Backing BECCS

Demand for sustainable bioenergy with CCS set to intensify

Welcome to Carbon Risk — helping investors navigate 'The Currency of Decarbonisation'! 🏭

If you haven’t already subscribed please click on the link below, or try a 7-day free trial giving you full access. By subscribing you’ll join more than 4,000 people who already read Carbon Risk. Check out what other subscribers are saying.

You can also follow my posts on LinkedIn. The Carbon Risk referral program means you get rewarded for sharing the articles. Once you’ve read this article be sure to check out the table of contents.

Thanks for reading Carbon Risk and sharing my work! 🔥

---

Estimated reading time ~ 12 mins

It’s been over twelve months since the Drax power station in Yorkshire officially called time on coal, as the last of its generating units still to be burning coal was switched off. Once Western Europe’s largest coal-fired power station, the plant had long since converted most of its other units to burn biomass instead. Now the power station is looking to build the worlds largest bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) project.

By capturing and permanently storing the carbon emitted from the power station, Drax claims that it will result in net carbon removal from the atmosphere. This requires two things to be true. First, the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (since applied by the UK Government after Britain left the EU) counts electricity generated using biomass as renewable energy, which means that carbon emitted from the burning of biomass is offset as it grows. Second, capturing the emissions from the smokestack and then permanently sequestering the CO2 results in net negative emissions, i.e. carbon removal.

According to Drax, carbon capture technology will remove up to 8 Mt CO2 per year from the two biomass units. The first BECCS unit (capable of capturing up to 4 Mt CO2 per year) is due to become operational by 2030, with the second unit expected to come online in the early 2030’s. The captured CO2 will be piped under the North Sea for permanent storage.

BECCS continues to face critics who counter that a) using biomass to generate electricity should not be counted as renewable energy, b) biomass should not receive subsidies given its relatively high cost of generation versus renewables, c) BECCS does not adequately account for the emissions involved with the biomass supply chain, d) biomass extraction risks causing indirect negative environmental outcomes (habitat loss, displaced farmland, etc.), and e) BECCS has no track record in delivering carbon capture and storage on this scale.

The criticism has been especially acute in certain corners of Substack. For example, see Cooking the Books: Exposing the lunacy of the Green New Math by

Doomberg

, and A Pulp Fiction - Pt. 1: Burning trees to generate electricity is a quintessential form of "Sustainabilchemy" by

environMENTAL

. Indeed, my first article on the subject (see BECCS - the carbon removal chimera) wasn’t particularly sympathetic either, concluding that:

…BECCS has very little in the way that it can offer the world seeking to accelerate the energy transition: inefficient conversion of sunlight energy, failure to scale generation capacity, and dubious carbon benefits claims. If governments look to support the development of BECCS capacity then they risk cementing in some poor outcomes that are likely to have adverse consequences for the energy transition and the environment.

Despite these drawbacks and the concerns outlined above, I’m coming round to the view that BECCS is in the process of being de-risked as environmental groups, corporations, and governments realise its better that BECCS be done well, than not at all.

Let’s dive in.