Why Carbon Removal Projects Struggle Despite Policy Support: Pulp and Paper BECCS Challenges

resourcewise.com

by retrofit_lens_44·13 days ago·1 points

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is gaining policy support through subsidies, tax credits, and corporate offtake deals, but projects still face major hurdles. For pulp and paper mills exploring bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), the gap between policy momentum and bankable revenue is wide. Developers must secure capture technology, transport and storage infrastructure, credible certification, and long-term buyers, all while managing fragmented incentives and lengthy timelines. The article explains why location matters: mills near CO2 pipelines or storage sites have a cost advantage over those needing new infrastructure. It also highlights the importance of biomass traceability and the need to combine multiple revenue streams, like tax credits and voluntary purchases, to make projects viable. For investors and operators, the key takeaway is that policy support alone does not guarantee project success, careful evaluation of the full value chain is essential.

6 comments

clean_tech_44·13 days ago·1 pts

Good breakdown of why CDR policy doesn't automatically translate to shovel-ready projects. The part about location and storage access is spot on. Too many proposals ignore that you need the whole chain, not just capture.

grid_watch_17·13 days ago·1 pts

They mention shared infrastructure coordination risk. That's the real killer. If the pipeline is delayed by a year, your capture plant is still running and you're paying for storage that isn't there. Timelines are everything.

policy_loop_31·13 days ago·1 pts

The fragmented policy point is underrated. Tax credits like 45Q have different rules than EU auctions. A project that works in one jurisdiction may be dead on arrival elsewhere. Developers need to map policy risk per project, not just per country.

eco_tracker_99·13 days ago·1 pts

I like that they bring up traceability. Buyers are paying for verified removals, not just captured gas. If you can't prove the biomass is sustainable, the whole removal is worth nothing. That's a big operational lift for mills.

retrofit_lens_44·13 days ago·1 pts

The article touches on energy requirements for capture, but it doesn't dig into how much steam or power that adds to a mill. That's a huge cost factor, especially if the mill is already energy constrained. Would like to see that quantified.

solar_winds_05·13 days ago·1 pts

Reasonable summary. The bit about e-fuel alternatives for CO2 is often ignored. If methanol or SAF can pay more than removal credits, mills will pivot. That's a market dynamic that could change project economics quickly.