UK energy firm Drax鈥檚 plan to transform a biomass power plant in the north of England into the world鈥檚 first carbon-negative power station is receiving strong pushback.
By 2027, Drax hopes to retrofit its plant near Selby so it can be used for 鈥渂ioenergy with carbon capture and storage鈥� (BECCS), a process in which the firm will grow trees that remove millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air, burn them for power, capture the resulting CO2 and pipe it below the bedrock of the North Sea.
BECCS created by the UN鈥檚 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the main way to remove CO2 emissions if the world overshoots its climate targets, and as a method of balancing out emissions from hard-to-decarbonise sectors such as aviation.
Advertisement
鈥淭he key issue is we are running out of time to hit the 1.5掳C target,鈥� says at Drax, referring to the Paris Agreement鈥檚 toughest goal. 鈥淚ncreasingly, you have people realising negative emissions have to be part of the solution. The case for BECCS is it鈥檚 available today.鈥�
New models suggest the IPCC鈥檚 estimates may have been overly optimistic, but BECCS has had its critics for years because of concerns over the land that would be needed to grow the plants to be burned, and the knock-on effect on food prices, biodiversity and water. Now, the idea is on the brink of moving from concept to commercial reality, mobilising renewed opposition.
A report published by UK non-profit organisation on 25 May estimates that subsidies for the Drax project would cost UK consumers 拢31.7 billion over 25 years, adding more than 拢16 a year to household energy bills.
However, the report听arrives at the estimated cost by assuming Drax eventually converts all four of its power station鈥檚 generating units, rather than the two it has publicly committed to transforming. It also assumes marginally higher subsidy costs than what Gardiner . But it is clear that the two generating units, which Drax estimates will cost 拢1 billion each, won鈥檛 happen without sizeable public support.
A听Drax听spokesperson says:听鈥�The calculations included in this report are based on a series of false assumptions that do not reflect our current proposals to deliver carbon-negative power at Drax.鈥� They noted that the report assumes a new-build BECCS facility, rather than a retrofit, and a 25-year subsidy contract rather than the 15 years the UK government is considering for carbon capture projects.
The other argument against Drax鈥檚 plans is founded on environmental concerns. A principal one is the time it takes for a newly planted tree to absorb the carbon released by a mature one burned at a BECCS facility. at the European Academies鈥� Science Advisory Council says: 鈥淵ou can absolutely rule out forest biomass听as a source [for BECCS] because the payback period is too long.鈥�
Drax intends to use wood pellets from North American trees for its BECCS scheme, with some biomass coming from sunflower husks and other agricultural waste. It maintains that those trees are sustainably harvested.
Another report, released on 25 May by a team at University College London (UCL), strikes a more balanced tone, noting the potential environmental risks, but concluding that BECCS has a 鈥渟ignificant鈥� role to play in the UK meeting its goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
The report finds that BECCS removes slightly less CO2 than earlier estimates from the UK government鈥檚 climate advisers.
Last week, the International Energy Agency of future CO2 removals by BECCS.
, one of the UCL report鈥檚 authors, says: 鈥淲e鈥檙e not saying the Drax model of BECCS should be ruled out because it鈥檚 fundamentally unsustainable. It鈥檚 more to say: what are the conditions that could make such a model sustainable?鈥�
He says we may need more regulation along the biomass supply chain, even if it is overseas, and to run a much smaller trial. Drax could perhaps remove hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2 a year rather than the 4 million tonnes it hopes for each of its generating units, he says.
at Lancaster University, UK, echoes that view. 鈥淭here is a small role for BECCS, probably not in the model suggested by Drax. More likely at smaller scales,鈥� he says.
Ultimately, Watson thinks we should learn by doing BECCS, rather than writing it off before it gets started. 鈥淚t鈥檚 only by doing these things you are going to reveal whether some of the estimates of very poor impacts are right, or actually whether it could make a useful contribution to net zero,鈥� he says.
Sign up to our free Fix the Planet newsletter to get a dose of climate optimism delivered straight to your inbox, every Thursday
