Bioenergy

Carbon
Capture and
Storage
(BECCS)
Discussion
PAPER
JUNE
201
4
2 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
WWF Internal Discussion
Paper
(Leo Hickman, Stephan Singer June 2014)















Summary

The IPCC has recently concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide
removal technologies such as BECCS will very likely be required in
the decades ahead to ensure we stay well under 2C or/and do not exceed
1.5 C by the end of the century
Depending on how much CO2 is being emitted or/and avoided in next
few decades will decide how much atmospheric CO2 needs again to be
removed eventually
There is very little research about the commercial viability, scalability
and environmental/social risks of BECCS at the magnitude being
proposed by the IPCC
Presently, and by default, all burning of biomass for energy is accounted
for as zero emissions by all countries which is a methodological flaw
because this concept assumes automatically that all CO2 released at the
point of combustion is either being fully sequestered in lands elsewhere,
3 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
or would be released by natural organic matter turnover anyway if not
harvested.
BECCS might theoretically help with climate change, but it poses big
questions about land-use change, forests, food security, human
development, marine/freshwater habitats, carbon storage permanence and
costs, etc
BECCS is likely to divide the NGO community; the media is already
starting to ask questions

What is BECCS?

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) was a term first popularised by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 3
(IPCC AR4 WG3) in 2007
1
. It is proposed as a carbon dioxide removal (CDR sometimes
referred to as GGR, or greenhouse gas removal) technology offering permanent net removal
of CO2 from the atmosphere. BECCS, if developed at commercial scale, it would see
biomass, which extract CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow, being combusted to generate
power and/or heat, with the resulting CO2 being captured at source and then pumped
underground into geological storage. Overall, this process would create negative emissions.
This implies that growing plants for biomass combustion, coupled with sustainable land
management, would have a strong carbon benefit compared to fossil fuels. The CO2 removed
from the smoke stack at the power plant, and then buried, completes the overall process of
carbon negativity. Compared to ordinary CCS with fossil fuels, BECCS is therefore said to
be a technology that reduces atmospheric CO2 concentrations overall and not simply reduce
the rate at which emissions enter the atmosphere.


Why is BECCS topical now?

With the recent publication of the IPCCs Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the consensus
view among climate scientists now is that conventional emissions reductions are not
enough to deal with the long-term impacts of climate change if, that is, the world wants to
stay well below the 2C threshold by end of century. It is clear, they say, that our toolbox now
requires technologies that can suck CO2 from the atmosphere. The urgency to look into
removal of CO2 concentrations arises from the observations that the world today faces
atmospheric CO2 concentrations of around 400 ppm, which are growing by 1-3% annually
with presently maintained emission increases. These concentrations are the highest since at
least 800,000 years (ice core samples) and probably since a few million years. In addition, up
to 40% of human-induced CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for longer than 1000 years. This
entails that even a drastic cut of CO2 emissions will see high CO2 concentrations maintaining

1
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-3-5-1.html
4 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
to determine future temperature/climate changes.
2
. Also, ocean acidification from CO2 is
now 30% stronger than at 1900 and probably proceeding faster than at any time in the last 55
million years
3
. In addition, the vast majority of sub-2C scenario analysis of long-term
emissions reduction pathways (including cumulative carbon budgets) point to the need for
global emissions to go negative sometime after 2050. Therefore, it is not about whether we
now need CDR technologies, it is about how much and which technologies should be
adopted. CDR technologies encompass various options, from mechanical air filtering and
storage of CO2 to enhanced large-scale land-use with biological carbon sequestration. For
example, a more sustainable land-use/forestry turns from a net source of CO2 to a net sink.
BECCS is another option combining sustainable land use and energy production to accelerate
the carbon removal.
After a few years lying largely undiscussed or promoted, BECCS has suddenly received a
huge boost in attention by being featured prominently in the IPCC AR5 report (Working
Group 3). Published in April, 2014, AR5 WG3 examined the range of mitigation options
available to tackle climate change and keep global average surface temperatures from rising
above 2C compared to pre-industrial times. BECCS was cited by the reports authors as one
of the few technologies that are capable of removing past CO2 emissions remaining in the
atmosphere. As this enhances the when (i.e. temporal) flexibility during the design of
mitigation scenarios considerably, BECCS plays a prominent role in many of the low
stabilisation pathways. BECCS was described as the likeliest most affordable of the CDR
technologies, assuming a carbon price of $100 t/CO2. AR5 WG3 also raised some of the
limitations and negative consequences associated with BECCS.
AR5 WG3 suggested that in order to stay below 1.5 C global warming compared to pre-
industrial temperatures, the global cumulative carbon budget ranges from 655 to 815 Gt
CO2eq emissions for the period 2011-2050, while declining to 90 to 350 Gt CO2eq for the
period 2011-2100. This shows that the emissions reduction choices we take must more than
compensate for all remaining gross emissions and, at a certain point in time after 2050,
achieve total net negative emissions. That is certainly a huge challenge and impossible
without large scale CDR technologies by the second half of the century.
Given that, for some, rapid, meaningful global action on mitigation seems increasingly
unlikely, BECCS is now being hailed in some quarters as a get out of jail technology for
such inaction, even though it has yet to be commercially developed at scale. Nor has there
been barely any public debate about the wisdom of committing to such a technology. Only
two small-scale precursor facilities have ever tested BECCS technology, according the
IPCC.


Carbon neutrality of biomass?

It is beyond the scope of this discussion paper to elaborate on issues of additional bioenergy
life cycle GHG emissions caused by direct and indirect land use change as well as from a

2
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
3
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/research.cfm
5 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
carbon debt. However, even in the absence of these factors, modern utility scale biomass
burning for power generation releases about 50% more CO2 per kWh electricity or heat
compared to coal. Much of that is caused by the higher water content of solid biomass
reducing energy conversion efficiency to below 30%.
4
So, biomass use is a high-carbon
emitter.
By default, bioenergy use is considered carbon-neutral by governments and GHG inventories.
This assumes that all carbon released over the smokestack is either sequestered elsewhere in
natural sinks and plantations or/and in the absence of its use, the biomass would be
decomposing naturally. Though we believe that sustainable bioenergy has a substantive role
to play to mitigate climate change, this carbon neutrality is a fundamental flaw that needs to
be corrected very soon by governments and led by the IPCC to enhance scientific accuracy.
Some argue that the full lack of adequate bioenergy life cycle GHG accounting and its very
high specific CO2 emissions at combustion do not justify any further use. Others argue that
the high specific emissions and fully independent of the multiple land use implications that
need to be solved too, would in any case require carbon capture and storage, hence
developing the downstream component of BECCS.






The numbers on potentials


For BECCS to make a meaningful contribution to tackling climate change ensuring that
atmospheric concentrations stay well below 450ppm CO2eq - it would need to be
commercialised at a huge scale,. AR5 WG3 shows that up to 100 exajoules (EJ) a year of
biomass would need to be produced by 2030 for BECCS to help meet such a climate target
5
.
By 2100, this would rise to up to 325EJ a year of biomass. Other studies
6
have suggested
200-400EJ of biomass would be required for BECCS during 2050-2100. (See Annex 1 to see
how Larson et al, 2010
7
, showed how much BECCS would be needed by 2100 to keep within
350ppm.) To put that into context, 100EJ/year may require 500 million hectares of land
(assuming an average biomass yield of 10 tons of dry matter per hectare annually though
according to FAO higher yields might be possible in short-rotation and well planned
forestry)
8

9
. 500 million ha represent about one sixth of current global forest land. Presently,
consumption of bioenergies generate about 56EJ, or about 10% of all global primary energy
supply, more than half of that very inefficiently via traditional cooking and heating by the
poor in developing countries.

4
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Forests%20-%20Incinerators%20-%20Biomass/Documents/Carbon%20Emissions%20-
%20Pollution/Fact%20sheet-Logging%20Forests%20Not%20Carbon%20Neutral.pdf
5
Fig 6.20, Chapter 6, IPCC AR5 WG3
6
https://cmi.princeton.edu/bibliography/related_files/Larson_etal_Feasibility%20of%20Low%20CO2_Climatic%20Change_2010.pdf
7
ibid
8
ibid
9
http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0532e/a0532e07.htm
6 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
So, potentially, up to 2 billion hectares of land - some have also proposed that seaweed/algae
also be used as a biomass for BECCS
10
- would need to be assigned to biomass production
through the second half of the 21
st
century. For comparison, in 2011, the International Energy
Agency said that around 33m hectares of land
11
were being used to produce biofuels.
However, it added: Yield of biofuels could increase by a factor of 10 [by 2050] through the
use of wastes and residues and through the use of more productive crops and processes.
For additional context, the Worldwatch Institute says
12
: Of the total of 13 billion hectares of
land area on Earth, cropland accounts for 11 percent, pastureland 27 percent, forested land 32
percent, and urban lands 9 percent. Most of the remaining 21 percent is unsuitable for crops,
pasture, and/or forests because the soil is too infertile or shallow to support plant growth, or
the climate and region are too cold, dry, steep, stony, or wet. This is largely backed by
WWFs Energy Report and quoting the work by IIASA
13
. BECCS at a scale commensurate
with not surpassing 450ppm would need to compete within this current apportioning of
available land (and, possibly, the sea).
However, as WWF has long noted, land can be used more effectively and efficiently than is
currently practiced. For example, more than 50% of the worlds agricultural land is being
used for meat production; both direct animal husbandry and fodder production for industrial
meat production. A global shift to a more vegetarian-based diet would, free up more land for
other uses as well as protecting nature from agricultural conversion taking account of the
embedded calorie (energy) losses when converting 5-15 units of staple cereals or other crops
into one unit of meat
14

15

16
.
Generally, any long-term policies to stay well below 2C/not exceed 1.5C by 2100 is very
likely to embark on substantive amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide removal
technologies. The longer the world waits to cut CO2 substantively, the more is needed later.
This entails in any case a substantive change in land use. Providing enhanced food security
for all, maintaining biological diversity and undisturbed nature, protecting the climate and
growing our global natural resource consumption for bio-based products as well as enhancing
meat consumption this all does not go together. The planet has its limits. Stakeholders need
to make choices. Both on the highest and the local level.


What UNEP and IPCC say


The Emissions Gap Report 2013, UNEP
17
(a verbatim extract)

About one third of the scenarios analyzed in this [report] with either a likely or a medium
chance of meeting the 2 C target and most of the small number of 1.5 C scenarios have

10
https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/resources/ccs-publications/academic-peer-reviewed-publications/does-seaweed-offer-solution-bioenergy
11
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2011/april/name,20302,en.html
12
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/554
13
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/the_energy_report_lowres_111110.pdf
14
https://woods.stanford.edu/environmental-venture-projects/consequences-increased-global-meat-consumption-global-environment
15
http://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/meat_atlas2014_kommentierbar.pdf
16
http://www.wwf.eu/what_we_do/natural_resources/consumption/our_work_consumption/
17
http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEPEmissionsGapReport2013.pdf
7 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
negative total emissions of all Kyoto gases, not only carbon dioxide, before 2100. Moreover,
about 40 percent of the scenarios that have a likely chance of complying with the 2 C target
have negative energy and industry-related carbon dioxide emissions by 2100. In these
scenarios, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage is usually applied in the second-half of
the century, assuming this option is economically attractive within a least-cost path over time.
Such a path implies that the discounted costs of an additional unit of reduction is stable over
time, and thus allows for much more expensive technologies to expand in the second half of
the century. Also considered economically attractive is the ability to avoid very rapid, and
thus costly, emission reductions in the short term (Azar et al., 2010
18
; Edmonds et al., 2013
19
;
van Vuuren et al., 2013
20
). It should be noted that the application of bio-energy with carbon
capture and storage is even more necessary in later-action scenarios, as well as in 1.5 C
scenarios, because they need steeper and deeper cuts after 2020/2030 (Section 3.5).
Negative emissions can be achieved in several ways, including afforestation/reforestation,
carbon dioxide storage in combination with direct air capture, and bio-energy in combination
with carbon capture and storage (Tavoni and Socolow, 2013
21
) The last option is often
applied in model-based studies because of its attractive costs and overall potential. Still, the
validity of assuming large-scale bio-energy with carbon capture and storage deployment
crucially hinges on two key factors (UNEP, 2012
22
; van Vuuren et al., 2013
23
):
- the technical and social feasibility of large-scale carbon capture and storage, for
example, the development of a carbon capture and storage infrastructure; and
- the technical and social feasibility of sustainable large-scale bio-energy production,
for example, the development of second-generation bio-energy conversion technologies, such
as technologies for producing fuels from woody biomass.
Even if both technologies are technically feasible and socially acceptable, the deployment of
bio-energy with carbon capture and storage may have severe sustainability implications, for
instance in terms of food-price developments and pressure on water resources. Many factors
that may limit the availability of bio-energy are not fully represented in integrated-assessment
models (Creutzig et al., 2012
24
), and current integrated-assessment model estimates of the
total mitigation potential vary greatly, sometimes by a factor of three (Tavoni and Socolow,
2013
25
). Importantly, integrated assessment models also show that stringent climate targets
can be achieved without bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (Riahi et al., 2012
26
). As
noted previously, if scenarios do not rely on this in the future, significantly lower emissions
are required in the near term. Conversely, high emissions in the near term lock in the need for
negative emissions later (Section 3.6 of the UNEP report).

IPCC, AR5, WG3 (selected extracts from chapters 6
27
&7
28
)

18
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-010-9832-7
19
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0678-z
20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0680-5
21
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0757-9
22
http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf
23
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0680-5
24
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n5/full/nclimate1416.html
25
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0757-9
26
Riahi, K., Dentener, F., Gielen, D., Grubler, A., Jewell, J., Klimont, Z., Krey, V., McCollum, D., Pachauri, S., Rao, S., van Ruijven, B., van
Vuuren, D. P. and Wilson, C. (2012) Chapter 17 - Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development in Global Energy Assessment - Toward a
Sustainable Future - Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1203-1306.
27
http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter6.pdf
8 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date

BECCS has attracted particular attention since AR4 because it offers the prospect of energy
supply with negative emissions (limited evidence, medium agreement). Technological
challenges and potential risks of BECCS include those associated with the upstream
provision of the biomass that is used in the CCS facility as well as those originating from the
capture, transport and long-term underground storage of CO2 that would otherwise be
emitted. BECCS faces large challenges in financing and currently no such plants have been
built and tested at scale (IPCC AR5 WG3 7.5.5, 7.8.2, 7.9, 7.12, 11.13)
Integrated assessment models (see 6.2) tend to agree that at about 100-150 $/tCO2 the
electricity sector is largely decarbonized with a significant fraction being from CCS
deployment (Krey and Riahi, 2009
29
; Luckow et al., 2010
30
; Wise et al., 2010
31
). Many
scenarios in the AR5 Scenario database achieve this decarbonization at a carbon tax of
approximately 100$/tCO2. This price is sufficient, in most scenarios, to produce large-scale
utilization of bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) (Krey and Riahi, 2009
32
; Azar et al., 2010
33
;
Luckow et al., 2010
34
; Edmonds et al., 2013
35
). BECCS in turn allows net removal of CO2
from the atmosphere while simultaneously producing electricity (7.5.5, 11.13 IPCC AR5 WG
III). In terms of large scale deployment of CCS in the power sector, Herzog (2011), p. 597
36
,
and many others have noted that Significant challenges remain in growing CCS from the
megaton level where it is today to the gigaton level where it needs to be to help mitigate
global climate change. These challenges, none of which are showstoppers, include lowering
costs, developing needed infrastructure, reducing subsurface uncertainty, and addressing legal
and regulatory issues. In addition, the upscaling of BECCS, which plays a prominent role in
many of the stringent mitigation scenarios in the literature, will require overcoming potential
technical barriers to increase the size of biomass plants. Potential adverse side-effects related
to the biomass feedstock usage remain the same as for biomass technologies without CCS
(IPCC AR5 WG III, 7.5.5, 11.13, particularly 11.7, 11.13.6, 11.13.7).
Some models universally project that the majority of biomass supply for bioenergy and
bioenergy consumption will occur in developing and transitional economies. For instance, the
study by (Rose et al., 2014a
37
) found that 50-90% of global bioenergy primary energy is
projected from non-OECD countries in 2050, with the share increasing beyond 2050.
Developing and transitional regions are also projected to be the home of the majority of
agricultural and forestry mitigation. A number of integrated models have explicitly modelled
land-use with full emissions accounting, including indirect land-use change and agricultural
intensification. These models have found that it is cost-effective to trade-off lower land
carbon stocks from land-use change and increased N2O emissions from agricultural
intensification for the long-run climate change management benefits of bioenergy (Popp et
al., 2013
38
; Rose et al., 2014a
39
)Some analysis also shows that future bioenergy use will grow

28
http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter7.pdf
29
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988309001170
30
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175058361000099X
31
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583609000917
32
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988309001170
33
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-010-9832-7
34
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175058361000099X
35
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0678-z
36
http://e40-hjh-server1.mit.edu/pdf/Herzog_EnergyEconomics_Dec2010.pdf
37
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0965-3
38
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0926-x
39
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0965-3
9 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
particular in countries with comparably low population densities, large land availability,
climate change commitments and a suitable weather regime for growing biomass which
includes US, Brazil, Russia, Canada and parts of Europe, China and Australia primarily
40
.
In general, models have been able to produce scenarios leading to roughly 550 ppm CO2-e by
2100, even under limited technology assumptions. However, many models could not produce
scenarios leading to roughly 450 ppm CO2-e by 2100 with limited technology portfolios,
particularly when assumptions preclude or limit the use of BECCS (Azar et al., 2006a
41
; van
Vliet et al., 2009
42
; Krey et al., 2014
43
; Kriegler et al., 2014c
44
), see also ANNEX.
There are broader discussions in the literature regarding the technological challenges and
potential risks of large-scale BECCS deployment. The potential role of BECCS will be
influenced by the sustainable supply of large-scale biomass feedstock and feasibility of
capture, transport and long-term underground storage of CO2 as well as the perceptions of
these issues. BECCS faces large challenges in financing and currently no such plants have
been built and tested at scale. IAM studies have therefore explored the sensitivities regarding
the availability of BECCS in the technology portfolio by limiting bioenergy supply or CCS
storage (IPCC AR5 WG III; Section 6.3.6.3).


Advantages and Disadvantages of BECCS


Any policy proposal by WWF and policy decision by stakeholders need to balance views,
opinion and furthermost scientific facts, environmental, social and development priorities for
nations. There will and must be compromises and trade-offs as well as defined policy
priorities in any case. For us, preventing dangerous climate change and not exceeding 1.5C
warming at century end is such an overarching priority. The big question for WWF is which
advantages of BECCS can effectively be implemented while reducing, overcoming and
eventually avoiding some disadvantages. Or vice versa, if disadvantages cannot be overcome
while advantages turn out to be too weak, what would be the alternate CDR technologies and
policies?

Advantages of BECCS

Affordable and effective way to keep CO2e atmospheric concentrations below
450ppm
Very few models can produce 450ppm scenarios without BECCS and other CDR
technologies
Could be used to rectify a lack of action on climate change, if emissions reductions
are delayed in the decades ahead and 450ppm is passed (known as concentration
overshoot)

40
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch02.pdf
41
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-005-3484-7
42
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014098830900108X
43
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0947-5
44
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162513002588
10 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
Biomass production for BECCS could be an economic boon to the developing world,
if paid for by developed, high-emitters
Potential conservation synergies between REDD+ and BECCS (see IIASA
presentation
45
)
Can be used in step-wise approaches such as with co-firing in conventional coal or
gas plants enabled with CCS
In case the CCS component of BECCS works reliable, it will contribute to bring
overall CCS costs down which is important for potential other sectors that might need
to employ CCS too, such as cement and steel sector
Provides baseload power and therefore fits well into existing grid structures and does
not require back-up loads and/or electricity storage and might itself be a reliable
electricity storage backbone for increased weather dependent renewable power such
as wind and solar.
Disadvantages of BECCS

Yet to be developed and tested at a commercial scale
Could degrade resources, such as land and water, if not produced sustainably
Unsustainable/poorly managed BECCS could actually increase emissions (eg carbon-
sink forests replaced with intensively-farmed monocultures); and compete
economically with natural forests that are themselves needed to remain below 2C.
Could displace land assigned for food production, thereby increasing food
prices/availability/security, Biodiversity impacts of monocultures grown for BECCS
Currently no system to verify and account for BECCS under the UNFCCC (see IEA
report for more info
46
)
Could be used as an excuse not to urgently mitigate now a maana technology
BECCS is reliant on CCS, an as-yet-unproven technology at a commercial scale
Knock-on environmental impacts of CCS eg CO2 leaks from underground storage
Present biomass and GHG accounting system is flawed and does not give BECCS any
benefits


Implications, recommendations and questions for WWF


WWF supports a position to not exceed 1.5C by 2100. This will require some application of
CDR eventually. Yet, even if we were to say we only wanted to stay below 2C warming,
the need for CDR still arises eventually in one way or the other.

We have a few questions for the network which we like people to respond to:


45
http://www.iea.org/media/workshops/2013/beccs/Kraxner_BrazilJune13.pdf
46
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/bioenergy_ccs.pdf
11 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
Do we believe that BECCS is an immature technology that deserves
positive, if cautious, attention?
Is BECCS really a silver bullet among CDR technologies?
Do we need other CDR technologies? If so, which ones?
We all support substantive re- and afforestation for a variety of reasons.
Could those help, too, and w/o harvesting/CCS to create a substantive net
sink?
In order to develop BECCS commercially, WWF would need to support
substantive R&D as well as pilot phases. What and where would those
be?
What would be our requirements for sustainable land-use/forest
management? FSC? Focus on waste & residues alone? Development of
algae from the sea? Or all together? And do we need a separate standard
for sustainable biomass use for power & heat generation first?
How can we change & improve GHG accounting for general biomass use
by the IPCC reflecting on the real emissions and factors involved over
lifecycle of biomass and BECCS projects?
Practically and politically, how can we prevent any new CDR technology
such as BECCS not delaying mitigation actions on other fronts, such as
less contentious RES and energy efficiency/conservation? How do avoid
hyping a saviour technology that will arrive some time in future, just
as we have seen previously with liquid biofuels and hydrogen?
Would we have an idea how much BECCS (50EJ? 200EJ? 400EJ?) could
be used that is compatible with sustainable land use and Zero Net
Deforestation and Degradation in the long term? What would we tolerate
that could limit any negative implications on biodiversity, indigenous
people, food security, etc?
How do we deal with the CCS component? This technology is not yet
working facing prohibitive costs. Could that change over time? But, even
if CCS remains costly, should we not argue that the avoided costs of large
climate impacts must be factored into and not just to view expensive
CCS/BECCS through the lens of simple short-term economics?
And, if so, what about the safety/viability of geological storage at such a
scale?

Current WWF Positions on CCS and Bioenergy

12 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions22/carb
on_capture_storage/
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions22/rene
wable_energy/bioenergy/

IPCC video explaining the risks and opportunities of BECCS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcGz1iVm6U&feature=player_detailpage#t=506

13 WWF XXX | XXXX Briefing Paper | Date
Annex















1986 Panda Symbol WWF - World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)
WWF is a WWF Registered Trademark.
EU Transparency Register Nr: 1414929419-24
Printed on recycled paper.


For further
information:

Leo Hickman
Chief Adviser, Climate
Change | WWF-UK
Tel : +44 1483 412 517
Mob : +44 7971149 666
Email:
lhickman@wwf.org.uk

Stephan Singer
Director Energy Policy,
GCEI
Tel: +32 2743 8817
Mob: +32 496550709
Email: ssinger@wwf.eu

B
E
C
C
S