When we learned that BECCS was being advocated as an approach to \u201cmitigation,\u201d we turned our attention to providing a critique based on many of those, by now familiar, arguments. \u00a0When BECCS spilled into the debates on climate geoengineering, we were outraged. Then even the supposedly scientific body, the IPCC released their Working Group III (Mitigation)\u00a0Summary for Policymakers<\/a>\u00a0in April 2014, it stated that: \u00a0\u201cMitigation scenarios reaching about 450 ppm CO2eq in 2100 typically involve temporary overshoot of atmospheric concentrations as do many scenarios reaching about 500-550 ppm CO2 eq in 2100. Depending on the level of the overshoot, overshoot scenarios typically rely on the availability and widespread deployment of BECCS and afforestation in the second half of the century. The availability and scale of these and other Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies and methods are uncertain and CDR technologies and methods are, to varying degrees associated with challenges and risks (see Section SPM 4.2, high confidence).\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 While they acknowledge \u201cuncertainties,\u201d they nonetheless incorporate BECCS into models as if its feasibility and effectiveness is a given.<\/p>\n While they acknowledge \u201cuncertainties,\u201d they nonetheless incorporate BECCS into models as if its feasibility and effectiveness is a given.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In fact, \u201cuncertainties\u201d is an understatement. Over the years we have been making our arguments heard and fighting to oppose large scale bioenergy projects and policies, a burgeoning body of peer reviewed scientific literature has been published supporting and substantiating the concerns we raised, and public opinion has evolved and shifted. Witness for example how corn ethanol, the darling of big agribusiness, some farmers, the oil industry and many environmentalists \u2013 has\u00a0fallen out of favor<\/a>\u00a0in public perception. Over the past few years the EPA has been lobbied by a\u00a0diverse assortment<\/a>\u00a0of industry groups to repeal the ethanol mandate, and policymakers have\u00a0supported<\/a>\u00a0that with introduction of legislation.<\/p>\n In Europe, policymakers have (at least) taken note of the evolving understanding of bioenergy, though that has not been reflected back on policy as of yet.\u00a0 There have been drawn out debates over indirect land use change and \u201csustainability standards\u201d in particular, with the European Commission and Council suggesting that biofuel targets should be eliminated from the next climate and energy package (after 2020).<\/p>\n Nonetheless, avid proponents of BECCS hold fast to the simplistic claim that it can provide a \u201cfix\u201d for the climate, even permitting \u201covershoot\u201d \u2013 allowing greenhouse gas concentrations to rise above what is indicated for long term stabilization based on the assumption that the excess can later be \u201ccleaned up\u201d.<\/p>\n In a recent reality check, scientists\u00a0estimated what it would take<\/a>\u00a0to sequester 1 billion tonnes of carbon using BECCS based on switchgrass feedstock. Their findings showed a startling\u00a0218-990 million hectares of land would have to be converted to switchgrass (which is 14-65 times as much land as the US uses to grow corn for ethanol); also 17-79 million tonnes of fertiliser a year \u2013 which would be 75% of all global nitrogen fertiliser used at present; and 1.6-7.4 trillion cubic metres of water a year.<\/p>\n Even if such a BECCS-project was to actually sequester a billion tonnes of carbon a year, the authors point out that the nitrous oxide emissions from the extra fertilizer use alone would, over the course of a century \u2018offset\u2019 75-310% of that sequestered CO2. In other words: Increased fertilizer use alone would likely mean that either of those projects would increase greenhouse gas emissions overall and thus make climate change even worse. That does not even include the vast carbon emissions from clearing trees, shrubs and grass from hundreds of millions of hectares of land, destroying large reservoirs of soil carbon, or the emissions from all the fossil fuels burned to transport and process switchgrass. Nor does it include emissions from producing the synthetic fertilizers.<\/p>\n BECCS advocates also adhere to the simplistic notion that all bioenergy (from corn ethanol to burning wood) is \u201ccarbon neutral.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n BECCS advocates also adhere to the simplistic notion that all bioenergy (from corn ethanol to burning wood) is \u201ccarbon neutral.\u201d Therefore, it is argued, adding CCS further renders it \u201ccarbon negative\u201d.\u00a0 The \u201ccarbon neutral\u201d claim has been refuted time and time again in scientific literature.\u00a0 Timothy Searchinger was among the first to do so with a paper entitled \u201cA Critical Climate Accounting Error<\/a>\u201c. Others have further elaborated on the carbon implications of various forms of bioenergy, from corn ethanol to crop residue\u00a0cellulosic fuels<\/a>\u00a0to wood bioenergy. When full consideration is given, including impacts on soils, fertilizer use and both direct and indirect land use change, bioenergy processes are, in reality, far from \u201cneutral\u201d.<\/p>\n A case in point is wood bioenergy.\u00a0Conversion of coal plants<\/a>\u00a0to burn wood, dedicated new-build wood burning power plants as well as combined heat and power and biomass boilers for heating are creating huge new demand for wood pellets. Wood burning is subsidized as renewable energy and also favored for use in dirty older coal plants that must meet new regulations on sulphur dioxide emissions.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 Hence large coal plants such as DRAX in the UK are converting to burn wood pellets. In the UK, these are largely imported from the southeastern USA.\u00a0 While the energy industry claims to use only \u201cwastes and residues\u201d, those are clearly not abundantly available.\u00a0Recent investigation<\/a>\u00a0of the largest pellet producer in the US, Enviva, revealed that they were sourcing wood from remaining pockets of endangered Atlantic coastal forests and then shipping them across the Atlantic to burn with coal.<\/p>\n Cutting trees to burn (or refine) for bioenergy can hardly be considered carbon neutral or climate friendly.[2]<\/a>\u00a0Though this would seem to be common sense, there are now many scientific studies showing that uncut forests (and their soils<\/a>) store\u00a0more carbon<\/a>\u00a0than those that are disturbed and harvested[3]<\/a>, and continue to do so as they\u00a0grow older<\/a>, storing far more than fast rotation industrial tree plantations. Even ignoring the impacts on forests, harvest and transportation and looking\u00a0only<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0at the emissions coming from smokestacks, wood releases\u00a0around 50% more CO2 per megawatt of electricity generation<\/a>\u00a0than coal!<\/p>\n If bioenergy is not carbon neutral, then it simply cannot be rendered carbon negative by adding CCS, even if captured carbon were securely stored away (which we will see below, is unlikely).<\/p>\n So the enthusiasm for BECCS and continued \u201ccarbon negative\u201d rhetoric seems a bit puzzling. \u00a0Are proponents of BECCS just horrifically poor at math?\u00a0 Or is there some other motive behind the ongoing support for a technology that appears entirely nonsensical and lacking credibility?\u00a0 Perhaps BECCS supporters are scared stiff about the pace and scale of global climate change, understand that desperate measures are needed, and consider BECCS, in spite of shortcomings, to be \u201cmore benign\u201d than other approaches such as sulphate particle injection into the stratosphere? That was certainly the overarching mood at the recent IASS\u00a0conference<\/a>\u00a0on climate geoengineering in Potsdam, Germany.<\/p>\n Or perhaps there is something else going on? \u00a0Many climate \u201csolutions\u201d that are being offered to us are in fact those that large and powerful corporations such as the oil companies are willing to engage. \u00a0We have been hearing the term \u201cclean coal\u201d for decades now. \u00a0Why the persistence?<\/p>\n Here is one possibility: according to an analysis commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) there are large amounts of oil lying around in the difficult to access depths of previously depleted oil wells.\u00a0 That oil could be accessed using \u201cenhanced oil recovery\u201d, which can be achieved by pumping compressed CO2 into those wells to force out the remaining difficult to access oil.[4]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0They project that at least 137 billion barrels of oil could potentially be extracted, 67 billion barrels of which could be economically recoverable at a price of $85 a barrel. \u00a0That is three times the current U.S. proven reserves!<\/p>\n The National Energy Technology Laboratory \u201cEOR Primer<\/a>\u201d states that \u201csomewhere around 85 billion barrels of oil are recoverable using CO2 EOR, which currently is responsible for about 4 percent of U.S. oil production, displaying a long-term growth trend that stands in stark contrast to the long-term decline trend for U.S. oil production overall. Certainly, the volume of \u201cstranded\u201d oil left behind in U.S. reservoirs after conventional primary and second recovery techniques is massive\u2014as much as two-thirds of all the oil discovered in the United States resides in this category.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n In short, with oil reserves becoming more and more difficult to access and extract, EOR is becoming more and more attractive.<\/p>\n The US Chamber of Commerce recognizing this, states: \u201cIn terms of economic and energy security, this [EOR] means billions of dollars of new investment in the U.S. and production potential of 4 million barrels a day of oil for 50 years from existing US oil fields. The investment required would not just be in oil fields themselves but also in power plants, pipelines and other industries that capture CO2 from their industrial processes., The economic benefits will also flow to the state and federal governments with an estimated 1.4 trillion in new government revenues. In addition to the direct benefits to the U.S., the technology used to produce this additional oil will help maintain US leadership in oil production technology, creating opportunities around the world for U.S. companies<\/em>.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n What is needed to make these dreams of riches come true? Chamber of Commerce states: \u00a0\u201cThe challenge of realizing this potential is primarily the availability of CO2 at prices that support economic operations. This is also one of the opportunities since CO2 is emitted by power plants and many industrial processes<\/em>.\u201d \u00a0And the MidwesternGovernors Association, major advocates for CCS development state: \u201cWith unstable oil prices, commercially proven technology and know-how readily available and private capital waiting to invest, the MGA CCS Task Force aims to address the major remaining barrier to ramping up EOR: the lack of industrial sources of captured CO2 large enough and sufficiently long-term to justify private investment in pipelines and other infrastructure needed to expand EOR to additional fields.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n According to the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative there is a market for somewhere around 20 billion metric tons of CO2.\u00a0 The Natural Resources Defense Council (purportedly an environmental group!) offers that supplying adequate supplies of CO2 would require installation of between 69-109 gigawatts of coal and natural gas power plants equipped with carbon capture.[7]<\/a>\u00a0Indeed, what they are advocating for is construction of vast new fossil fueled power plant capacity as a way to provide cheap CO2 to facilitiate extraction of more oil.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n Somehow, many in industry, academics and policymaking as well as certain members of the public, have been convinced that this is a \u201csolution\u201d to the climate crisis.<\/p>\n Carbon capture is costly in part because it requires additional energy to capture and separate CO2 from a heterogeneous mix \u2013 as emerges from the stack of a coal combustion facility for example. Capturing the nearly pure stream of CO2 emitted from corn ethanol refinery fermentation processes is cheaper however, and footing the bill for the added costs associated with carbon capture can be further offset by taking advantage of the market for CO2 availed by EOR.<\/p>\n According to advocates from the\u00a0Great Plains Institute<\/a>, \u201cEthanol won\u2019t be a large source of CO2 over time compared to power plants, but it will be an important one because it can be an early participant in providing CO2 to the oil industry\u2014there really are no technological barriers whatsoever<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n A key question (assuming we even wanted to pursue it this far), is whether CO2 used for EOR, is \u201csequestered\u201d or not?\u00a0 Projects that employ EOR are after all, referred to as CCS \u2013 but is the \u201cS\u201d really happening? Or is the CO2 used for EOR just re-released into the atmosphere along with the carbon from yet more oil extraction?\u00a0 Finding the answer to that question has not proven straightforward. One almost gets the sense there is deliberate obfuscation. In the EOR process, CO2 mixes with the oil, much like detergent mixes with grease when dishwashing. That expands the volume and forces the oil out. So once the oil\/CO2 mixture has been extracted, presumably it must then be separated out again and perhaps then reinjected back into the well.\u00a0 All of those added steps ust contribute \u00a0to costs and energy demands of the process. The term \u201cCarbon Capture and Storage thus appears to be largely a misnomer and indeed the term \u201cCarbon Capture and Utilization\u201d is now coming into use along with terms such as \u201cNegative Emissions\u201d.<\/p>\n In other words: we don\u2019t know, and we will leave it to future generations to deal with the consequences.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If CO2 is captured following EOR and re-injected into underground storage spaces, those wells would need to be capped and sealed to ensure no leakage. \u00a0The Chamber of Commerce states that \u201cIf CO2 sequestration for long term storage is planned for the site, then a monitoring plan is developed and implemented. Once monitoring demonstrates that CO2 has not migrated out of the rock formation over the near term (tens of years) then there can be great certainty that no migration will occur in the long term (hundreds or thousands of years)<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 In other words: we don\u2019t know, and we will leave it to future generations to deal with the consequences.<\/p>\n Common sense, informed by our current understanding of earth history, plate tectonics and earthquakes tells us that assuming long term CO2 storage would be foolish. CO2 is not only a danger to climate, but in concentrated form, it is a lethal poison. Any abrupt release of concentrated CO2 could have serious impacts on those exposed, as well as contributing a sudden spike of CO2 to climate. Multiple small leaks also pose risks. They can occur at many points from capture process to compression to pipeline transport to injection, separation and reinjection and storage site leaks.<\/p>\n Assuming long term storage of CO2 underground is foolhardy.\u00a0 Experience with the wrongful claims made by the nuclear industry (Chernobyl, Fukushima etc.) or by the oil industry (Deep Horizon) should serve as clear lessons:\u00a0 Relying on industry claims about safety and reliability is unwise. Precaution is very highly advised!<\/p>\n The underlying motive behind CCS remains\u00a0 to perpetuate the ongoing use of fossil fuels. At the recent UN Climate Summit in New York City, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development released a bizarre\u00a0animated portrayal<\/a>\u00a0of the city buried under endless floods of oil. Their conclusion to the problem of such gluttonous and ongoing oil consumption: a carbon tax with the proceeds directed to developing \u201ccarbon capture and utilization\u201d (EOR).<\/p>\n Concerns aside, what experience do we have with CCS? The coal industry has been proclaiming the potential for \u201cclean coal\u201d in spite of virtually no existing practice, for decades. Yet CCS remains very expensive, largely nonexistent and where it does exist, \u201cstorage\u201d remains a misnomer.<\/p>\n A \u201cgroundbreaking\u201d was just held for the\u00a0Petra Nova<\/a>\u00a0facility in Texas, slated to be the \u201cworld\u2019s largest\u201d. This facility will use captured CO2 for EOR in the nearby Hilcorp owned West Ranch oil field, where oil extraction is to be increased from 500 to 15,000 barrels per day. In news interviews, CEO of partner company JX \u201cinsisted\u201d that some of the Co2 would be permanently sequestered and thus the project \u201cdoes tackle climate change to some extent.\u201d<\/p>\n The $1.3 billion dollar SaskPower Boundary Dam Power Station CCS project recently started operation \u2013 the first post combustion coal plant fitted with CCS. The project is proclaimed as \u201cmaking a viable technical, economic and environmental case for the continued use of coal.\u201d Further they claim to provide a \u201c90% greenhouse gas reduction\u2026the equivalent of taking more than 250,000 cars off the road annually.\u201d\u00a0 And yet the facility will sell the majority of captured CO2 to Cenovus for EOR. Emissions from the additional oil extraction are invisible in the hype surrounding the facility opening.<\/p>\n The notorious \u201cFutureGen\u201d CCS project in Illinois was initially funded in 2003 under the Bush administration, then cancelled due to high costs and a legal challenge. It was recently granted a new lease on life with $1 billion in DOE funding yet still remains far from operational.<\/p>\n In Kemper County Mississippi, a coal CCS project \u00a0was initially projected to cost 2.4 billion and to date estimates have risen to 5.4 billion and rising. Again, the captured CO2 is to be used for\u00a0EOR<\/a>\u00a0at nearby Denbury Resources owned wells. According to a recent Wall Street Journal\u00a0report<\/a>: \u201cThe only thing the Kemper power plant is burning now is money. The plant has suffered almost every kind of cost overrun, beset by bad weather, labor costs, shortages and \u201cinconsistent\u201d quality of equipment and materials, and contractor and supplier delays.\u201d<\/p>\n The AEP owned Mountaineer Plant, a coal burning facility in West Virginia was put on hold due to excessive costs.<\/p>\n And, the contentious Duke Energy coal gasification facility in Edwardsport Indiana was reportedly using\u00a0more energy than it produced<\/a>\u00a0even after massive cost overuns and ratepayer outrage. THe Sierra Club\u00a0refers<\/a>\u00a0to this project as \u201cA monument to cost overuns, concealment and malfeasance.\u201d<\/p>\n Capturing CO2 streams from natural gas extraction processes has been demonstrated (Sleipner and elsewhere) But even that has been frought with difficulties.\u00a0 A much touted plan to capture CO2 from the Mongstad facility in Norway was recently\u00a0abandoned<\/a>\u00a0after monumental cost overuns.<\/p>\n The largest bioenergy project with CCS by far involves a corn ethanol refinery owned by Archer Daniels Midland, in\u00a0Decatur<\/a>, Ill. This project aims to store captured CO2 in nearby Mount Simon saline aquifer. The estimated costs are 207 billion and has required construction of a separate power plant to provide energy for capture, dehydration and compression of the CO2.<\/p>\n In reality, CCS is the oil and coal industry\u2019s dream technology.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Just as the myth that burning biomass is \u201ccarbon neutral\u201d has been relentlessly perpetrated, now another myth has emerged.\u00a0 This myth refers to CCS as a means of sequestering carbon \u2013 removing it from the atmosphere and fixing the problem of climate change. \u00a0Yet in reality CCS is the oil and coal industry\u2019s dream technology! Through a tangled web of misinformation and rhetoric they have convinced many that we should build more fossil and bioenergy industrial facilities, which will need even greater capacity to power carbon capture, which will then facilitate extraction of yet more oil.\u00a0 This is sold to us as a \u201csolution\u201d to the climate crisis and in the case of bioenergy applications, as \u201cclimate geoengineering\u201d.<\/p>\n While a remarkeable number of people, including IPCC scientists and even some environmentalists even appear easily fooled, the atmosphere and earth systems certainly will not be!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a>\u00a0But note burning wood emits vastly greater quantities of many other pollutants including particulates, VOCs, NOx and CO. see:\u00a0http:\/\/www.pfpi.net\/trees-trash-and-toxics-how-biomass-energy-has-become-the-new-coal<\/a><\/p>\n [2]<\/a>\u00a0see also:\u00a0http:\/\/www.rspb.org.uk\/Images\/biomass_report_tcm9-326672.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n and<\/em>\u00a0http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/j.1757-1707.2012.01169.x\/abstract<\/a><\/p>\n and<\/em>\u00a0http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC3617913\/<\/a><\/p>\n [3]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0Smith, L.J. and Torn. M.S. \u00a02013. \u00a0Ecological Limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal.\u00a0\u00a0Climate Change vol. 118 (1): 89-103\u00a0<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n [4]<\/a>\u00a0Note: there are\u00a0other approaches<\/a>\u00a0to EOR that do not involve CO2, such as injection of gas, water and other substances.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a>\u00a0Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery Untapped Domestic Energy Supply and Long Term Carbon Storage Solution, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, March 2010.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a>\u00a0CO2 enhanced Oil Recovery.\u00a0 Institute for 21st Century Energy and US Chamber of Commerce<\/p>\n [7]<\/a>\u00a0U.S. Oil Production Potential From Accelerated Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage, Advanced Resources\u00a0International, prepared for the Natural Resource Defense Council, March 2010.<\/p>\n![\"Smolker_Rachel_Headshot\"](\"http:\/\/ceassessment.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/11\/Smolker_Rachel_Headshot--300x299.png\")
Dr. Rachel Smolker is a codirector of\u00a0Biofuelwatch<\/a>, and an organizer with\u00a0Energy Justice Network<\/a>. She has researched, written and organized on the impacts of biofuels, bioenergy and biochar on land use, forests, biodiversity, food, people and the climate. She works with various coalitions, national and international including the Mobilization for Climate Justice, Climate Justice Now and others opposing market-based solutions to climate change and other \u201cfalse solutions\u201d. She is the daughter of one of the founders of Environmental Defense Fund and participated in a protest against that organization because of the key role EDF played in advocating market based solutions to climate change. She has a Ph.D. in ecology\/biology from the University of Michigan and worked previously as a field biologist, gaining first hand experience with the complex balance between the needs of people and the ecological systems they depend upon. She is author of \u201cTo Touch A Wild Dolphin\u201d (Doubleday 2001) and lives in Vermont. A list of publications is available on request.<\/p>\n