Professor Liqing Peng’s recent publication in Nature Sustainability reveals the hidden carbon costs of forest-based BECCS

Searchinger, T. D., Peng, L., Russi, D., & Canham, C. (2026). Decades of increased emissions from forest-fuelled BECCS. Nature Sustainability.

BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, is often presented as a promising climate solution because it can generate energy while capturing and storing carbon dioxide. A new study published in Nature Sustainability by Professor Liqing Peng from the Department of Geography at The University of Hong Kong and collaborators finds that BECCS using wood from existing forests is unlikely to deliver negative emissions within policy-relevant timeframes and may increase emissions for decades compared with natural gas alternatives.

Evaluating forest-based BECCS is challenging because its climate impact depends on carbon flows across forests, supply chains, power plants, and future regrowth. To address this challenge, the research team developed BECCS-WOOD, a transparent accounting model that tracks carbon from forest harvest to final energy use. Building on the carbon-accounting logic of the CHARM model published in Nature in 2023, BECCS-WOOD considers harvest-related forest carbon losses, roots and residues left to decompose, foregone forest sequestration, wood processing and transport, combustion emissions, carbon capture and storage, and forest regrowth over time.

The study finds that forest-fuelled BECCS performs much worse than commonly assumed, because many emissions occur before the wood reaches the power plant and therefore cannot be captured by CCS. Across most scenarios, it does not generate negative emissions within 150 years and produces higher emissions for decades than natural gas without carbon capture. The analysis also finds that BECCS electricity would be substantially more expensive, with estimated costs around 3.5 times those of natural gas power. Even optimistic scenarios using fast-growing plantations and high shares of forest residues provide only limited improvements, because most captured carbon is needed to offset emissions elsewhere in the system rather than creating true net removals.

Figure 1. Multi-scenario comparison of electricity-only bioenergy with natural gas, each with and without CCS, from single use.

The research provides important evidence for evaluating bioenergy, carbon removal, and forest-climate policies. Treating wood energy use as automatically carbon neutral can overlook major emissions from forest harvest, supply chains, and delayed regrowth. The study suggests that policies supporting BECCS should distinguish between different biomass sources and avoid assuming that wood from existing forests can provide rapid or large-scale carbon removal. The findings have attracted wider public attention, including coverage in The Guardian, reflecting growing policy debate over the role of forest biomass in carbon removal strategies.

The study was conducted in collaboration with Senior Research Scholar at Princeton University's Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment, Dr Daniela Russi from the World Resources Institute, and Professor Charles Canham from the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies.

The full paper can be accessed at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-026-01817-8. For further background and a more accessible discussion of the study, please read Professor Peng’s blog post: “Forest-fueled BECCS: The hidden carbon costs behind the promise.”