Why the Lack of Major Climate Change Solutions Might Be Beneficial

Have you come across impressive graphs indicating a decline in carbon dioxide levels and temperatures by the end of this century? But how is this possible? The prevailing idea is to utilize biomass, combust it for energy, and subsequently capture and store the emitted CO2. It sounds like a solution, right?

Despite its potential, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has proven to be a significant failure. The technology lacks large-scale implementation, primarily due to exorbitant costs, potential threats to biodiversity, and its ineffectiveness in genuinely reducing emissions. In fact, it has been shown to increase CO2 emissions in critical contexts.

As documented by Leo Hickman from CarbonBrief, BECCS was conceived in 2001 by Swedish researchers aiming to enable paper mills to acquire carbon credits. This theoretical framework was adopted by climate modelers in 2005 for climate scenarios predicting a temperature rise above 1.5°C followed by a decline. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2014 report amplified the idea, suggesting massive carbon removal through BECCS, effectively marketing an untested technology as the paramount solution to climate change.

In 2015, Drax Energy made headlines by pledging to transition its coal-fired plants to wood pellet combustion while capturing CO2. Fast forward a decade, and while the Drax facility continues to burn wood pellets, carbon capture remains unrealized. According to a recent report by Politico, Drax has halted its carbon capture ambitions, leaving flagship bioenergy initiatives deeply compromised. A spokesperson claimed, “We still view BECCS as a long-term option for this site,” but its future remains uncertain.

Although there are minor BECCS projects in various stages globally, the concept has not matured as anticipated over the past decade. This stagnation is attributed to substantial subsidy demands and the realization of its high costs; as Tim Searchinger from Princeton University aptly states, “It’s shockingly expensive.”

While abstaining from deploying this technology might seem detrimental, it’s actually beneficial since it simply doesn’t work effectively within crucial timeframes. “There may be some scenarios predicting negative emissions, but the volumes are minimal and the benefits won’t materialize for decades,” Searchinger explains.

To better inform policymakers, he and his team have developed computer models simulating carbon flows. These models indicate that BECCS could take up to 150 years to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, performing worse than natural gas combustion without carbon capture for several decades, and potentially leading to higher energy bills.

The fundamental issue lies within BECCS’s methodology. It reallocates CO2 stored in forests to potentially subterranean structures for storage, although a significant portion is lost in transit, re-entering the atmosphere.

Initially, much of the carbon from harvested forests is never transported to power plants; decaying roots and harvested vegetation emit CO2 back into the environment. Wood combustion releases twice the CO2 per energy unit compared to natural gas, while the cooler combustion temperatures limit energy conversion efficiencies. Moreover, carbon capture is energy-intensive, necessitating the burning of additional wood to sustain the capture process, capturing only about 85% of produced CO2 emissions.

A more nuanced challenge arises in those advocating for wood utilization in BECCS, arguing it’s acceptable as long as carbon removal doesn’t outpace forest absorption. However, climate models presume that increased CO2 will enhance forest carbon absorption, or in technical jargon, that land sinks will continue to grow. This perspective conflates sustainable harvesting with actions that undermine existing climate mitigation efforts.

These concerns resonate across various BECCS initiatives involving both slow-growing trees and fast-growing crops like grasses. While theoretically profitable in underutilized agricultural land scenarios, the reality depicts ongoing deforestation in rainforests to expand farmland for food production, which would be catastrophic for biodiversity.

The absence of BECCS raises questions about future CO2 stabilization, yet prioritizing the halt of rising CO2 levels is crucial. As Searchinger advocates, “We must expedite the transition to wind and solar energy as swiftly as possible.”