Why the Absence of Green Solutions to Climate Change Could Be Beneficial

You’ve likely encountered alarming visuals depicting the decline of carbon dioxide levels and temperatures by the end of this century. How is this transformation possible? The proposed solution is to harvest biomass, burn it for energy, and subsequently capture and store the emitted CO2. Voilà, problem solved!

This concept, known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), has faced significant challenges. Despite theoretical support, it has not been successfully deployed at the required scale. Key issues include prohibitive costs, detrimental effects on biodiversity, and, troublingly, potential increases in CO2 emissions over critical timeframes.

As Leo Hickman of CarbonBrief outlines, BECCS first emerged in 2001 through Swedish researchers aiming to allow paper mills to earn carbon credits. By 2005, theoretical models employed this idea to advocate for scenarios involving temperature regulation above 1.5°C. The 2014 IPCC report also highlighted models that assumed significant carbon removal via BECCS, establishing a solution that, despite its non-existence, gained official endorsement.

In 2015, Drax Energy announced intentions to convert coal-fired power plants to utilize wood pellets, claiming to capture and store CO2 effectively.

Fast forward ten years, and while Drax remains operational on wood pellets, it has failed to capture any carbon. Recently, as Politico reported, the company has stalled its carbon capture plans, leaving the world’s most prominent bioenergy initiatives effectively in limbo, as a Drax spokesperson noted: “We still consider BECCS as a potential option for this site, but it is much more long-term than originally planned.”

Although numerous smaller initiatives exist globally, it’s evident that BECCS is not gaining traction as envisioned a decade ago. The driving factor? Government reluctance to fund the substantial subsidies required. Tim Searchinger from Princeton University emphasizes that “it’s shockingly expensive.”

While the absence of deploying this technology seems detrimental, it is, in fact, beneficial, as it doesn’t produce the anticipated results within feasible timelines. Searchinger states, “There are likely unrealistic scenarios where negative emissions occur; however, the scale is limited and benefits would take decades to materialize.”

To assist policymakers, new computer models analyzing related carbon flows allow for a hands-on approach to evaluate different scenarios. The models indicate that BECCS could take up to 150 years to effectively remove CO2 from the atmosphere, initially performing worse than natural gas combustion without carbon capture. Additionally, this process could drastically increase electricity bills.

Why does this occur? Essentially, BECCS transforms carbon stored in forests to CO2, which is then transferred to alternate storage solutions, often leading to significant losses released back into the atmosphere.

Notably, much forest carbon remains unutilized. The root systems and surrounding vegetation degrade during harvesting, releasing additional CO2. Moreover, burning wood generates twice the carbon per energy unit compared to natural gas, while the cooler combustion temperatures reduce electricity conversion efficiency. Carbon capture itself is energy-intensive, compelling power plants to burn extra wood to sustain the capture process, which at most captures about 85% of emitted CO2.

There’s a nuanced argument surrounding the use of wood in BECCS. Some assert it’s acceptable, provided the carbon extraction does not outpace forest growth. However, climate models presume that CO2 fertilization will enhance forest carbon uptake, which could hinder the climate change resolutions we currently rely on.

Similar issues affect many BECCS scenarios, particularly those advocating for the use of slow-growing trees or rapid energy crops. While idle farmland could potentially yield some profits, in the broader context, global deforestation continues to clear land for food cultivation, exacerbating biodiversity losses.

Without BECCS, plans to stabilize CO2 levels appear uncertain. For now, our priority should be curbing CO2 emissions. As Searchinger emphasizes, “We need to accelerate the transition to wind and solar energy as much as possible.”