Biomass Power Worse for Climate Than Gas, Report Claims

The Hankyoreh reports on a concerning study published in 'Nature Sustainability' that challenges the perceived environmental benefits of biomass power generation. The report highlights that burning wood for energy, even with carbon capture technology, can be more detrimental to the climate than natural gas power. This finding directly contradicts the UK government's plans to subsidize biomass power plants, such as the Drax facility, which is the world's largest of its kind.

“

The government should not support the burning of wood produced in forests, regardless of carbon capture, as it will increase carbon emissions for decades and significantly raise energy prices.

The study, involving researchers from the US, UK, and China, indicates that biomass power may not achieve 'carbon negative' status for over 150 years. This is due to the lengthy regrowth period for forests used for fuel and the carbon emissions generated when converting existing land for biomass cultivation. Furthermore, the research points out that a significant portion of carbon emissions occurs before the wood even reaches the power plant, making carbon capture ineffective for these emissions.

Environmental groups and scientists are urging the government to halt support for wood-burning power generation. They argue that it leads to increased carbon emissions for decades and inflates energy prices. The Drax power station, a major beneficiary of government subsidies, is under scrutiny for its substantial carbon dioxide emissions. Greenpeace UK's senior scientist criticizes the practice of cutting down trees for fuel and burying the resulting carbon, stating it impoverishes the entire world.

“

It is not common sense to cut down trees to burn them and then bury the resulting carbon, and cutting down trees in other countries to balance carbon in the UK only makes the whole world poorer.

In response, Drax has announced a temporary suspension of its biomass power with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) investment plans, citing uncertainty over government subsidies. A spokesperson for Drax stated that their biomass supply comes from wood waste and sustainably managed forests, not exclusively harvested timber. They also emphasized their commitment to monitoring forests and enhancing supply chain transparency.

“

BECCS production should not be based on using only harvested biomass. We source biomass from sawmill residues, low-grade timber, and sustainably managed forests.

The UK's Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, however, has not accepted the report's claims, stating that a final decision on large-scale BECCS deployment has not been made. They assert that any support must offer greater benefits than costs to taxpayers and meet sustainability criteria. This ongoing debate underscores the complex challenges in balancing energy needs with climate goals, with local implications for communities and the environment.

“

We do not accept these claims. A final decision on the deployment of large-scale biomass and carbon capture has not yet been made. Any support must deliver greater benefits than costs to taxpayers and meet sustainability criteria.