![]() “However, the growing majority of scientific evidence shows that burning wood for power is unlikely to be carbon neutral and may actually be a worse polluter than coal.”īioenergy's problems could be even more fundamental than that: In 2022, an investigation by the BBC’s Panorama program found evidence to suggest that Drax was responsible for cutting down old, slow-growth forests in Canada to fuel its generators. “The ability of BECCS to deliver negative emissions relies on the assumption that burning wood to generate electricity is carbon neutral,” says Ember's Harrison. Wood pellets and where they come from lie at the heart of the controversy around bioenergy. Fern cautions that supply chain emissions from biomass production, harvest, transport and other parts of the process are not being factored into the figures released by bioenergy firms. Wood For The TreesĪt the heart of the controversy around bioenergy and BECCS is the fuel that's burned to produce electricity: wood pellets that are claimed by Drax to come from residues from forestry.īut European forest protection NGO Fern says that the assumptions behind BECCS are incorrect, because the emissions strictly from the burning of biomass don’t tell the whole story. "Over 20 years, this could make Drax's BECCS plans one of the most expensive energy projects in the world, funded from bill payers' pockets."īut Harrison is keen to point out that BECCS brings with it problems that go beyond the financial cost. from building the plant," Ember's Harrison says. The Baringa report "makes speculative claims about future cost savings across the economy, but ignores the immediate real costs to the U.K. Notably, however, the report does not include any information on the subsidy requirements for the project. They direct me to a report on BECCS at the facility from management consultant Baringa, which was the source of the claimed £15 billion in savings for the U.K. It also doesn’t explain the costs of replacing Drax’s reliable generation and keeping the lights on." Writing in response, a spokesperson for Drax tells me that Ember's claim is based on "factual inaccuracies and a series of misguided assumptions. ![]() energy consumer could be locked into decades of even higher bills without any guarantee that the negative emissions they are paying for are actually being delivered." If Drax’s BECCS project goes ahead, the U.K. In a release published Monday, Ember updated its estimate, finding that subsidies for the project could reach £1.7 billion ($2.2 billion) a year until 2050, owing to rises in the cost of biomass.Įmber analyst Tomos Harrison tells me: "BECCS is an unproven technology that has not been demonstrated to work in practice. Energy research NGO Ember previously calculated that Drax's BECCS plan will cost an additional £31.7 billion ($40 billion) in public funding. ![]() Some analysts are skeptical about the case for high public spending on what they see as an unproven technology. ![]() Stateside observers will be watching to see how Drax's fortunes play out. But in 2027, government funding for energy generation that produces "unabated" emissions will end-meaning carbon capture tech must be added if Drax is to remain profitable.Īll these implications stretch beyond Britain's shores: in the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act's tax credits for BECCS are luring investors toward the technology. power sector that year.įor an energy company that markets itself as renewable, being the U.K.’s largest carbon emitter is not a great look, which makes BECCS all the more attractive-if it works.īut there's a financial incentive, too: Drax benefits from hundreds of millions of pounds in government support, having received around £1.4 billion ($1.8 billion) in subsidies up until last year. But burning that biomass makes Drax the single largest emitter of CO2 in the country, with the Selby-based plant releasing 12.1 million tons of the greenhouse gas in 2022, equivalent to nearly 20% of the total CO2 emissions from the U.K. There's a lot riding on Drax's success or failure with BECCS: the plant provides up to 12% of the U.K.’s electricity by burning wood pellets that the company says come from material the forestry industry cannot use. ![]() Noting that Drax has an aspiration to make up 80% of its supply chain and products from British sources, Gwilliam tells me the plan is “absolutely a Yorkshire-based project that will deliver for the U.K.” at the center of the fight against climate change,” says Richard Gwilliam, BECCS program director at Drax. government are keen to showcase the BECCS project as a British success story. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |