Comment: Policymakers Shouldn’t Trust Drax’s Bizarre Tree-Burning Climate Solution

Byย Almuth Ernsting, bioenergy campaignerย withย Biofuelwatch

If there wereย a prize for the most bizarre climate mitigationย idea, power company Drax Plcโ€™s latest โ€œgreen innovationโ€ project would be a strongย candidate.

Draxโ€™s Yorkshire power station is the UKโ€™s biggest carbon dioxide emitter and the worldโ€™s largest wood burner. It burns more imported wood every year than the UK produces, much of it sourced from the clearcutting of biodiverse, carbon-rich southern USย forests.

Large amounts of energy are used to process the wood into pellets which are shipped across the Atlantic and burned at just 38 percent efficiency. Moreover, Drax burned around two million tonnes of coal last year and plans to build the UKโ€™s largest-ever gas powerย capacity.

Drax brazenly claims that it has โ€œa significant role to play in the transition to a low-carbon futureโ€ โ€“ without alluding to the fact that closing down its power plant would cut the UKโ€™s carbon dioxide emissions by over 17 million tonnes a year. Last year, Drax announced that it wanted to go further and turn its plant into the โ€œfirst carbon negative power stationโ€.

It entered into a partnership with startup company, C-Capture, to try and capture one tonne of carbon dioxide daily. This carbon dioxide was to be sold to pubs to โ€œhelp keep the fizzโ€ in beer. As of May, the process was not working reliably, and no carbon dioxide was stored or sold. This is not surprising: C-Capture, though founded in 2009, had participated in no previous projects, obtained no patents and published no scientific studies. Instead of using a tried-and-tested solvent for capturing carbon, it chose to make its own, without disclosing anyย details.

Nonetheless, the Government has lavished ยฃ5 million on continuing the trial for another two years. It has done so because it endorses the idea that Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) can remove carbon from the atmosphere. But canย it?

Other than Drax, C-Capture, and a few other startup companies with no track record, no businesses have shown interest in developing BECCS, and for good reason: capturing and storing carbon dioxide from biomass-burning plants would be extremely expensive, technically challenging and, like other experimental technologies, require many years of continuous maintenance and replacement ofย equipment.

Based on experience with carbon capture from coal, around one third of a biomass power stationโ€™s energy would likely be needed to capture and compress carbon. Therefore, more trees would need to be cut and pelletised to generate less energy, pushing up the cost to the company and to forests. Even without carbon capture, Drax barely breaks even despite receiving ยฃ2.16 million in subsidies for burning wood everyย day.


Credit:ย Sebastianย Wood/Biofuelwatch

So why has the Government endorsed such an unproven, exceedingly expensive technology which, if it worked, would further increase pressure on the worldโ€™s dwindling forest ecosystems? To answer this question, we need to go back toย 2005.

That year, Tony Blair convened a scientific symposium in Exeter to find out how catastrophic climate change could become and how it could be avoided. The findings presented raised alarm around the world. At the same time, the symposium showcased proposals for a host of deeply problematic technological solutions, from nuclear power to vast biofuel plantations, which would supposedly help stabilise the climate without harming economicย growth.

Amongst the presenters was the late Peter Read, a leading proponent of the idea that humans could suck carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel burning out of the atmosphere by converting 500 million hectares of land to crops and trees, burning those for energy, and capturing and storing the CO2 emitted. The strategy, he and co-author Lermit declared, would be cheaper than capping emissions from the energy sector โ€“ particularly if most of the biomass needed was grown in Africa and Latinย America.

Readโ€™s idea was greeted enthusiastically. By 2007, the EU had included BECCS in its EU Flagship Programme for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and, in the USA, the Department of Energy and Department of Defense were proposing large-scale production off synthetic fuels made from coal and biomass with CCS for โ€œincreasing security and reducing carbon emissions of the U.S. transport sectorโ€. It was the heyday of enthusiasm for a biofueled future in the EU, USA andย elsewhere.

From 2005 onwards, the concept of โ€œnegative carbon emissionโ€ through BECCS started to be picked up by modellers of climate stabilisation pathways. When the UNโ€™s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Fifth Assessment Report in 2014 it sparked huge policymaker interest in BECCS. In the report, 101 of the 116 models for stabilising carbon levels in the atmosphere which it cited relied on โ€œnegative emissionsโ€, namely BECCS.

Enthusiasm for BECCS spread amongst policymakers: here was a technology, seemingly endorsed by the worldโ€™s top climate science advisors, which, according to Shell, would retain fossil fuels as the main energy source until the 2050s and see them play a significant role well beyond 2070 โ€“ and yet allow us to keep warming well below 2ย degrees.

Ironically, as BECCS was gaining in popularity, the big biofuel vision on which the idea had been based had turned sour, as evidence of deforestation and land-grabbing for palm and soybean oil, used in biofuels, mounted, studies showed that most biofuels were worse for the climate than the fossil fuels, and biofuels were implicated in food price volatility, linked to global spikes in hunger andย malnutrition.

Furthermore, businesses and governments worldwide went cold on CCS after a spate of expensive failures. There are two quite small coal-CCS units in North America, with no new commercial-scale ones being developed anywhere in theย world.

Whilst the number of publications about BECCS has rapidly increased, there are โ€“ except for Draxโ€™s experiments โ€“ no proposals anywhere in the world to try and capture carbon from biomass burning. For forests and climate, the absence of any real world BECCS projects is good news: forests are vital for storing and sequestering carbon, and the global demand for wood is already at highly unsustainable levels and thus one of the main underlying causes of forest loss worldwide.

Nonetheless, the inclusion of BECCS into climate policies is dangerous: because BECCS is unlikely to work and, if it did, likely to result in extra carbon dioxide emissions from increased logging and land conversion. Ultimately, the plan constitutes a large hole in net zeroย carbonย strategies.

And unless false solutions are removed from climate policies, carbon reduction commitments will continue to mean veryย little.

Main image: Drax Group/Flickr CC BYNDย 2.0

authordefault

Related Posts

on

One candidate has sworn off taking money from regulated companies

One candidate has sworn off taking money from regulated companies
on

The worldโ€™s largest advertising and public relations firms continue to get the majority of their work from major polluters, a new report has found. Known as the โ€œBig Six,โ€ WPP, Omnicom, Interpu...
on

Unique collaboration convenes leaders from the global climate and trauma healing movements to explore the neglected inner dimensions of the crisis.

Unique collaboration convenes leaders from the global climate and trauma healing movements to explore the neglected inner dimensions of the crisis.
Analysis
on

The new Labour government is pledging billions to support projects based on climate-heating natural gas.

The new Labour government is pledging billions to support projects based on climate-heating natural gas.