sign in sign up
<<
Home , Climate engineering

Geoengineering Briefing May 2018

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage

POINT OF INTERVENTION

OVERVIEW BECCS describes capturing CO2 from bioenergy applications and sequestering it through either Carbon Capture and Storage or The BECCS theory: capture carbon with trees; burn trees for energy; capture carbon at Carbon Capture, Use and Storage. the smokestack; bury carbon underground. BECCS is considered “carbon negative” because bioenergy is report assume that BECCS will be of Energy (US$ 141 million6), which wrongly considered “carbon neutral” technically and economically viable claims that it provides a “carbon based on the idea that plants will and successfully scaled up, which negative footprint.” In reality, the regrow to fix the carbon that has has not been proven.2 Across the refinery is powered by fossil fuels been emitted. scenarios considered by the IPCC, and corn is an energy-intensive an average of 12 gigatons of removal crop, giving it a net carbon positive BECCS has taken centre stage as annually through BECCS after footprint.7 a “mitigation” technique 2050 is required, equivalent to a and as a “negative emissions” quarter of current global emissions.3 There are at least four more ethanol technology.1 Virtually all of the likely However, it seems highly likely that plants in North America where 2°C scenarios considered by the IPCC BECCS may never be technically and captured CO2 is used for Enhanced in their most recent assessment economically viable.4 Oil Recovery (see CCS fact sheet8). There are also plans for very small ACTORS INVOLVED facilities in Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the REALITY CHECK As of 2018, there is only one Netherlands and Norway.9 For all the BECCS project in the world: ADM’s emphasis on BECCS from industry Decatur corn ethanol refinery in and policy-makers, it is clear that the the USA.5 CO2 is captured from technology is not keeping up with the fermentation process and expectations. injected underground. This has It’s just It’s being been essentially a “proof of concept” a theory implemented project, funded by the Department

GEOENGINEERINGMONITOR.ORG: Analysis: Analysis and and critical critical perspectives perspectives on climate on climate . engineering. Contact: [email protected] [email protected]

1 Geoengineering Technology Briefing May 2018

The biomass required for a scaled-up BECCS would take up between 25 and 80% of current global cropland. Mass displacement of peasants and farmers would be inevitable in such a scenario.

IMPACTS doubling fertilizer inputs, requiring energy must be dedicated to the A large body of peer-reviewed as much as 75% of global annual carbon capture process itself. literature indicates that many nitrogen production. This would Further still, there serious doubts bioenergy processes result in even seriously exacerbate environmental that geological storage of CO2, in old more CO2 emissions than burning degradation and emissions oil and gas reservoirs, or deep saline the fossil fuels they are meant to associated with fertilizers and aquifers, will be effective and reliable replace – it is certainly not carbon agrochemicals, which currently (see CCS fact sheet13). neutral.10 This is due to emissions cause large-scale anoxia in oceans from (but not limited to): converting and eutrophication of streams and A study looking at what would be land into energy crop production rivers, for example.11 required to sequester 1 gigaton which sometimes results in the of carbon annually using BECCS, displacement of food production, Capturing CO2 from bioenergy equivalent to around a fiftieth of biodiverse ecosystems such as processes would be even more global annual emissions, concluded forests, or other land uses (indirect technically challenging and energy that between 218 and 990 million change); the degradation intensive than capturing CO2 hectares of land would be needed and overharvesting of forests; and from coal plants, which has been to grow the biomass (this is 14-65 emissions from soil disturbance, attempted at great cost and with times as much land as the US uses to harvesting and transport. little success. A unit of electricity grow corn for ethanol).14 More recent generated in a dedicated biomass studies calculate that the biomass Because BECCS needs fast-growing power plant results in up to 50% required for BECCS would take up energy crops, its deployment more CO2 emitted than if generated between 25 and 80% of current could also require more than from coal,12 meaning that yet more global cropland.15

GEOENGINEERINGMONITOR.ORG: Analysis and critical perspectives on climate engineering. [email protected]

2 Geoengineering Technology Briefing May 2018

ADM’s BECCS ethanol refinery, USA, is hardly ‘carbon negative.’ (Jonesy)

Land conversion on such a scale impacts from land-grabbing would be further. This is likely would result in severe competition dwarfed by BECCS. to be the most dangerous impact of with food production, depletion BECCS. of freshwater resources, vastly One recent assessment projected increased demand for fertilizer that large-scale BECCS deployment FURTHER READING and agrochemicals, and loss of could result in sweeping food Biofuelwatch and Heinrich Böll , among other problems.16 price rises across Africa, Latin Foundation, “Summary BECCS Indeed, one study concluded that America, and Asia, threatening food report: Last ditch climate option large-scale deployment of BECCS security for many of the world’s or wishful thinking?” http://www. could result in a greater loss of most vulnerable. Another recent biofuelwatch.org.uk/2016/beccs- terrestrial species than temperature study indicated that even modest report-hbf/ increases of 2.8°C.17 increases in bioenergy development could increase the number of Global Forest Coalition, “The risks of Scaling up bioenergy to the extent malnourished children in sub- large-scale biosequestration in the envisaged would have devastating Saharan Africa by 3 million.19 context of Removal,” impacts on livelihoods and compete http://globalforestcoalition. directly with food production. REALITY CHECK org/risks-of-large-scale- Severe human rights abuses and BECCS is currently purely biosequestration/ land-rights conflicts are already aspirational and, given the technical being caused by bioenergy globally, challenges, it is unlikely to ever be ETC Group and Heinrich Böll for example for production scaled up significantly. However, Foundation, “Geoengineering Map.” and tree plantations for wood pellet fantasy like BECCS map.geoengineeringmonitor.org production. Indeed, industrial allow polluters to keep using fossil monoculture tree plantations would fuels through the false hope that The Big Bad Fix: The Case Against likely provide much of the raw “negative emissions” can remove Climate Geoengineering, http:// material for BECCS.18 At such a scale, carbon from the atmosphere in the etcgroup.org/content/big-bad-fix current harm to communities and future, delaying urgent action on

GEOENGINEERINGMONITOR.ORG: Analysis and critical perspectives on climate engineering. [email protected]

3 Geoengineering Technology Briefing May 2018

Biodiversity-destroying eucalyptus plantations would provide much of the raw material for BECCS. (Allysse Riordan/Flickr)

SOURCES 7. Chris Mooney, “The quest to capture 12. Partnership for Policy Integrity, and store carbon – and slow climate “Carbon emissions from burning biomass change — just reached a new milestone,” for energy,” 2015, http://www.pfpi.net/ 1. The Royal Society, “Geoengineering Washington Post, 2017, https://www. carbon-emissions the climate: science, governance and washingtonpost.com/news/energy- uncertainty,” 2009 environment/wp/2017/04/10/the-quest-to- 13. See Geoengineering Monitor, “Carbon capture-and-store-carbon-and-slow-climate- Capture and Storage,” Technology Fact 2. Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters, change-just-reached-a-new-milestone/ Sheet, March 2018. “The trouble with negative emissions,” Science, Vol. 354, Issue 630, 2016 pp. 8. See Geoengineering Monitor, “Carbon 14. Lydia Smith and Margaret Torn, 182-183 Capture and Storage,” Technology Fact “Ecological limits to terrestrial biological Sheet, April 2018. carbon removal,” Climate Change, Vol. 118, 3. Christopher Field and Katherine Mach, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 89-103 “Rightsizing ,” 9. ETC Group and Heinrich Böll Science, Vol. 356, 2017, pp706–707 Foundation, “Carbon Dioxide Removal,” 15. Christopher Field and Katherine Mach, Geoengineering Map, 2017,https://map. 2017 4. Almuth Ernsting and Oliver Munnion, geoengineeringmonitor.org/Carbon- “Last-ditch climate option or wishful Cioxide-Removal/ 16. Wil Burns and Simon Nicholson, 2017 thinking? Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage,” Biofuelwatch, 2015 10. A compilation of peer-reviewed 17 Phil Williamson, “Emissions reduction: literature is available here: http://www. scrutinize CO2 removal methods,” Nature, 5. Office of Fossil Energy, “Archer Daniels biofuelwatch.org.uk/biomass-resources/ Vol. 530, 2016, pp. 153–155 Midland Company,” https://energy.gov/fe/ resources-on-biomass/ archer-daniels-midland-company 18. Global Forest Coalition, “The impacts 11. Wil Burns and Simon Nicholson, of large-scale biosequestration in the 6. ETC Group and Heinrich Böll “Bioenergy and carbon capture and context of Carbon Dioxide Removal,” 2017, Foundation, “Illinois Industrial storage (BECCS): the prospects and http://globalforestcoalition.org/risks-of- CCS (former Decatur project,” challenges of an emerging climate policy large-scale-biosequestration/ Geoengineering Map, 2017, https://map. response,” Journal of Environmental geoengineeringmonitor.org/Carbon- Studies, 2017 19. Wil Burns and Simon Nicholson, 2017 Cioxide-Removal/illinois-industrial-ccs- former-decatur-project/

GEOENGINEERINGMONITOR.ORG: Analysis and critical perspectives on climate engineering. [email protected]

4