1Last-ditch climate option, or wishful thinking? Executive Summary

2Last-ditch climate option, or wishful thinking? Executive Summary

Executive SummaryBECCS is the combination of bioenergywith Carbon Capture and Storage. Itwould involve capturing CO2 frombiofuel refineries or biomass-burningpower stations and pumping it intogeological formations. The concept isbased on the assumption that large-scale bioenergy can be carbon neutral,or at least low carbon, and thatsequestering some or all of the CO2emitted from burning or refining itwill render it carbon-negative. TheInternational Energy Agency definesBECCS as “a carbon reductiontechnology offering permanent netremoval of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Various studies suggest that BECCScould in future remove as much as 10billion tonnes of CO2 every year. Thisidea has risen to prominence since theInternational Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), published their most recentAssessment Report in 2014. Most ofthe models considered by the IPCCsuggest that keeping globaltemperature rises within 2oC, willrequire BECCS, as well as rapidreductions in greenhouse gasemissions.

The urgency of the climate crisis doesindeed require societies to drasticallycurb greenhouse gas emissions, aswell as exploring credible means ofremoving some of the CO2 already inthe atmosphere. The question is,whether BECCS could ever be acredible means of drawing CO2 fromthe air? For this to be possible, threeconditions would need to be met:Firstly, one would need to show thatthe total greenhouse gas emissionsassociated with growing, removing,transporting and processing biomassfor energy could be kept to anabsolute minimum and that lowcarbon bioenergy can be massivelyscaled up. Secondly, BECCStechnologies would need to betechnically and economically viable,not just as small pilot projects, but ona very large commercial scale. Andfinally, long-term safe storage of CO2would need to be proven.

Biofuelwatch’s report analyses thescientific literature and other evidencerelating to relevant investments andpolicies in relation to each of theseaspects.

Virtually all peer-reviewed studiesabout BECCS rely on the assumptionthat, subject to sustainabilitystandards being in place, large-scalebioenergy will be at least close tocarbon neutral. None of them discussthe large and growing volume ofstudies about the direct and indirect

greenhouse gas emissions associatedwith bioenergy.

Evidence shows that existing policieswhich promote increased use ofbiofuels and wood-based bioenergyhave had serious negative impacts,including on the climate. This is true

Does the concept of large-scale carbon-negative bioenergymake sense?

3Last-ditch climate option, or wishful thinking? Executive Summary

for EU biofuels, too, despite the factthat sustainability and greenhouse gasstandards are written into legislation:Direct and indirect emissions fromland use change for biofuels are sohigh, that biofuels are commonlyworse for the climate than the oil theyreplace. Wood-based bioenergy hasled to increased forest degradationand destruction, and higher carbonemissions from land-use changeassociated with the expansion ofindustrial tree plantations. Large-scale removal of ‘residues’ fromforests and agriculture depletes soilcarbon and nutrients and harmsfuture plant growth.

For carbon negative bioenergy to bepossible, it would not be enough tokeep bioenergy-related emissionsdown: Land-based ecosystems remove23% of all the CO2 emitted throughfossil fuel burning and cementproduction. Damaging natural carbonsinks for the sake of trying to create anew, unproven artificial one throughBECCS would be highly dangerous.Experience with bioenergy so farclearly demonstrates that the basicconcept of carbon negative BECCS is amyth.

Biofuelwatch’s report looks at each ofthe proposed BECCS technologies indetail. Only one of them has everbeen demonstrated: This involvescapturing the highly pure stream ofCO2 from ethanol fermentation. It ishighly unlikely to becomecommercially viable unless the CO2 issold for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR),i.e. to exploit otherwise unrecoverableoil reserves. One highly subsidisedproject involves pumping CO2 from anethanol plant into a sandstoneformation, rather than using it forEOR. However, the CO2 emissionsfrom the fossil fuels which power therefinery, are higher than the amountof CO2 captured and not even theowners of the ethanol plant call it‘carbon negative’.

“Advanced biofuel” productionpresents a significant opportunity forBECCS, according to the IEA, because ityields pure CO2, which is muchcheaper and easier to capture than thediluted CO2 in power station flue

gases. Yet the “advanced biofuels”technologies considered by the IEA arenot, and might never become viable:nobody has found any way ofproducing net energy with them.

Capturing CO2 from power stationsthat burn biomass has never beenattempted. This report thereforeexamines the experience withcapturing carbon from coal powerplants. Only one commercial scalepower plant project exists and it usespost-combustion capture.

An economic analysis shows that if thescheme was operating as intended,with CO2 being sold to an oil companyfor EOR, it could still not break evenfinancially over its lifetime. AFreedom of Information requestrevealed that the plant has been besetwith serious problems: so little CO2has been captured that the operatorshave had to pay fines to the oilcompany for breach of their CO2supply contract. Two other

Are BECCS technologies viable and scalable?

4Last-ditch climate option, or wishful thinking? Executive Summary

technologies exist: oxyfuel-combustionand Integrated Gas Combined Cycle(IGCC) plants with carbon capture.

Oxyfuel combustion with carboncapture has been tested in pilotscheme and found to be highly costlyand inefficient with current technicalknowledge. IGCC plants are extremelyexpensive, complex, and failureprone. One IGCC plant with carboncapture is under construction butcosts have spiralled from $1.8 billionto $6.4 billion, amidst long delays.

Studies about Carbon Capture andStorage (CCS) tend to assume thatprices will come down over time. Thisis based on the belief in a natural‘learning curve’ for all newtechnologies which inevitably reducesprices, provided enough initialfunding is allowed. In reality, such‘learning curves’ exist for sometechnologies but not for others andthere is no evidence to suggest thatCCS will ever become commerciallyviable.

The report concludes with anexamination of the reliability ofcarbon storage. All existingcommercial CCS projects, (apart fromthe one malfunctioning power stationproject), involve capturing pure CO2streams from industrial processes andusing them for EOR. During EOR,around 30% of the CO2 is directly

emitted again. Once carbon emissionsfrom the additional oil that isexploited are counted, EOR projectsgenerally result in net carbonemissions – even if 70% of thecaptured CO2 was to remain securelylocked up.

There is a strong industry bias inmany studies looking at how securelyCO2 can be stored underground, withmuch of the monitoring beingconducted or financed by oilcompanies. There is now anincreasing body of evidence thatunderground storage is far lessreliable than CCS proponents hope.

The argument that we need BECCSseems no more convincing than anargument that we need carbon-sucking extra-terrestrials. Theavailability of large-scale carbon-negative BECCS appears no morecredible than the existence of suchextra-terrestrials. The only provenways of removing carbon from theatmosphere involve working withnature, i.e. agro-ecology and theregeneration of natural ecosystems.