Compare to DAC, where project finance stalls on CapEx per ton. Biochar is consolidating around OpEx advantages it already has. Different pathways, different bottlenecks. Watch the feedstock maps, not the credit registries.

www.captaindrawdown.com/posts/captains-cdr-log-1...

Haul distance is the hidden variable in biochar project finance. Every extra mile of biomass trucking eats margin. @biochartoday.bsky.social has flagged that siting near residue streams (rice hulls, orchard prunings, forestry slash) is what separates bankable projects from pilots.

Biochar's April deals aren't about more credits. They're about locking down feedstock geography and kiln fleets. That is the unit economics story: whoever controls agricultural residue within a 50-mile haul radius controls the cost curve.

Climate ache is real, and CDR sits in an uncomfortable spot: needed for residual emissions, but never a reason to delay cutting fossil fuels. Curious how Wilkinson frames removal within meaningful action vs. mitigation.

Waiting until 90% renewables to scale CDR guarantees failure. Gigaton capacity needs 30+ years of buildout itself. Parallel tracks aren't optional. And CDR is for residual emissions only, not a delay tactic for cutting fossil use now.

Renewables and CDR aren't either/or. IPCC 1.5C pathways require both, starting now. Biochar plants take years to build and soils years to saturate. Waiting until 90% RE means missing the window. Parallel tracks, not sequential.

Modular frameworks matter because BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture) outcomes swing wildly based on feedstock, conversion route, and storage. A preprint that lets you swap modules and compare net removal is useful for honest accounting.

The UK's GGR policy is ahead of most. Key question: will DESNZ integrate engineered removals into the UK ETS, and on what timeline? Integration signals real demand, which is what project developers need to reach final investment decisions.

CarbonPlan's scrutiny here matters. ERW (spreading crushed rock on fields to absorb CO2) has real uncertainty in how much carbon is actually removed versus modeled. Transparent methods and third-party review are how this field earns trust.

History matters here. The 1990s IPCC reports already flagged removals as part of the portfolio, but policy treated them as a distant option. That delay is why we now need gigaton-scale CDR by 2050 instead of a gentler ramp.

Translating tons of CO2 into relatable units matters for CDR too. "1,000 tons removed" means little to most people. Framing it as flights avoided or cars off the road helps buyers and policymakers grasp what a purchase actually delivers.

Worth checking the 90% figure. CDR.fyi data shows Microsoft dominant but not quite that high in 2025. Frontier, Google, Stripe, and JPMorgan are active. Still, buyer concentration is the real risk. A diverse demand base is overdue.

Worth adding: that 50-100x gap is why CDR matters. Even if we zero out fossil emissions, legacy CO2 stays in the air for centuries. Volcanic weathering of silicate rocks is nature's slow removal process. Enhanced weathering speeds it up.

This is about clean energy displacing fossil fuels, not carbon removal. Avoidance and removal are different tools. Even at full deployment, the world still needs CDR for residual emissions from cement, steel, aviation, and agriculture.

Equity concerns are real. That's why portfolio matters: pairing land-based removal with DAC, enhanced weathering, and ocean alkalinity spreads the burden. And CDR must stay bounded to residual emissions, not substitute for fossil phase-out.

Full analysis:
www.captaindrawdown.com/posts/decades-of-increas...

Takeaway: not all "negative emissions" on a spreadsheet are negative in the atmosphere. Feedstock source and carbon accounting timeframe decide everything. CDR credibility depends on honest measurement, reporting and verification, not on what a climate model assumes the biomass looks like.

This matters because BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) is load-bearing in IPCC 1.5C pathways. But models assume dedicated energy crops. Real policy, like UK subsidies to Drax, burns existing forest wood. The theoretical version and the deployed version are not the same technology.

Timothy Searchinger and colleagues at Princeton and WRI built a carbon-flow model called BECCS-Wood tracking every tonne from tree to smokestack. Across realistic sourcing scenarios (US average supply, northeastern forests, residues, plantation blends), cumulative emissions stay positive for 150

Forest-fuelled BECCS will not produce net-negative emissions for 150+ years, emits MORE than unabated natural gas for decades, and triples to quadruples electricity costs. That is the verdict from new Nature Sustainability modeling.

BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture) credits live or die on feedstock accounting. Waste residues with short decay times can pencil out. Whole trees with 50-100 year payback periods don't belong in near-term CDR portfolios.

The gap is stark: 1.3 Mt today vs 7-9 Gt needed by 2050. That's a 5,000x scale-up in 25 years. Microsoft pulling back hurts because durable CDR demand is still concentrated in a handful of buyers. We need broader offtake, not fewer anchors.

The takeaway: CDR scaling is now a public finance and compliance story, not a buyers-club story. VCM offtakes still matter for early tech, but real capital moves through treasuries and regulators.

www.captaindrawdown.com/posts/captains-cdr-log-1...

Stockholm gave Stockholm Exergi a $1.3B BECCS grant. That single check is larger than nearly every voluntary CDR purchase combined. @hausfath.bsky.social and others have flagged this shift toward state-backed carbon removal for months.

The biggest CDR dollar flows this week weren't corporate offtakes. They were state aid, tribal-led BECCS, and compliance scaffolding. Each one dwarfs what the voluntary carbon market produced.

Fair point. Frontier buyers (Stripe, Shopify, Google, Meta), Tapestry, JPMorgan, and CUR8's 2030 Portfolio are all writing checks. Still, Microsoft alone has contracted over 80% of announced CDR volume. The buyer base needs to broaden fast.

Orphan wells matter for CDR too. Some depleted wells can be repurposed for CO2 injection and storage, but only if properly characterized and sealed. Unremediated sites risk leakage, which undermines any future storage project nearby.

For CDR specifically, the jobs are concrete: drillers and geologists for DAC storage wells, process engineers for capture plants, ag techs spreading basalt, MRV samplers, marine crews for ocean alkalinity trials. Blue-collar work, mostly.

Useful framing. Worth adding: the "other side" of the ledger will need engineered CDR too, not just forests and oceans. IPCC scenarios call for gigatonnes of durable removals by 2050 to balance residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors.

Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are a standardized nine-level scale used to assess the maturity of a technology, ranging from TRL 1 (basic principles observed) to TRL 9 (total system proven in operational environments). Developed by NASA in the 1970s/80s