New research is challenging the climate credentials of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), suggesting that burning wood for power could result in higher emissions than fossil gas, even when paired with carbon capture.
The findings add to growing scrutiny of biomass-based energy systems as governments consider their role in net-zero strategies.
The study, published in Nature Sustainability, indicates that BECCS projects may take decades or even more than a century to achieve net-negative emissions. A key factor is the time required for forests to regrow and reabsorb the carbon released during combustion, alongside emissions generated across the biomass supply chain.
Researchers, including Tim Searchinger of Princeton University, found that a significant portion of emissions occurs before biomass reaches power plants, meaning they cannot be captured through CCS systems. The analysis also suggests that wood-based energy can produce higher emissions per unit of energy compared to fossil gas, while operating less efficiently.
Growing Debate Over Biomass Policy
The findings raise questions about policies supporting biomass power, particularly in the United Kingdom, where BECCS has been proposed as a source of dispatchable, low-carbon electricity.
Proponents argue that the technology could deliver “negative emissions” by combining energy generation with carbon removal, but critics highlight uncertainties around lifecycle emissions and land-use impacts.
Concerns include the conversion of land for biomass production and the harvesting of existing forests, which can reduce carbon stocks and biodiversity. Even when using a mix of waste materials and plantation-grown wood, the study suggests that emissions reductions may take decades to materialize.
Relevant: Microsoft Signs Major BECCS Carbon Removal Deal With Svante
The debate is particularly relevant for operators such as Drax Group, which runs one of the UK’s largest biomass power stations. The company has positioned BECCS as a key part of its long-term strategy but has recently paused investment decisions pending clarity on government support.
Environmental organizations, including Greenpeace UK and the Natural Resources Defense Council, argue that alternatives should be prioritized, citing concerns over sustainability and cost. Industry groups, however, maintain that BECCS remains an important component of net-zero pathways, particularly when using waste and residue-based feedstocks.
The UK government has indicated that no final decisions have been made on large-scale BECCS deployment, emphasizing that any future support would need to meet strict sustainability and value-for-money criteria. As the debate continues, the role of biomass in climate strategies remains contested.
Read more: First-of-its-kind BECCS Project Begins Operations In Norway
