Snapshot of a BECCS reading...

As I mentioned a few days ago, I really enjoyed the episode from the Redefining Energy Tech podcast about Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) with its host Michael Barnard , and the guest Prof. Joe Romm, Ph.D. After listening, I went through one of the papers from Prof. Romm about the scalability of BECCS systems and whether it makes sense in the context of energy transition and decarbonization (BECCS7.0-11-7-23_RommJ.pdf). Are you still wondering if burning biomass (i.e., wood) and capturing the released CO2 is a carbon-negative solution? Well, sadly it is not…. Here are my main takeaway messages:

1.?????? Key concept: The “carbon debt” for biomass power is the total life cycle emissions—from harvesting, drying, transporting, and burning the biomass—plus the “foregone carbon removal,” which is the loss of the future CO2 that would have been captured if you hadn’t cut the trees down. The emissions released plus the forgone carbon removal is the “carbon debt.”

2.?????? A fair comparison: The problem with BECSS is the long payback. As prof. Romm explains, (…) The payback time is the fastest if the new biomass plant displaces a coal plant. But very few countries in the world besides China and India are building many new coal plants (..). Instead, “the electric grid increasingly decarbonizes over the next decade (as a mixture of natural gas + renewables), biopower will increasingly be displacing zero or very-low carbon technologies so this type of debt reduction will shrink toward zero—and so the payback time will increase beyond a century”. ??

3.?????? The reality of carbon capture: These were some of my favorite lines. Companies claiming that they will capture 99% of the emissions is one of the stuff the make me wonder about the level of opium in the proposal. Back into the paper we can read: “capture rates are often cited as being 90 percent or more by BECCS developers, within the IAMs, academic literature and within policy briefings.” But according to a 2022 analysis of 13 real-world flagship CCS projects—representing 55% of CO2 capture capacity worldwide—actual capture rates are often below 70% and “Failed/underperforming projects considerably outnumbered successful experiences”. YESSSS, you are right OFTEN BELOW 70%. Why is that?? You name it: “ENERGY PENALTY”.

4.?????? But the wood can regrowth: HOPEFULLY!!! The reality is that the carbon debt could never be repaid, as global warming and its diversified stock of consequences, will limit biomass regrowth.

5.?????? Is bioenergy the best use of biomass?: At this point, some readers may be skeptical, however, the facts make it clear, NOO. As stated in the paper: “By the time we might be ready for large-scale BECCS deployment a decade or more from now, it will likely have little or no CO2 benefit compared to the alternatives yet cost much more—and have a considerable cost in land, fertilizer, water, and CO2 already sequestered in trees or soils”. Did you know that: “the amount of electricity which can be produced from a hectare of land using PVs [photovoltaics] is at least 50–100 times that of biomass.”?? Shifting from fossil-based to a bio-based economy will necessarily increase the demand of biomaterials. Again, we need land to get those products from, and for feeding the present and future generations. As mentioned in the paper: “unlimited biomass won’t be available for all purposes. Biomass use will be triaged, and the literature makes clear bioenergy and BECCS are not the uses that are most cost-effective and beneficial to the climate”.

The points above are just some of the very interesting topics covered in the paper. I hope you can read the paper and share your own thoughts.