Bioenergy Coupled with Carbon Capture and Storage Could Reduce U.S. Coal Emissions

With the future consequences of rising global temperatures, the need for solutions has become progressively urgent. In parallel, a majority of people have voiced concerns regarding loss of jobs as coal-fired power plants and other current technologies are phased out.

A new research that appeared in the journal Joule has run the numbers related to the effects of cutting coal-plant jobs while simultaneously applying methods for bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The new model suggests that through this BECCS method, 40,000 jobs that are presently held as part of the coal industry can possibly be retained. This would also generate 22,000 new jobs in the transportation and forestry industries by the middle of this century.

“In the ambitious attempt to limit global warming below 2 °C, BECCS features as the dominant technology, yet it’s been under considerable scrutiny for its unknown effects on the environment and society,” states Piera Patrizio, the study’s first author and a research scholar in Ecosystems Services and Management at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria. “Our analysis shows that acting now and investing in this emission-mitigating strategy can be beneficial for employment in the U.S. coal sector.”

BECCS happens to be a proposed technology for lowering the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This method involves combining carbon capture and storage, wherein the carbon dioxide (CO₂) gas is gathered from large emission sources like power plants and then injected into underground geologic formations, with the increased use of biomass, such as plant-based materials, as a fuel source.

According to BECCS advocates, over 99% of CO₂ stored via geologic sequestration could probably remain in place for over 1,000 years. They believe that this approach is essential because the CO₂ levels that have already been released are excessively high to be absorbed by traditional carbon sinks like soil and trees alone.

In the latest research, the investigators thoroughly examined the key steps and processes involved in the possible energy supply chains for the coal fleet in the U.S. In particular, they examined the design and expenses of infrastructure for shipping and injecting the CO₂ gas into suitable geologic sites and the supply of sustainable forest resources for biomass.

“We also took into account the fact that biomass must be grown and harvested in a sustainable way in order to be considered carbon-neutral and thus obtain negative emissions,” explains co-author Sabine Fuss, of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin. “This aspect is sometimes neglected in studies dealing with BECCS deployment.”

Several different models were used by the researchers to study the current data, including a techno-economic model known as BeWhere, which improves the technology development of U.S. coal, such as feedstock logistics; a biophysical model referred to as the Global Forest Model; and the Jobs and Economic Development Impact model, which was applied to assess the employment effects of technology development.

However, this type of analysis has certain drawbacks. First, it does not take into account the possible replacement of coal with other low-carbon options such as renewables; therefore, it mirrors a restricted picture of the impending economy. Second, the models do not factor any equilibrium in the economy but serve as a bottom-up supply-chain optimization for particular technologies. Based on these problems, consequences of applying the BECCS approach may vary with respect to the creation of jobs. Therefore, according to the researchers, more investigation could focus on highlighting the socioeconomic impacts of replacing renewable technologies for current fossil-based capacity or on identifying larger, macroeconomic impacts of low-carbon technology deployment.

“To increase the acceptance of mitigation actions, policymakers should embrace strategies that offer other societal benefits, such as jobs,” concludes co-author Kasparas Spokas from Princeton University. “The U.S. represents a very interesting case to test our approach given the current economic, political, and environmental situation. This study shows how investing in climate change mitigation could actually ease the transition for coal workers, who would otherwise be confronted with abrupt job losses due to the retirement of the coal fleet by 2050.”

This study was funded by the IIASA postdoc program, the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the Swedish Research Council Formas, and IIASA’s Tropical Futures Initiative. It was also supported by the RESTORE+ project, which is part of the International Climate Initiative (IKI), supported by the Federal Ministry for the Environment; Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) based on a decision adopted by the German Bundestag.