
the BECCS/U greenhouses greenhouse environment with 1200 ppm of CO2. This can be explained
system.
by the fact that these pollutants damage the plants, and so it is expected
Location Study the effect of -Scenario 1: Weather data, -Net
scenarios greenhouse Al-Khor distance energy that reducing their concentrations will enable a safer and healthier
locations on the northern between balance growth for the plants.
techno- region greenhouses -Net CO2
environmental -Scenario 2: and BIGCC. emissions
4.1.3. Greenhouse energy and water requirements
performance of Al-Kiranah
the BECCS/U southern
Following Eq. (23), the energy requirements needed for cooling the
system. region greenhouse to an optimal growing temperature in the range of 18–25 ◦ C
-Scenario 3: is estimated as 7681 MJ/year per greenhouse. As for the water re­
Doha quirements for crop irrigation, it is assessed based on results of evapo­
transpiration and an irrigation efficiency of 90%. The water
carbon capture system, and 61 additional greenhouses with the same requirements for the baseline scenario with 415 ppm concentration of
dimensions as discussed previously. The levelised cost is calculated CO2 reached an amount of 1.25 m3/m2.year per greenhouse. As for the
following the same equation introduced earlier in Eq. (27). case with 1200 ppm CO2 enrichment, the crop water requirement is 28%
less than the baseline atmospheric concentration, attaining an amount of
0.9 m3/m2⋅year per greenhouse. Thus, approximately 0.35 m3/m2⋅year
Location scenarios. Three scenarios are considered based on the location
of irrigation water per greenhouse can be recovered from enriching the
of greenhouses using GIS. Scenario 1 corresponds to the northern loca­
greenhouse with 1200 ppm of CO2. The net energy of the greenhouse
tion of Al-Khor described in Section 3.2. Scenario 2 studies another
flows is estimated as 7.99 × 105 MJ/year for the 18 implemented
greenhouse location situated in the southern region of Qatar, Al-Kiranah
greenhouse systems when enriching with 1200 ppm. As a comparison
(Fig. 6). Scenario 3 explores greenhouses situated next to the BIGCC
the net energy of the same system without CO2 enrichment is estimated
with carbon capture power plant in Doha (Fig. 6). This study is impor­
as 4.57 × 105 MJ/year. Hence, the reduction in water requirements and
tant as it evaluates the effect of greenhouse locations on the overall
improvements in yield due to CO2 enrichment allowed the greenhouse
techno-environmental analysis. It should be noted that the location is an
system to reach a higher net energy value. Furthermore, the concept of
important factor in this study, whereby weather data, and the CO2
EWF nexus is illustrated in this analysis, demonstrating the relationship
transportation network directly reflect on the analysis results.
between the energy water and food sub-systems, whereby the
enhancement of the food sub-system by means of injecting CO2 origi­
nating from an energy sub-system enabled to diminish water con­
sumption related to agricultural use and ease stresses on water sub-
systems to sustain their operation.

10
I. Ghiat et al. Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668

Fig. 6. Greenhouses location scenarios in Al-Kiranah and Doha.

Fig. 7. COMSOL model for internal greenhouse temperature.

4.2. Integrated BECCS/U system

The integrated BECCS/U system combining all its subsystems from

source to sink including the transportation network is studied in terms of
technical, environmental and economic performance. The proposed
system with CO2 capture and utilisation is also compared to a green­
house system not utilising CO2. This comparison is also conducted
throughout the different techno-economic and environmental perfor­
mance assessments to investigate the feasibility of the proposed BECCS/
U pathway. This integrative study also considers the EWF nexus concept
as an essential tool to accurately evaluate the proposed BECCS/U system
by assessing the material and energy flows within the energy, water and
food sub-systems, and evaluating the impact of each sub-system on the
others.

Fig. 8. Change in evapotranspiration with varying CO2 enrichment levels. 4.2.1. Technical assessment
The technical assessment involves all the energy value of the total
produced commodities from the system, electricity and tomatoes, sub­
tracting all the energy requirements of the integrated system. It is found

11
I. Ghiat et al.
that the proposed system with CO2 enrichment has a net energy of 2.62
× 106 MJ/year. This energy was noted to be lower than that of the
system without CO2 enrichment (1.37 × 107 MJ/year) as depicted in
Fig. 9. This disparity can be explained by the additional energy re­
quirements of the system utilising CO2, mainly related to energy for
carbon capture and energy for CO2 transportation. In more detail, the
energy savings from water savings is estimated to be 1.81 × 105 MJ/year
versus the additional energy required from the carbon capture and
transportation activities quantified as 1.14 × 107 MJ/year. These find­
ings demonstrate that a significant portion of the energy requirements
from the energy sub-system of this BECCS/U pathway is offset by im­
provements in the water sub-system due to the enhancement of the food
sub-system, which reinforces the importance of evaluating the EWF
nexus.
4.2.2. Environmental assessment
To assess the environmental performance of the integrated system,
each subsystem is studied separately to quantify its CO2 emissions. Ac­
cording to Ghiat et al. [53], the BIGCC emits 39.8 kg/h of CO2, following
the assumption of scenario one in Section 3.1. Thus, for this assumption,
the net CO2 emissions of the integrated proposed BECCS/U pathway are
estimated as negative7.65 × 105 kg/year. The BIGCC plant uses biomass
as feed to produce useful energy in the form of electricity. Thus, it is
assumed that the biomass used as feed has previously absorbed CO2 for
its photosynthesis, which is then released in the same CO2 quantity
during the energy conversion process. Therefore, CO2 emissions from
the BIGCC system are assumed to be null, following scenario two of
Section 3.1. When applying carbon capture to the BIGCC power plant,
the system falls to negative CO2 quantities. However, at the greenhouse
level CO2 emissions due to energy requirements for cooling and water
production for irrigation are added. In addition, CO2 emissions from
transportation are also considered to quantify the net CO2 emissions of
the entire supply chain. The net CO2 releases from the proposed
pathway, following scenario two, are reported as negative1.11 × 106
kg/year, which corresponds to negative 24.6 kg/m2.year of CO2 per land
cultivated. However, the same system of greenhouses without CO2
capture and utilisation emits 9.78 × 104 kg/year of CO2. This system
comparison demonstrates the impact of the proposed ‘plant to plant’
approach in mitigating climate change whilst still being able to serve the
community with the necessary commodities. Moreover, findings
demonstrate that CO2 emissions from the energy sub-sector (CC, trans­
portation, water desalination) are partly offset by improvements in the
water and food sub-sectors, and mostly by the sequestered CO2 at the
level of the food sub-system. This showcases the importance of evalu­
ating the cross-sectional synergies of the EWF which led to the attain­
ment of negative CO2 emissions in evaluating this BECCS/U pathway.
The above results are a testament to the existence of trade-offs be­
tween the technical and environmental performances, where the pro­
posed system with 18 greenhouses is able to offset more CO2 emissions
than the baseline system without CO2 enrichment, albeit at a lower net
energy value as displayed in the Fig. 10. The adoption of less
Fig. 9. Net energy value of the integrated system.
12
Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668
Fig. 10. Net CO2 emissions for the integrated system.
greenhouses than the initial proposed CO2 enrichment system has also
been investigated to illustrate the trade-off existing between the net
energy and net CO2 emissions, denoted as 1 greenhouse and 5 green­
houses in Fig. 11. For instance, when adopting CO2 enrichment in only
one greenhouse the net energy is improved, however, less CO2 is being
utilised in this application and hence less CO2 is offset as compared to
the enrichment in 18 greenhouses. Although there is a trade-off between
the technical and environmental aspects of this system, it is important to
emphasise that the proposed pathway is still able to generate a positive
energy value in the form of electricity and food, and enhance food
systems.
4.2.3. Economic assessment
In order to study the proposed negative emissions pathway in a
comprehensive manner, an economic analysis is conducted as described
in Section 2.2.3 The levelised cost of the integrated system with 18
greenhouses, accounting for the capital and operating costs of the entire
supply chain for a project lifespan of 20 years is estimated to be 3.88
$/kg of tomatoes produced as compared to 3.05 $/kg for the case with
no CO2 utilisation. In this scenario, the proposed CO2 emissions
approach resulted in a higher levelised cost than the system without CO2
emissions. Based on the individual costs, the main contributors for this
high cost emerges from the carbon capture capital and operating costs
along with the transportation costs. Hence, a scaled-up network is pro­
posed to benefit from the full capacities of the subsystems and profit
from economies of scale. The enlarged network, as discussed in Section
3.4, is implemented to satisfy the needs of Qatari population for tomato
crops based on a 35% (production) self-sufficiency level similar to the
year 2014, which incurred the addition of 61 greenhouses to the
network. The new calculated levelised cost for the expanded system with
CO2 capture and utilisation is estimated as 0.35 $/kg of tomatoes
(Fig. 12). The new levelised cost of the scaled-up system is lower than
the initial system with 18 greenhouses with a difference of 3.53 $/kg of
tomatoes. For the large-scale network, the system without CO2 capture
and utilisation is still scoring a lower levelised cost than the proposed
approach, which induces trade-offs between the economic and envi­
ronmental performances of these systems.
Results from the pathway presented in this work were compared to a
close CO2 utilisation pathway in greenhouses studied by Oreggioni et al.
[8]. For accurate comparison, the levelised cost of CO2 utilisation in the
greenhouse was calculated following the equation proposed by Ore­
ggioni et al. [8]. This new levelised cost is calculated for a system
boundary limited to the greenhouse only. The greenhouse levelised cost
in this study was found to be approximately 0.15 $/kg of CO2 avoided
for the scaled-up system as compared to approximately 0.089 $/kg of
CO2 avoided in the study conducted by Oreggioni et al. [8]. The dif­
ference perceived between these values can be explained by the fact that
Oreggioni et al. [8] produced the energy needed in the greenhouse
locally and used a renewable heat incentive as a revenue stream in the
levelised cost calculation. Whereas, in this study the cost of cooling,
water production, and fertilisers are added to the greenhouse levelised
I. Ghiat et al.
Fig. 11. Net energy and CO2 emissions matrix of the integrated system.
Fig. 12. Levelised cost ($/kg tomatoes) of the integrated system.
cost calculation, which explains the higher cost per CO2 avoided.
Moreover, the computed levelised cost per CO2 avoided of the entire
BECCS/U system is approximately 779 $/tCO2 avoided for the scaled-up
system. The levelised cost calculated in this study is within the range
values determined in the literature, such as between 804$-3142$/tCO2
avoided from Mac Dowell et al. [68], and between 70$-250$/tCO2
avoided from McLaren [69]. Other studies suggested lower costs for
BECCS/U systems, such as 59$-111$/tCO2 by McGlashan et al. [70], and
40$-220$/tCO2 for the geological storage option by the IPCC [71]. The
higher levelised cost found in this study can be explained through the
consideration of the added capital and operating costs of the green­
houses, and without added CO2 tax revenue in the computation of the
results. Moreover, future work is expected to lower the levelised cost of
this proposed pathway by optimising the supply chain network.
Location scenarios. The breakdown of the CO2 transportation indicates
that the cost of transportation by truck and that of CO2 storage at the
level of the distribution centre and the greenhouses hold the largest
share as illustrated in Fig. 13. This can be considered further in future
studies to develop detailed logistics analyses for this application and to
optimise the network. The cost of CO2 storage can be lowered by fore­
casting the demand and assessing the delivery and lag times. The cost of
transportation from the distribution centre to the greenhouses via truck
can also be improved by analysing other greenhouse locations as
demonstrated by the scenario analysis.
The previous proposed system assumed a location for greenhouses in
the Al-Khor area in Qatar, where most existing greenhouses are located.
However, it is necessary to investigate the impact of other greenhouse
locations on the performance of the proposed negative emissions
approach in the agricultural crop production. The system with green­
houses located in Al-Kiranah area attained the lowest net energy of all
systems. This is due to the higher crop water requirements because of the
13
Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668
Fig. 13. Breakdown of CO2 transportation cost.
weather conditions in that area, in addition to its distance from the
distribution centre being the furthest. Greenhouse systems in the Doha
area recorded the best performance in terms of net energy and CO2
offset. However, this location may pose some environmental and social
issues. Air pollution concerns from the power plant nearby can emerge,
possibly impacting the air quality inside the greenhouse and damaging
the plants. In addition, the social aspect needs to be considered, whereby
setting greenhouses in the city can be aesthetically unpleasing. There­
fore, Al-Khor area can be considered as a suitable location for setting
greenhouses, where it appears to be in compliance with technical,
environmental and social aspects of a sustainable project.
5. Conclusions
The study presented in this work enabled a holistic techno-economic
and environmental assessment of a ‘plant to plant’ BECCS/U pathway
enhancing food systems through CO2 enrichment. The integrated system
can assess the interlinkages between EWF resources by estimating the
different material flows and resource consumption at the level of the
CO2 source, the CO2 transportation network, and CO2 sink of the BECCS/
U system. The main findings of this study specific to a case study in the
State of Qatar are:
• An enrichment with 1200 ppm induced a reduction in crop water
requirements by 28% and increased the yield by 13.8% as compared
to the baseline scenario with a CO2 level of 415 ppm.
I. Ghiat et al.
• The net energy estimated for the greenhouses with a CO2 enrichment
of 1200 ppm was 7.99 × 105 MJ/year as compared to the greenhouse
system without CO2 enrichment which reached 4.57 × 105 MJ/year.
• The reduction in crop water requirements along with yield
improvement due to CO2 enrichment led to a higher net energy value
than conventional greenhouse systems.
• The proposed integrated BECCS/U system with CO2 enrichment has
a net energy of 2.62 × 106 MJ/year, lower than a system without CO2
capture nor enrichment (1.37 × 107 MJ/year).
• The net CO2 emissions of the BECCS/U system are reported as
negative 1.11 × 106 kg/year attained by the CO2 enrichment system,
and positive 9.79 × 104 kg/year of CO2 for the baseline system
without CO2 enrichment.
• The levelised cost for the proposed BECCS/U pathway is estimated to
be 3.88 $/kg and 0.35 $/kg of tomatoes produced for the scaled-up
system when benefiting from economies of scale.
This EWF nexus driven assessment enabled the study of trade-offs
between the technical, environmental, and economic performance of
the proposed BECCS/U pathway. Although the conventional food sys­
tem achieved a better technical and economic performance, the sug­
gested BECCS/U pathway with CO2 capture and enrichment
demonstrated a better environmental performance by reaching net
negative CO2 emissions and a more sustainable resource consumption in
support of EWF nexus objectives. It should be noted that the findings of
this study are specific to the proposed integrated system for the State of
Qatar. Although, this approach is adapted to Qatar, it can easily be
applied to other case studies by varying the input parameters of each
sub-system of the BECCS/U network, mainly the biomass feed compo­
sition in the source node of CO2, the external climate conditions in the
microclimate and crop models, the type of crop grown in the crop model,
the distances between the different locations of the subsystems in the
transportation analysis. It is also important for policy makers to tailor
this approach to their existing energy, water and food system configu­
ration and infrastructure, their EWF resource availability, and their
specific commodity needs.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ikhlas Ghiat: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing -
original draft. Farhat Mahmood: Methodology, Software. Rajesh
Govindan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software. Tareq Al-
Ansari: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing,
Resources, Supervision, Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research is supported by the Qatar National Research Fund
proposal (NPRP11S-0107-180216). Open Access funding provided by
the Qatar National Library.
References
[1] IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: 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. Geneva, Switzerland: 2018.
[2] AlNouss A, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. A techno-economic-environmental study
evaluating the potential of oxygen-steam biomass gasification for the generation of
value-added products. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019;196:664–76. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.06.019.
14
Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668
[3] AlNouss A, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. Enhancing waste to hydrogen production
through biomass feedstock blending: a techno-economic-environmental
evaluation. Appl. Energy 2020;266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2020.114885.
[4] Ghiat I, AlNouss A, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. Modelling and simulation of a biomass-
based integrated gasification combined cycle with carbon capture: comparison
between monoethanolamine and potassium carbonate. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ
Sci 2020;463. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/463/1/012019.
[5] Fajardy M, Mac Dowell N. Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient
negative emissions? Energy Environ. Sci. 2017;10:1389–426. https://doi.org/
10.1039/C7EE00465F.
[6] Müller LJ, Kätelhön A, Bachmann M, Zimmermann A, Sternberg A, Bardow A.
A guideline for life cycle assessment of carbon capture and utilization. Front Energy
Res 2020;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00015.
[7] Fajardy M, Köberle A, Dowell NMAC, Fantuzzi A. BECCS-deployment-: a-reality-
check. Grantham Inst Brief Pap 2018:28.
[8] Oreggioni GD, Luberti M, Tassou SA. Agricultural greenhouse CO2 utilization in
anaerobic-digestion-based biomethane production plants: a techno-economic and
environmental assessment and comparison with CO2 geological storage. Appl.
Energy 2019;242:1753–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.045.
[9] Al-Mamoori A, Krishnamurthy A, Rownaghi AA, Rezaei F. Carbon capture and
utilization update. Energy Technol 2017;5:834–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ente.201600747.
[10] Hanak DP, Manovic V. Combined heat and power generation with lime production
for direct air capture. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018;160:455–66. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2018.01.037.
[11] Chiang PC, Pan SY. Chapter 2: post-combustion carbon capture, storage, and
utilization. In: Carbon Dioxide Miner. Util.; 2017. p. 1–452. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-10-3268-4.
[12] Bhatia SK, Bhatia RK, Jeon J-M, Kumar G, Yang Y-H. Carbon dioxide capture and
bioenergy production using biological system – a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
2019;110:143–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.070.
[13] Baena-Moreno FM, Sebastia-Saez D, Wang Q, Reina TR. Is the production of
biofuels and bio-chemicals always profitable? Co-production of biomethane and
urea from biogas as case study. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020;220:113058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113058.
[14] Wei C, Huang Y, Liao Q, Zhu X, Xia A, Zhu X. Application of bubble carrying to
Chlorella vulgaris flocculation with branched cationic starch: an efficient and
economical harvesting method for biofuel production. Energy Convers. Manag.
2020;213:112833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112833.
[15] Nayak M, Suh WI, Lee B, Chang YK. Enhanced carbon utilization efficiency and
FAME production of Chlorella sp. HS2 through combined supplementation of
bicarbonate and carbon dioxide. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018;156:45–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.11.002.
[16] Martin-Nagle R, Howard E, Wiltse A, Duncan D. The Water, Energy and Food
Security Nexus - Solutions for the Green Economy. Conference Synopsis, Federal
Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety; 2012. p. 28.
[17] Al-Ansari T, Korre A, Nie Z, Shah N. Development of a life cycle assessment tool for
the assessment of food production systems within the energy, water and food
nexus. Sustain Prod Consum 2015;2:52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
spc.2015.07.005.
[18] Al-Ansari T, Korre A, Nie Z, Shah N. Integration of greenhouse gas control
technologies within the energy, water and food nexus to enhance the
environmental performance of food production systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2017;162:
1592–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.097.
[19] Lahlou F, Mackey HR, McKay G, Onwusogh U, Al-Ansari T. Water planning
framework for alfalfa fields using treated wastewater fertigation in Qatar: an
energy-water-food nexus approach. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2020;141:106999.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.106999.
[20] Namany S, Govindan R, Alfagih L, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. Sustainable food security
decision-making: an agent-based modelling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120296.
[21] Haji M, Govindan R, Al-Ansari T. Novel approaches for geospatial risk analytics in
the energy–water–food nexus using an EWF nexus node. Comput. Chem. Eng.
2020;140:106936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.106936.
[22] Al-Thani NA, Govindan R, Al-Ansari T. Maximising nutritional benefits within the
energy, water and food nexus. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;266:121877. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121877.
[23] Dion LM, Lefsrud M, Orsat V. Review of CO2 recovery methods from the exhaust
gas of biomass heating systems for safe enrichment in greenhouses. Biomass
Bioenergy 2011;35:3422–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.013.
[24] Wittwer SH, Robb WM. Carbon dioxide enrichment of greenhouse atmospheres for
food crop production. Econ. Bot. 1964;18:34–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02904000.
[25] Mortensen LM. Review: CO2 enrichment in greenhouses. Crop Responses. Sci
Hortic (Amsterdam) 1987;33:1–25.
[26] Willits DH. Predicting yield responses to different greenhouse CO2 enrichment
schemes: cucumbers and tomatoes. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1989;44:142–4.
[27] Akilli M, Ozmerzi A, Ercan N. Effect of CO2 enrichment on yield of some vegetables
grown in greenhouses. In: Int. Conf. British-Israeli Work. Greenh. Tech. Towar. 3rd
Millenn.; 2000.
[28] Islam A, Ahuja LR, Garcia LA, Saseendran AS. Modeling the effect of elevated CO2
and climate change on reference evapotranspiration in the semi-arid central Great
Plains. Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 2012;55:2135–46.
[29] Sánchez-Guerrero MC, Lorenzo P, Medrano E, Baille A, Castilla N. Effects of EC-
based irrigation scheduling and CO2 enrichment on water use efficiency of a
I. Ghiat et al.
greenhouse cucumber crop. Agric. Water Manag. 2008;96:429–36. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.09.001.
[30] Nederhoff EM. Effects of CO2 Concentration on Photosynthesis, Transpiration and
Production of Greenhouse Fruit Vegetable Crops. Landbouwunivvol. 213.
Wageningen; 1994.
[31] Katsoulas N, Stanghellini C. Modelling crop transpiration in greenhouses: different
models for different applications. Agronomy 2019;9:1–17. https://doi.org/
10.3390/agronomy9070392.
[32] Allen R, Peirera LS, Raes D, Smith M. Crop Evapotranspiration - Guidelines for
Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations: Rome; 1998.
[33] Coleman D, Davison J, Hendriks C, Kaarstad O. Ozaki M. Transport of CO2. vol.
2005:58. https://doi.org/10.2307/2342148.
[34] Govindan R, Al-Ansari T. Simulation-based reinforcement learning for delivery
fleet optimisation in CO2 fertilisation networks to enhance food production
systems. In: Proc. 29th Eur. Symp. Comput. Aided Process Eng.; 2019. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818634-3.50252-6.
[35] Martzopoulou A, Vafiadis D, Fragos VP. Energy gain in passive solar greenhouses
due to CO2 enrichment. Energies 2020;13. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051242.
[36] Heuvelink E, Bakker M, Marcelis LFM, Raaphorst M. Climate and yield in a closed
greenhouse. Acta Hortic 2008;801(2):1083–92. https://doi.org/10.17660/
ActaHortic.2008.801.130.
[37] Elings A, Kempkes FLK, Kaarsemaker RC, Ruijs MNA, Van De Braak NJ, Dueck TA.
The energy balance and energy-saving measures in greenhouse tomato cultivation.
Acta Hortic. 2005;(691):67–74. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2005.691.5.
[38] Qiana T, Dieleman JA, Elings A, De Gelder A, Marcelis LFM, Van KootenA O.
Comparison of climate and production in closed, semi-closed and open
greenhouses. Acta Hortic. 2011;(893):807–14.
[39] Chalabi ZS, Biro A, Bailey BJ, Aikman DP, Cockshull KE. Optimal control strategies
for carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouse tomato crops - part 1: using pure
carbon dioxide. Biosyst. Eng. 2002;81:421–31. https://doi.org/10.1006/
bioe.2001.0039.
[40] Stavrakas V, Spyridaki N-A, Flamos A. Striving towards the deployment of bio-
energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): a review of research priorities
and assessment needs. Sustainability 2018;10:2206. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10072206.
[41] Carlini M, Castellucci S, Mennuni A, Morelli S. Numerical modeling and simulation
of pitched and curved-roof solar greenhouses provided with internal heating
systems for different ambient conditions. Energy Rep. 2019;6:146–54. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.10.033.
[42] Mahmood F, Ghiat I, Govindan R, Al-Ansari T. Reduced-order modelling (ROM)
approach for optimal microclimate control in agricultural greenhouses. Comput.
Aided Chem. Eng. 2020:1879–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823377-
1.50314-1.
[43] Bird RB, Stewart WE, Lightfoot EN. Transport Phenomena. Revised 2nd edition.
John Wiley Sons, Inc.; 2006.
[44] Villarreal-Guerrero F, Kacira M, Fitz-Rodríguez E, Kubota C, Giacomelli GA,
Linker R, et al. Comparison of three evapotranspiration models for a greenhouse
cooling strategy with natural ventilation and variable high pressure fogging. Sci
Hortic (Amsterdam) 2012;134:210–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scienta.2011.10.016.
[45] Stanghellini C. Transpiration of Greenhouse Crops: An Aid to Climate
Management. Wageningen University; 1987.
[46] Heagle AS, Heck WW, Rawlings JO, Philbeck RB. Effects of chronic doses of ozone
and sulfur dioxide on injury and yield of soybeans in open-top field chambers. Crop
Sci. 1983. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1983.0011183X002300060037x.
[47] Allen LH. Plant responses to rising carbon dioxide and potential interactions with
air pollutants. J. Environ. Qual. 1990;19:15–34. https://doi.org/10.2134/
jeq1990.00472425001900010002x.
[48] Nyers JM. Nyers ÁJ. COP of heating-cooling system with heat pump. EXPRES 2011
- 3rd IEEE Int Symp exploit renew energy sources. Proc 2011:17–21. https://doi.
org/10.1109/EXPRES.2011.5741809.
[49] Farrell E, Hassan MI, Tufa RA, Tuomiranta A, Avci AH, Politano A, et al. Reverse
electrodialysis powered greenhouse concept for water- and energy-self-sufficient
15
Energy Conversion and Management 228 (2021) 113668
agriculture. Appl. Energy 2017;187:390–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.11.069.
[50] Doorenbos J, Pruitt WO. Crop water requirements. FAO Irrig Drain Pap 1977;144.
[51] Øi LE, Eldrup N, Adhikari U, Bentsen MH, Badalge JL, Yang S. Simulation and cost
comparison of CO2 liquefaction. Energy Procedia 2016;86:500–10. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.01.051.
[52] Govindan R, Al-Ansari T, Korre A, Shah N. Assessment of technology portfolios
with enhanced economic and environmental performance for the energy, water
and food nexus. In: Proc. 28th Eur. Symp. Comput. Aided Process Eng., 10–13,
2018; 2018. p. 537–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64235-6.50095-4.
Graz, Austria.
[53] Ghiat I, AlNouss A, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. Biomass-based integrated gasification
combined cycle with post-combustion CO2 recovery by potassium carbonate:
techno-economic and environmental analysis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2020. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.106758.
[54] AlNouss A, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. Production of syngas via gasification using
optimum blends of biomass. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;242:118499. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118499.
[55] Al-Ansari T, Govindan R, Korre A, Nie Z, Shah N. An energy, water and food nexus
approach aiming to enhance food production systems through CO2 fertilization. In:
Proc. 28th Eur. Symp. Comput. Aided Process Eng. 43; 2018. p. 1487–92. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64235-6.50259-X.
[56] Ghiat I, Govindan R, Namany S, Al-Ansari T. Network optimization model for a
sustainable supply network for greenhouses. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2020:
1885–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823377-1.50315-3.
[57] Planning and Statistics Authority. Agricultural Statistics. www.psa.gov.qa; 2014.
[58] Lahlou F, Namany S, Mackey HR, Al-Ansari T. Treated industrial wastewater as a
water and nutrients source for tomatoes cultivation: an optimisation approach.
Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2020:1819–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
823377-1.50304-9.
[59] Al Mamun Hossain SA, Wang L, Chen T, Li Z. Leaf area index assessment for tomato
and cucumber growing period under different water treatments. Plant Soil Environ.
2017;63:461–7. https://doi.org/10.17221/568/2017-PSE.
[60] Beltrán J. Koo-Oshima S. water desalination for agricultural applications. Proc.
FAO expert consult. Water Desalin. Agric. Appl. 2006:60.
[61] Heuvelink E. Tomato Growth and Yield : Quantitative Analysis and Synthesis.
Wageningen University; 1996.
[62] Ligterink NE, van Zyl PS, Hijne VAM. Dutch CO2 emission factors for road vehicles.
TNO Rep 2016.
[63] Krey V, Masera O, Blanforde G, Bruckner T, Cooke R, Fish-Vanden K, et al. Annex
II: metrics & methodology. In: Clim Chang 2014 Mitig Clim Chang Contrib Work Gr
III to Fifth Assess Rep Intergov Panel Clim Chang; 2014.
[64] Dorogi DA, Apáti F. Economic analysis of forced tomato production with regard to
the intensity of production. Int J Hortic Sci 2019;25:15–21. https://doi.org/
10.31421/ijhs/25/1-2./2911.
[65] Gao L, Fang M, Li H, Hetland J. Cost analysis of CO2 transportation: case study in
China. Energy Procedia 2011;4:5974–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2011.02.600.
[66] Kahramaa. Tariff-Productive Farms n.d. www.km.qa.
[67] Woqod. Fuel Price. www.woqod.com; 2020.
[68] Mac Dowell N, Fajardy M. Inefficient power generation as an optimal route to
negative emissions via BECCS? Environ. Res. Lett. 2017;12:045004. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67a5.
[69] McLaren D. A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions
technologies. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2012;90:489–500. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.005.
[70] McGlashaN N, MhW WorkMan, Caldecott B, Shah N. Negative emission
technologies. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816229-3.00001-6.
[71] IPCC. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. In: Metz B,
Davidson O, de Coninck HC, Loos M, Meyer LA, editors. Prepared by Working
Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2005. Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.