Skip to main content

Challenges and Opportunities of Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) for Communities

Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports volume 6, pages 124–130 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose of Review

What do we know about community scale perceptions and desirability of BECCS? What does research on the governance of BECCS say about policy relevant to community scale challenges and opportunities?

Recent Findings

The social acceptability of BECCS is influenced by contextual factors such as the source and use of the CO2, and the policy environment. Sustainable BECCS has a particular geography, and communities may be affected by its system boundaries and requirements in terms of feedstocks, transport, and infrastructure design.

Summary

BECCS cannot be viewed on just the community scale without considering how national and global scales influence system design. The limited research relevant to BECCS on the community scale looks at public acceptance or social license, rather than opportunities for communities. Future research can move beyond “social impact” to study “social demand” for BECCS, and identify opportunities for communities along the farm-to-underground or farm-to-product chain.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.

    • Burns W, Nicholson S. Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response. J Environ Stud Sci. 2017;7(4):527–34. This article gives an overview of key concerns about BECCS from a human rights standpoint and makes general policy recommendations.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Dooley K, Kartha S. Land-based negative emissions: risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ. 2018;18(1):79–98.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Vaughan NE, Gough C. Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11(9):095003.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    • L’Orange Seigo S, Dohle S, Siegrist M. Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2014;38:848–63. Thorough and systematic review of the literature on public perception of CCS.

  5. 5.

    Krause RM, Carley SR, Warren DC, Rupp JA, Graham JD. “Not in (or under) my backyard”: geographic proximity and public acceptance of carbon capture and storage facilities: not in (or under) my backyard. Risk Anal. 2014;34(3):529–40.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Braun C. Not in my backyard: CCS sites and public perception of CCS: NIMBY and CCS sites. Risk Anal. 2017 Dec;37(12):2264–75.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Xenias D, Whitmarsh L. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) experts’ attitudes to and experience with public engagement. Int J Greenh Gas Control. 2018;78:103–16.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Buhr K, Wibeck V. Communication approaches for carbon capture and storage: underlying assumptions of limited versus extensive public engagement. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2014;3:5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ashworth P, Wade S, Reiner D, Liang X. Developments in public communications on CCS. Int J Greenh Gas Control. 2015;40:449–58.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chaudhry R, Fischlein M, Larson J, Hall DM, Peterson TR, Wilson EJ, et al. Policy stakeholders’ perceptions of carbon capture and storage: a comparison of four U.S. states. J Clean Prod. 2013;52:21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dowd A-M, Itaoka K, Ashworth P, Saito A, de Best-Waldhober M. Investigating the link between knowledge and perception of CO2 and CCS: an international study. Int J Greenh Gas Control. 2014;28:79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hunsberger C, Bolwig S, Corbera E, Creutzig F. Livelihood impacts of biofuel crop production: implications for governance. Geoforum. 2014;54:248–60.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    German L, Schoneveld GC, Pacheco P. Local social and environmental impacts of biofuels: global comparative assessment and implications for governance. Ecol Soc. 2011;16(4):art29.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hodbod J, Tomei J. Demystifying the social impacts of biofuels at local levels: where is the evidence?: demystifying the social impacts of biofuels. Geogr Compass. 2013;7(7):478–88.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    van der Horst D, Vermeylen S. Spatial scale and social impacts of biofuel production. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35(6):2435–43.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Goetz A, German L, Weigelt J. Scaling up biofuels? A critical look at expectations, performance and governance☆. Energy Policy. 2017;110:719–23.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Brunner A, Currie WS, Miller S. Cellulosic ethanol production: landscape scale net carbon strongly affected by forest decision making. Biomass Bioenergy. 2015;83:32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Caldas MM, Bergtold JS, Peterson JM, Graves RW, Earnhart D, Gong S, et al. Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to grow alternative biofuel feedstocks across Kansas. Biomass Bioenergy. 2014;66:223–31.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    •• Gough C, Garcia-Freites S, Jones C, Mander S, Moore B, Pereira C, et al. Challenges to the use of BECCS as a keystone technology in pursuit of 1.5°C. Glob Sustain, 2018;1:e5. Succinct review identifying six key challenges for BECCS deployment.

  20. 20.

    •• Dowd A-M, Rodriguez M, Jeanneret T. Social science insights for the BioCCS industry. Energies. 2015;8(5):4024–42. Scoping review of public perceptions of bioenergy with CCS which identifies gaps for further public perception and acceptance research.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Buck HJ. Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications. Clim Chang. 2016;139(2):155–67.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Low S, Schäfer S. Tools of the trade: practices and politics of researching the future in climate engineering. Sustain Sci. 2019;14(4):953–62.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bailis R, Baka J. Constructing sustainable biofuels: governance of the emerging biofuel economy. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2011;101(4):827–38.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    • Buck HJ. The politics of negative emissions technologies and decarbonization in rural communities. Glob Sustain. 2018;1:e2. Empirical study that identifies environmental justice concerns around decarbonization technologies in a California rural community and draws out lessons for BECCS.

  25. 25.

    Fridahl M. Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy. 2017;104:89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Vergragt PJ, Markusson N, Karlsson H. Carbon capture and storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in. Glob Environ Chang. 2011;21(2):282–92.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Moe E, Røttereng SJ-K. The post-carbon society: rethinking the international governance of negative emissions. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2018;44:199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    • Fridahl M, Lehtveer M. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2018;42:155–65. Empirical study of UN climate change conference delegate views on the roles and prospects for BECCS in climate policy.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Feldpausch-Parker A, Burnham M, Melnik M, Callaghan M, Selfa T. News media analysis of carbon capture and storage and biomass: perceptions and possibilities. Energies. 2015;8(4):3058–74.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Haikola S, Hansson A, Anshelm J. From polarization to reluctant acceptance–bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate. J Integr Environ Sci. 2019;16(1):45–69.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Dütschke E, Wohlfarth K, Höller S, Viebahn P, Schumann D, Pietzner K. Differences in the public perception of CCS in Germany depending on CO2 source, transport option and storage location. Int J Greenh Gas Control. 2016;53:149–59.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Wallquist L, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(17):6557–62.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    • Whitmarsh L, Xenias D, Jones CR. Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):17. International, large-scale experimental study examining different frames for public support of CCS.

  34. 34.

    •• Thomas G, Pidgeon N, Roberts E. Ambivalence, naturalness and normality in public perceptions of carbon capture and storage in biomass, fossil energy, and industrial applications in the United Kingdom. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2018;46:1–9. Report on deliberative focus group research near Drax power station in the UK that explores the formation of perceptions of CCS in biomass, fossil fuel, and industrial applications.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    •• Bellamy R, Lezaun J, Palmer J. Perceptions of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in different policy scenarios. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):743. Experimental study that finds that the policy instrument used to incentivize BECCS affects perceptions of the technology.

  36. 36.

    Wolske KS, Raimi KT, Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS. Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions. Clim Chang. 2019;152(3–4):345–61.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Torvanger A. Governance of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): accounting, rewarding, and the Paris agreement. Clim Pol. 2019;19(3):329–41.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Honegger M, Reiner D. The political economy of negative emissions technologies: consequences for international policy design. Clim Pol. 2018;18(3):306–21.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Haszeldine RS. Can CCS and NET enable the continued use of fossil carbon fuels after CoP21? Oxf Rev Econ Policy. 2016;32(2):304–22.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lin A. Carbon dioxide removal after Paris. Ecol LAW Q. 45:51.

  41. 41.

    Meadowcroft J. Exploring negative territory carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Clim Chang. 2013;118(1):137–49.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Fajardy M, Köberle DA. BECCS deployment: a reality check. :14.

  43. 43.

    Baik E, Sanchez DL, Turner PA, Mach KJ, Field CB, Benson SM. Geospatial analysis of near-term potential for carbon-negative bioenergy in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115(13):3290–5.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    • Turner PA, Mach KJ, Lobell DB, Benson SM, Baik E, Sanchez DL, et al. The global overlap of bioenergy and carbon sequestration potential. Clim Chang. 2018;148(1–2):1–10. Geospatial analysis that examines where biomass cultivation overlaps with carbon storage basins and identifies regions where BECCS could be developed on marginal lands.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Bain C. Local ownership of ethanol plants: what are the effects on communities? Biomass and Bioenergy. 2011;35(4):1400–7.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Platt D, Workman M, Hall S. A novel approach to assessing the commercial opportunities for greenhouse gas removal technology value chains: developing the case for a negative emissions credit in the UK. J Clean Prod. 2018;203:1003–18.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    •• Nemet GF, Callaghan MW, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Hartmann J, Hilaire J, et al. Negative emissions—part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(6):063003. Systematic review of the literature on innovation and upscaling in NETs which discusses public acceptance findings for each carbon removal technology.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Tavoni M, Socolow R. Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim Chang. 2013;118(1):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Kartha S. The risks of relying on tomorrow’s “negative emissions” to guide today’s mitigation ambition. :30.

  50. 50.

    Carton W. “Fixing” climate change by mortgaging the future: negative emissions, spatiotemporal fixes, and the political economy of delay. Antipode. 2019;51(3):750–69.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Bosworth K. “They’re treating us like Indians!”: political ecologies of property and race in North American pipeline populism. Antipode [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 12];0(0). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12426.

  52. 52.

    Whyte K. The Dakota access pipeline, environmental injustice, and US colonialism. Red Ink Int J Indig Lit Arts Humanit. 2017;(19.1):154–169.

  53. 53.

    Sanchez DL, Amador G, Funk J, Mach KJ. Federal research, development, and demonstration priorities for carbon dioxide removal in the United States. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(1):015005.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Jacobson R, Sanchez DL. Opportunities for carbon dioxide removal within the United States Department of Agriculture. Front Clim. 2019;1:2.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Anderson K, Peters G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science. 2016;354(6309):182–3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would also like to thank David Morrow at the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy for conversations.

Funding

This work was supported by funding from FORMAS—Dnr 2018-01686 and The Nature Conservancy’s NatureNet Science Fellows program.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, 300 La Kretz Hall, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Holly Jean Buck

Authors
  1. Holly Jean Buck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holly Jean Buck.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Deep Decarbonization: BECCS

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buck, H.J. Challenges and Opportunities of Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) for Communities. Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep 6, 124–130 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-019-00139-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
  • Social impacts
  • Public acceptance
  • Carbon removal
  • Negative emissions
  • Environmental justice