Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)

Promises

a process starting with biomass growth (e.g., wood, compost) which is then converted to bioenergy (electricity, fuels) via combustion. Carbon emitted during the process is captured and sequestered underground.
BECCS is a carbon removal technique that depends on biomass (the “bioenergy” step) and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.

Biomass is derived from organic material that can be converted into heat or electricity. The CO₂ emissions from this bioenergy conversion are 1) captured and stored underground in mountains or other geological formations (true CCS) or 2) used (carbon neutral approach).
Since the biomass absorbs CO₂ from the atmosphere as it grows, BECCS can be a negative emissions technology.

BECCS is the most frequently modelled technology in so-called Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), which are used to evaluate the technological and economic feasibility of climate goals. Many IAM scenarios feature substantial BECCS implementation to correct for “overshooting” the global carbon budget – the maximum amount of cumulative net global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions that would result in limiting global warming to a given level.

Drax, a renewable energy company engaged in renewable power generation, the production of sustainable biomass and the sale of renewable electricity to businesses is working with C-Capture Company to develop negative carbon emission technology by capturing the CO₂ from wood-burning. Their technology absorbs the CO₂ by flushing it through a flue gas chimney covered with a chemical agent (amines or specific solvents) that is used to anchor the CO₂ molecules. Then, the mixture is separated by heating, the chemical agent is re-used, and the CO₂ is stored or used.
This process would yield about 1-tonne (1.1-ton) of CO₂ stored per day.

Biomass plantations can also be invasive monoculture crops, which further harm local biodiversity and displace existing ecosystems.
How can we ensure procedural fairness and stakeholder involvement during implementation of BECCS, and under what socio-economic regimes or conditions, and at which time?
How can we ensure that all the parties affected have their say and are heard? (e.g. in deciding where to situate BECCS facilities)

Land competition between biomass production and agriculture, freshwater use and phosphorus for fertiliser. The destruction of natural ecosystems for biomass production, and consequent diminishing of biodiversity and vital ecosystem services.
Large-scale BECCS implementation may create morally serious side effects, particularly upon those communities least able to adapt and with the least historical contribution to climate change.
Large-scale upscaling would require vast amounts of land and water to be set aside for the growing of biomass, impacting food security, water, and biodiversity.
Typical mitigation scenarios featuring BECCS require a land area the size of India to grow sufficient biomass. Also, they often explore the expansion of biomass in tropical climates, because of low production costs. Taken together these pose a very serious risk that large-scale biomass production would harm the poorest, who are already highly vulnerable to climate change.