Browse all documents

Ember’s submission to the Environmental Audit Committee RE: Call for Evidence - Technological Innovations and Climate Change: Negative Emissions Technologies

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

Ember's submission to the Environmental Audit Committee expresses concern that current mainstream Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), specifically the model proposed at the Drax power station, may fail to deliver genuine negative emissions due to the carbon impact of burning wood for power.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Ember argues that the mainstream conception of BECCS in the UK—adding CCS to biomass-fired power plants—is at high risk of failing to deliver negative emissions. This is because there is a growing scientific consensus that burning wood for power is a net emitter of CO2 and can be more polluting than coal, except for specific forestry waste sources unlikely to be in supply chains.
  • The BECCS project proposed by Drax power station is identified as a high-risk investment that could cost UK energy bill payers over £30bn over its lifetime. Ember suggests this could result in an opportunity loss for investments in nature-based solutions or other proven emission removal and decarbonisation strategies.
  • While BECCS could theoretically generate negative emissions, doing so requires meeting specific conditions regarding biomass feedstock choice and land use optimisation. Ember states that turning this theory into practice requires more independent research, investigation into feedstock availability, and rigid, independently overseen monitoring, reporting, and verification of supply chains.
  • Ember recommends that the UK’s Biomass Strategy 2022 should avoid prematurely promoting BECCS projects. Instead, the strategy should focus on building scientific consensus on the technology's contribution to climate targets and clearly outline the costs and implications of achieving net zero without BECCS.

Cite the original document

APA
Ember (2021). Ember’s submission to the Environmental Audit Committee RE: Call for Evidence - Technological Innovations and Climate Change: Negative Emissions Technologies. https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2024/12/Environmental-Audit-Committee-Call-for-Evidence-.pdf
Chicago
Ember. Ember’s submission to the Environmental Audit Committee RE: Call for Evidence - Technological Innovations and Climate Change: Negative Emissions Technologies. 2021. https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2024/12/Environmental-Audit-Committee-Call-for-Evidence-.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |author=Ember |title=Ember’s submission to the Environmental Audit Committee RE: Call for Evidence - Technological Innovations and Climate Change: Negative Emissions Technologies |date=28 October 2021 |url=https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2024/12/Environmental-Audit-Committee-Call-for-Evidence-.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{ember2021embers, author = {{Ember}}, title = {{Ember’s submission to the Environmental Audit Committee RE: Call for Evidence - Technological Innovations and Climate Change: Negative Emissions Technologies}}, publisher = {Ember}, year = {2021}, month = oct, url = {https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2024/12/Environmental-Audit-Committee-Call-for-Evidence-.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated