Biomass displaces fossil fuels. Removing low-grade timber from the landbase increases forest health and productivity – carbon uptake. Trees need light and space to grow. BECCS uses the same CCS technology deployed multiple times at very large scale in Canada (e.g, QUEST, ACTL).

It all comes down to good, active forest management. If you want low carbon buildings, they need to be made with wood (e.g., mass timber). Bioenergy is one key pillar. The other is solid wood products that store carbon for centuries.

/ Dr. J Stephen

BECCS is very geology specific. 95% of Canada’s CO2 storage potential is in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (Alberta, southern SK, NE BC). Options are limited in Ontario, but there could be options in Lake Erie. There is a lot of storage potential in Michigan. Norway is liquefying CO2 and shipping for storage in the North Sea.

/Dr. J Stephen

Over the past 15 years, the economics have been very challenging due to low natural gas prices and no carbon price. A carbon price of $170/t CO2e adds $10/GJ to the price of natural gas. We are currently at $10-25/GJ for delivered natural gas in Canada. This $20-35/GJ is the equivalent of $200-350/m3 for wood fibre. This is much more than the delivered cost of chips for most sites. The economics are now totally different than they were 5 years ago. We do need government to invest in district energy systems to distribute the thermal energy. That is Canada’s missing infrastructure.

/ Dr. J Stephen

I don’t see decarbonizing the EU, UK, Japan, and S. Korea as a bad thing. Climate change is a global issue. Good forest management doesn’t change just because the product is exported.

I would ask what other energy resources do you think the EU and Japan/S. Korea will use? They are energy poor regions of the world. At the same time, even if we had 100% low carbon energy from other resources, we would still want to do much more active forest management (increased thinnings, etc.) for the sake of the forest in a changing climate. As I said, bioenergy is about mitigation AND adaptation. It isn’t only about replacing fossil fuels. Again, just because the product is exported doesn’t change what good vs. poor forest management looks like.

/ Dr. J Stehpen

Yes is the short answer. As long as there is a good case for investing in long-term forest management, the opportunities will probably be better taken care of by provate land ownsers. Within appropriate regulations of course.

/ Dr. Peter Holmgren

There will always be large residue streams at different stages of the product flow, so again there is not really a contradiction.

One doesn’t exclude the other. Normally, solid wood products provide the biggest climate benefit and also the most revemue, so it is a non-issue policy-wise. But the main benefit is from displacement, rather than storage though. The “long-lived productss” argument is a bit misleading in that way.

/ Dr. Peter Holmgren

Here’s a link to the report I referred to in my talk: https://www.forestindustries.se/news/

/ Dr. Peter Holmgren