BECCS vs BiCRS: Should biomass be used primarily as an energy source or as a route for carbon removal?
The jury is out on the climate benefits of BECCS but we have already decided: we prefer BiCRS. Read on to find out why.
Bioenergy currently accounts for ~7% of global energy consumption and could rise to 18.7% by 2050. The IEA highlights bioenergy as a low-carbon energy source that could be a possible alternative to natural gas. The technology — which thermally or biochemically converts biomass to produce heat, electricity or fuel — has been around for decades and is now seeing renewed and increasing interest. This is only being heightened by the current energy crisis.
We at Counteract thought it might be timely to outline our thoughts on how best to develop an approach to biomass and bioenergy, and whether taking an energy-first or a carbon-first approach is more appropriate.
What is BiCRS and what is BECCS?
BiCRS uses photosynthesis to draw down CO₂ and, rather than letting it return in the natural carbon cycle, BiCRS pathways harvest the biomass, capture the embodied CO₂ or carbon and store it more durably. (Learn more, here)
Biomass with Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) is referred to as a “hybrid” approach to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as it combines photosynthesis with technology. It is an umbrella term comprising diverse approaches that take biomass and convert it for long-term carbon storage (see our full classification below). The approaches take a carbon-first lens and prioritise efficient and scalable carbon removal.
In theory, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) forms a subset of BiCRS. However, in practice, it takes an energy-first angle. Traditionally, BECCS projects bolt-on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to an existing bioenergy plant. The primary aim is energy production with CDR as a way of reducing the carbon footprint.
You might be wondering why not leave nature alone to sequester CO₂? The proponents of BiCRS argue that, while ecosystem restoration is a priority, there is a limit to the amount of carbon that nature can sequester. Over time, ecosystems reach natural equilibriums. BiCRS solutions aim to prevent this natural plateau in carbon sequestration by maintaining continuous productivity. Furthermore, by capitalising on environmentally resilient species, BiCRS can access “marginal” landscapes that are unsuitable for restoration or not profitable for agriculture.
Why do we prefer BiCRS to BECCS?
Whereas BiCRS puts carbon removal first, BECCS emphasises energy production. This will always come at the expense of some CO₂ removal potential. Our analysis suggests these trade-offs are often a poor deal, in which the energy produced is not worth the missed opportunity to remove carbon or the risk of accelerating emissions in the near-term. For example, a typical wood-fired combustion plant with CCS could sequester just 50% of the CO₂ per tonne of dry biomass on a net basis, compared to simple biomass burial. That figure assumes 90% carbon capture efficiency — which is far from a reality — and ignores the energy penalty associated with the carbon capture process. The overall carbon removal is significantly influenced by biomass transport and processing. BiCRS facilities can be located anywhere, but we've seen instances of biomass being shipped halfway around the globe to a bioenergy facility.
Bioenergy is promoted as a green energy solution. However, research has shown that the emissions per unit of electricity generated from biomass can be lower or higher than those from fossil fuels, depending on supply chain factors such as the type of biomass, its counterfactual scenarios, biomass drying and processing and transport distance. This challenges the carbon neutral status of bioenergy and the net carbon removal potential.
By turning the primary focus away from bioenergy, solutions can optimise and innovate for efficient CDR. Indeed, with the value of carbon expected to overtake bioenergy, BiCRS solutions do not have to involve energy production to be viable. Biomass or bio-oil burial, demonstrated by InterEarth and Charm Industrial respectively, are two examples of alternative, non-energy BiCRS pathways.
As always there are some exceptions that make the trade-off worthwhile. Green hydrogen from gasification, for example, is a high-value, carbon-negative energy source that offers an economic route to scale. Mote is doing exactly that, whilst taking care to avoid some of the issues surrounding BECCS.
Why should we care about BiCRS?
The IPCC placed BECCS in all models as a key pathway to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.
CDR is a component of every IPCC scenario that limits warming to 1.5°C, requiring the removal of 70-220 billion tonnes (Gt) CO₂e by 2050. The prevalence of BECCS in climate models suggests that climate scientists believe it will play a fundamental role in CDR. Other authorities estimate it can reach 1.3-5 Gt CO₂/year by 2050.
2. Governments are prioritising BECCS in their net-zero strategy.
The double benefit of decarbonising the energy sector and removing CO₂ has given BECCS a central position in nationally determined contributions. Due to proven technologies, it will be easier to deploy compared to other engineered CDR solutions. Operational bioenergy plants can be retrofitted with CCS technology rather than starting from the beginning. In the UK, for example, net-zero roadmaps have indicated a reliance on variations of BECCS over the next decade. Initial figures indicate that BECCS for power generation could contribute upwards of 8 million tonnes of CDR per year by 2030, over 100% of the national CDR target.
However, by prioritising bioenergy rather than the all-encompassing BiCRS, governments are potentially being myopic and overlooking the possibility to optimise the energy/carbon mix.
3. Commercial BECCS projects are small-scale and do not yet remove CO₂.
Today, commercial BECCS plants primarily operate using combustion or fermentation with carbon capture and storage. However, commercial demonstration of BECCS is small, ranging from 105 tonnes CO₂ (Drax power plant) to 1 million tonnes (Illinois Industrial, Archer Daniels Midlands). Despite capturing some CO₂, these facilities are still net emitters; emissions to power the supply chain outweigh those captured.
By first targeting bioenergy and then retrofitting with CCS — as with the Drax or Archer Daniels Midlands examples — we may be locking in bioenergy projects without a robust economic model for capturing meaningful levels of CO₂. BECCS developers may be forgoing opportunities to maximise carbon capture (and the economic opportunity) from our limited biomass resources.
4. New innovations and business models are emerging in BiCRS.
Counteract is seeing a range of BiCRS solutions that are diversifying their models and beginning to optimise for CDR. These technologies are earlier in their development roadmap than combustion or fermentation and are challenged with their own technological and commercial barriers to scale.
By taking a different perspective on the optimal energy/carbon mix (which could be no energy at all!), we believe that BiCRS solutions can deliver better outcomes than the narrower focus of the ‘energy-first’ approach of BECCS.
5. There is potential to get it wrong.
Removing 5 Gt CO₂/year by BiCRS would require over 5 Gt of biomass. To put this into perspective, the global production of cereals in 2021 was 2.8 Gt. Extractive agriculture has depleted our natural ecosystems, and with no more space available for crops (without serious harm to biodiversity) it is difficult to justify the conversion of land for the purpose of BiCRS.
Even if approached with care, purpose-grown BiCRS crops risk competing with food production, leading to rising food prices. Converting species-rich ecosystems, such as forests and grasslands, not only threatens biodiversity but could also generate carbon debts that might take decades to repay. Equally, water demand should not be ignored since unsustainable cultivation of BiCRS crops could risk pushing vulnerable communities into water insecurity.
Given the risk of the above maladaptation, Counteract strongly believes that investment into any BiCRS solution must be approached with deep care.
Our map of the BiCRS arena
Our classification illustrates the whole range of inputs, processes and outputs/products and potential externalities that constitute BiCRS
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Much like our belief that we will need the whole range of CDR solutions, we expect a myriad of BiCRS configurations tailored to one’s deployment context.
The feedstock is a key limiter for BiCRS scale and location. Waste biomass is the most ecologically desirable feedstock, however, there is competition with other uses such as animal feed or construction materials. Rice crops produce ~770 millions tonnes of waste straw each year, some of which is used for animal husbandry and building materials. However, millions of tonnes of excess straw is usually burned on the field making it an appealing target for feedstock.
The optimal conversion process is heavily influenced by deployment context and the market demand for outputs. For example, the lack of accessible geological storage will make conversion processes that produce gaseous CO₂ unviable. Projects could instead produce biochar that could be deposited onto surrounding soils for agricultural benefit.
The outputs generally include a carbon product for long-term storage and an energy product to add value. However, not all conversion processes have energy-related outputs. Biomass burial pathways only obtain revenue from carbon removal and must be highly cost-effective as a consequence.
Configurations are also associated with various externalities that need to be considered. With pyrolysis, when using waste biomass it avoids emissions from decomposition. Secondly, the biochar produced can enrich or damage soil health depending on the initial soil properties.
Some questions that Counteract are considering
Just like every CDR solution, BiCRS scale-up is fraught with challenging questions across all spheres. Here are just a few that we at Counteract are considering.
What does a cost-effective distributed conversion facility look like and how might it enable newcomers to the market?
Centralised conversion facilities are carbon- and energy-efficient but require consistent access to a substantial biomass source. However, suitable biomass — such as agri-waste — is frequently dispersed across a range of landowners. Transporting small quantities of biomass across sizable distances to a centralised conversion facility seems counterintuitive. Distributed models can help access “stranded” biomass sources, but cost-effective conversion is a challenge.
How can we overcome the capital costs of centralised conversion facilities through commercially desirable (by)products and services?
A main bottleneck to BiCRS expansion is the capital and operational intensity of biomass conversion. Products that bring additional value to the revenue stack and subsequent market enablers could be pivotal in improving the economic viability of BiCRS.
In what circumstances is wood a sustainable BiCRS feedstock?
Forestry and forestry waste comprise a significant proportion of BiCRS feedstock. However, the carbon-neutral status of wood has been challenged by scientists and environmentalists. When, if ever, does it make sense to use wood as a feedstock or is leaving it alone a more responsible solution? Counteract is spending considerable time trying to better understand this area.
How will the developing sustainable food production market impact BiCRS and prioritisation models thereof?
Agricultural productivity needs to double by 2050 to feed growing populations. Many climate models factor in improved agricultural productivity and shifts to more sustainable diet choices, which should alleviate land pressure. The increased productivity theoretically frees up land for natural climate solutions or BiCRS. Concurrently, there is a growing body of research on environmentally resistant crop varieties capable of growing in previously unproductive areas. This challenges the consensus that marginal land is available for purpose-grown BiCRS feedstock, but may allow solutions that include BiCRS feedstock into a rotational agricultural system.
To conclude
From a carbon removal perspective, Counteract believes that BiCRS triumphs over BECCS. The broader view helps surface some challenging trade-offs and alternative revenue opportunities that BECCS overlooks. In their current form, we're unsure whether BECCS configurations will achieve meaningful carbon removal. Drawing more attention to BiCRS’ carbon-first approach might help inform policy, investment decisions and project development.
This is an area that we are actively investigating and we are always interested to learn about new innovations, perspectives or challenges.
Reach us here.
