Is burning wood the future?
I see that recent (contested) research claims that the Drax power station, is the worst polluting power station in the country. Drax burns wood pellets imported from North America.
But I remember being at a briefing by Drax a few years ago when the then boss boasted that the power station produced zero emissions, messianic zeal showed in every statement and “fact”.
When it was pointed out that the plant was burning fuel that had been grown and harvested in America, processed and dried, shipped across the USA, then loaded on ships, then sailed across the Atlantic and then transported by rail to Drax, before finally being burnt, it made no difference.
We were all assured that Drax was a green miracle and produced zero emissions.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favour of green energy, the greener the better and the sooner the better.
But Drax always left a strange taste in my mouth, the claims were too certain, the calculations seemed unlikely, the utter conviction seemed overdone, the subsidies huge and, I think, possibly distorting
Maybe this new research is dodgy? Certainly comparing Drax with the last coal powered station which is being closed down is not the most balanced piece of research I have ever seen.
However wind, wave and solar work and are getting better all the time.
But wood burning? Drax 2? Really?
Economics, trade and Brexit, not necessarily in that order but the dog always comes first.
By Jonty Bloom Media
The claimed difference between a biomass power station and an oil or coal powered station, is that the biomass station should operate within a carbon cycle which is basically the lifetime of a fast growing tree. The tree takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and burning it puts it back in again. So the fuel itself is carbon neutral over a relatively short period - if you ignore the costs of forestry operations, pelletising and transport which may be done with fossil fueled power.
With fossil fuels, the key word is fossil. You are digging up carbon laid down millions of years ago and nothing in the process removes that carbon.
The problem with biomass is whether it is genuinely an ecologically sustainable production cycle (I'm not convinced it is), how far that cycle continues to be fossil fuel powered and the opportunity cost of the relevant land use.
But criticising biomass obscures the point that whatever kind of renewable we use, industrial consumer civilisation itself is not sustainable overall and the real issue we face is how we can live good lives with a lot less, shared across the planet more equally.
If you’re fretting about the UK missing its emissions targets, it’s worth pointing out the Arlene Foster, while a regional minister, removed the upper limit on subsidies that the NI government would fund to people who switched to biomass burners - with user being offered £1.30 on every £1 spent burning pellets. So the users (a very select group were alerted to the existence of the scheme, who coincidentally were largely from the DUP voter base of big landowning farmers) were being paid profit just for burning fuel. So, naturally, it was abused with empty barns heated 24/7, and one user claiming for his Ferrari garage. The scheme only officially ended last year I think. Search Cash for Ash Scandal for the full details, but throughout all I could think of that no one seemed to mention was the emissions that these things are causing.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive_scandal)
(Also the scores of 50m tall illegal bonfires that are burnt every July with whatever large waste the hosting housing estate can find - sofas, tires, fresh pallets etc, but we’ll not get into that)