Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2022/Drax and the International Wood Pellet industry; Biomass as renewable energy or a false climate solution?

From UBC Wiki

Summary

This Wiki undertakes a critical analysis of the wood pellet biofuel industry and it's use as a renewable energy source, drawing on Drax power station in the UK as a case study. It examines the realities of the international trade of wood pellets through analyzing the supply chain logistics, Carbon tax exemptions, subsidies, Carbon accounting practice, combustion emissions and market drivers. It highlights the misleading claims of biofuels as renewable energy and the dangers of its use in the short to medium-term, with regards to a climate-sensitive context, and emphasizes the need of an international scope.

Keywords

Wood pellets , Biomass, Drax, Renewable Energy, Carbon Accounting, International Trade, Climate Change, Subsidy

Introduction and Context

Figure 1: Drax Power Station location in the UK
Figure 2: wood pellets

Drax power station is located in North-East England (Figure 1) and was established as a coal-fired power plant in 1974. Since 2009, it has been operating to burn biomass (wood pellets ) to produce energy. Wood pellets are compressed cylinders of wood mass, made from chips or other broken down wood material (Figure 2). As of 2016, Drax claims that 70% of its energy now comes from wood pellets , and 30% from coal, with the goal to run completely coal-free by the end of 2022[1].

England has little capacity for terrestrial wood pellet production, as such, it relies on international imports. In 2021, Drax’s acquired pellets were sourced as follows: 64.9% USA, 15.5% Canada, Latvia 9.3%, Estonia 2.8%, Brazil 2.5%, Portugal 2.4%, Belarus 1.4%, UK 0.7%, Russia, 1.2%[2]. Drax power plant produces enough energy from biomass to power four major UK cities (Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool)[3], the equivalent to 4 million homes. This amounts to a total of 6% of the UK’s power generation, which is 12% of UK’s ‘renewable’ energy[4].

In 2015, the Paris climate accord set the global goal of cutting net global greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and fully by 2050. This is to have a 50% chance of keeping average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius[5]. This is worth noting because this wiki is examining the efficacy of wood pellets within a climate-sensitive context, given the claims that biomass is a Carbon-neutral renewable energy source. Predating the Paris climate accord, but aligned with it, the UK has been developing it's renewable energy capacity[6], biomass playing a key role. Globally, biomass has become the 3rd largest source of renewable energy after hydro and wind, tripling in its use from 2000 to 2019[7].

In 2021, Drax corporation acquired Pinnacle, a wood pellet manufacturing company with 17 facilities across Canada and the US, increasing Drax’s access to wood pellets from 1.6 million tons to 4.9 million tons in 2022[8]. Operations under Pinnacle/Drax’s concessions in British Colombia have recently come under fire with dispute over Drax's claim that 99% of its pellets are sourced from ‘waste wood’[9]. It is alleged that whole trees were harvested from primary forests in British Columbia for Drax’s wood pellet production, as highlighted through a BBC panorama documentary[10]. Such attention has led to a new line of inquiry into the efficacy of the wood pellet industry as a climate solution and Drax is currently facing parliamentary discussion over its practices and emissions[11].

Another recent point of contention for Drax is concerning the actions of former Chief Forester for British Columbia, Diane Nicholls. Nicholls served as Chief Forester between November 2014 and April 2022, she was a supporter and facilitator for the development of BC's wood pellet market capacity[12]. The controversy is surrounding the fact that since April 2022 she is now working directly for Drax, a key beneficiary from the policy she has influenced. She is currently employed by Drax as the Vice President of Sustainability for North America[13]. Critics accuse Nicholls of ‘unethical actions around facilitation of the expansion of the wood pellet industry and then leaving government to join Drax’[14], painting a murky picture of revolving door characteristics[15] of BC Forestry and betrayal of public trust.

The Theory of Wood pellets as a Carbon Neutral Energy Source

Figure 3: Illustration of the 'Closed-loop' Carbon cycle vs. an Open system (sourced from USDA, Forest Service, April 2019)

The common reasoning for biomass being a Carbon neutral energy source is as follows: Carbon which is stored in trees is taken out of the land mass when the trees are harvested and made into wood pellets. The wood pellets are then burned at a power plant for energy production releasing Carbon into the atmosphere as a by-product. The Carbon that was released into the atmosphere is then captured once again by trees which have been planted for this purpose. By capturing the Carbon that is released through burning wood pellets for fuel, the model for the wood pellet industry can be described, in theory, as a ‘closed loop system’[16] compared to a fossil fuel 'open system' where there is no such Carbon capture element (Figure 3).

Due to the completion of a wood pellet Carbon cycle being significantly less than that of coal or other fossil fuels, and given that wood can be grown indefinitely, wood pellets have earned the badge of ‘renewable energy’. However, assessing the efficacy of the claims of Carbon neutrality, as well as the effect of being labelled as a 'renewable energy', calls for a deeper assessment of this ‘closed loop’. Critics have suggested that such theories of biomass are oversimplified and faulty, omitting key components of the bioenergy life cycle’[3].

Regrowth uncertainty 

One major concern with the closed-loop model is that it assumes that a forest of equal Carbon stock to that which has been emitted through burning will be regrown. It can take decades if not centuries for a forest to mature and pay off a Carbon debt. The longer this lag in payback time, the greater the risk of this process being interrupted and the Carbon cycle not being fully completed[3]. There are many factors which could threaten a regrowth stand such as pests, wildfires, illegal logging and the conversion of forested plantation to agricultural land[5]. Furthermore, monocrop pellet-wood plantations show a decrease in biodiversity compared to primary forest[9]. A decrease in biodiversity is not only an indicator of habitat degradation and a threat to wildlife, but also suggests a decrease in the overall biomass of the site when accounting for flora and fauna biomass. A life-cycle assessment of the biomass relationship used to assess the efficacy of the closed loop biomass cycle showed that there was a substantial reduction of Carbon in forests due to the production of biofuel products[17].

In theory, the wood-pellet industry does have the potential for Carbon-negative results if a market surge leads to considerably more wood being planted than harvested[16]. Although, this market dynamic assumes that wood pellets will see a continued and steady increase in demand, that market conditions and subsidies remain favorable and, that the increased planting will actually follow. Lots of the best aspects of the biomass argument are yet to be realized, and sit as uncertain future benefits. Meanwhile, there is an immediate and tangible effect of the wood-pellet market industry on forests. For example, The impact on European forests due to a surge in wood pellet demand means that fuelwood now comprises nearly ¼ of all EU forest harvesting[18].

BECCS technology

Beyond Carbon-neutral claims, Drax has the ambition to achieve a Carbon-negative impact by 2030[1]. This is due to its program for developing BECCS (Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage) technology at the point of combustion in its power plant. Carbon capture at the immediate post-combustion stage would in theory make the wood pellet cycle Carbon negative due to more Carbon in total being sequestered and captured than released into the atmosphere[19]. However, this technology is still under development and there is no concrete evidence that it will become a viable system for Carbon capture. Furthermore, as outlined in the following section on Supply Chains, a significant portion of the emissions from wood pellets occur away from the smokestack making them uncapturable by BECCS technology[20]. Government support for woody biomass is projected to decrease by 2030 but could again rise if BECCS facilities are developed[21]. On December 13th 2022, the UK Government made its latest contribution to support the development of BECCS technology with a ₤25 million investment in BECCS Hydrogen systems[22].

Carbon Accounting Disparity

International Carbon accounting practices allow for a Carbon deficit from wood harvesting to be counted as a land-use in the country where it was harvested, therefore it is not counted again at the emissions stage when burned in the UK[3].

‘Wood harvested for burning is not reported as an emission, rather as a reduction in that countries reported forest Carbon uptake in the land sector. To avoid counting the Carbon twice, it is counted as zero for Carbon emissions in the energy sector.’ (Booth, M. S., 2019, p.6)[18].

This Carbon counting method is crucial in looking at the way in which subsidies for renewable energies are awarded because the emissions can be counted as the same as wind or solar[18]. It is therefore essential that we adopt a lens which focuses on the international relationship between the harvest, production trade and combustion of wood pellets. The unlevel playing field of comparing the Carbon intensity of energy production methods requires that we widen the scope of interrogation beyond that of just the landscape in order to achieve a critical and objective analysis.

Through focusing on the upstream Carbon accounting practices involved in wood pellet production, we can see how at the international table, decisions are made based on ’industry imperatives rather than established lifecycle techniques’ (Millward-Hopkins and Purnell, 2019, p.168)[9]. Allowing such accounting methods to continue unchecked or unchallenged may lead towards an industry that is unable to distinguish between environmentally stable circular economies and false low-Carbon solutions[9]. This Carbon accounting disparity presents a significant challenge regarding assigning responsibility of Carbon debt. Furthermore, the international trade of wood pellets has vast and intricate supply chains with a variety of nuances which effect overall emissions, making it hard to hold any one party accountable[9].

Recent developments in GIS technology for tracking Carbon emissions may provide a solution for drawing awareness and accountability to nations who are big Carbon emitters yet hide their impact on the environment with misleading book-keeping[23].

Emissions at the Point of Combustion

‘At the point of combustion, biomass emits more Carbon per unit of heat than most fossil fuels’[3] (Fanous and Moomaw, 2018, p.2).

For a given power output, wood pellets which burn in the presence of Oxygen release more CO2 than coal. Wood has a higher water content than coal making it a less efficient fuel for combustion. Therefore, more wood needs to be burned than coal for the same energy output despite having a similar levels of raw energy. ‘Wood releases about 25 percent more Carbon dioxide per joule of primary energy than fuel oil, and about 75 percent more Carbon dioxide than fossil (so-called “natural”) gas (EPA, 2018)[24]’ (Sterman, Moomaw, Rooney-Varga and Siegel, 2022, p.130)[5].

Broadly speaking, bioenergy power plants emit nearly 65% more CO2 per MWH than modern coal plants[3]. With regards to the context of Drax and the UK, a Chattam house analysis suggests that in 2019, US-sourced wood pellets which were shipped to and burnt in the UK accounted for 13-16 million tons of CO2 emissions, including supply chain emissions and indirect emissions[21]. None of said emissions were reported in the UK’s greenhouse gas inventory. If they were, it would have contributed a further 22-27% of the total emissions for UK electricity production[21]. Treating biomass as zero Carbon at the point of combustion is a driving factor in the support from subsidies in the biofuel industry. Such incentives have driven a rapid increase in biomass fuel consumption despite high CO2 emissions[21].

Carbon Tax Exemption

In the UK there is no tax on Carbon emissions from biofuels burned for commercial energy production[25]. Biofuels are granted a tax exemption due to the purported label that they are a Carbon neutral energy source. The energy Think-tank Ember estimates that the Carbon tax break attributed to Drax in 2020 was valued at approximately £258m[26].

Figure 4: A bar chart depicting the total annual UK Biomass subsidies from 2015-2021. Graph generated with data sourced from Trinomics[27]

Subsidizing the Wood Pellet/Biomass Industry

The UK government supports the biomass industry through large subsidies. Drax receives subsidies funded by British tax payers for nearly $1 billion a year, $2.78 million per day[18][28]. To date, Drax has received over $6 billion dollars in subsidies[18] for burning forest biomass, £832 million in 2020 and £893m in 2021[29]. These subsidies push up the energy bills of UK households by an estimate of £11.60 but don't guarantee a reduction in Carbon emissions; Drax remains the UK’s single largest CO2 emitter[29]. Per unit of electricity generated, imported wood pellets cost 30% more than coal but subsidies makes it 16% less expensive than coal[30]. As it stands, the UK market for energy produced by wood pellets is not economically viable without considerable Government subsidies. Therefore, we can identify these subsidies as a key driver for the production and sale of wood pellets internationally[30]. Without the support of the UK government, Drax would be operating at a loss, binding the UK government as an intrinsic part of the international trade of wood pellets.

Why does the UK subsidize wood pellets ?

In the energy transition away from coal to renewable sources, retro-fitting coal power stations to burn wood pellets, Drax being one such example, offers a fast transition to 'renewable energy' and one which is an infrastructurally cheap option[7]. Furthermore, there is a reliability benefit of wood pellet energy. Wood pellets can be stockpiled unlike wind and solar power making them a ‘dispatchable power supply’ (Abt, R., Galik, C., & Baker, J. 2022, p.152)[16]. Additionally, wood pellets do not rely on unpredictable factors for immediate energy conversion such as the sun not shining or the wind not blowing[16]. Given the current risks to the UKs consistent energy production due to sanctions and closures effecting Russian oil and natural gas supply, energy security is a greatly coveted factor.

Another incentive for wood pellet subsidies in the UK is to bolster the UK's reputation and 'green image'. Renewable energy is associated with clean and sustainable practice, however, as previously outlined, misleading Carbon accounting practices can obscure the carbon cost of biofuel emissions. Nonetheless, supporting the solid biofuel industry results in a boost to renewable energy statistics in the UK[6]. This is one way for the UK to increase it's international reputation as a clean energy producer and its commitment to international accords on climate action such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Supply Chains for International Trade

The focus on the international trade of wood pellets is generally on the country where the wood is harvested or where the wood pellets are burned. The logistics in-between are often overlooked and yet, provide a crucial piece of the puzzle for assessing the overall efficacy of wood pellets as a viable climate solution. There are vast differences in supply chain and logistical practice within the wood-pellet industry which leads to an assortment of overall supply chain Carbon intensities.

Low estimations suggest that biofuel can achieve greenhouse gas reductions of over 80% compared to coal, however higher estimates suggests that biofuels exceed fossil fuels by more than 70% when supply chain emissions are considered[31]. This highlights the need for a greater care not to paint all biofuels equal, to do so would risk doing more harm than good[31]. Analyzing the emissions of wood pellet supply chains is difficult as it compounds variations in transport, production, storage and feedstock. Furthermore. the fragmented nature of the industry, with over 10,000 suppliers, means little transparency in the supply chain and sourcing of wood[18]. The Supply chain is a key area of greenhouse gas emissions but due to the vast number of suppliers and variations in the supply chain, it is hard to fully assess this impact or impose regulations to ensure Carbon efficient practice.

British Columbia to Drax supply chain:
Figure 5: A flow chart illustrating the supply route and associated distances for wood pellets produced in the Prince George area, British Colombia, and transported to Drax Power Station, UK. Data sourced from: Yun, H., Clift, R., & Bi, X., 2020[32]

60% of Canadian wood pellets are produced in BC and of those, 71% are shipped to UK[32]. A Comprehensive analysis of the supply chain routes for BC wood pellets to Drax, UK was published by Yun, H., Clift, R., & Bi, X., 2020[32]. It assesses the route from Prince George to the Drax power plant, as seen in Figure 5. The accumulated travel of the wood pellets for this supply route is 17,563km of which, 16,600km of distance was from marine transportation, 770km from rail transportation and 193km from road transportation[32]. Wood pellets from BC make up about 17% of Drax's annual pellet stock, their Carbon footprint for production and transportation being approximately 50gCO2eq/kWh[32]. Despite the Canadian-UK route being considered less Carbon intensive process than other supply chains, the limit to be considered 'sustainable' was, as of October 2020; 29gCO2eq/kWh[32].

It is worth noting that within BC there has been significant investment in pellet production mills in response to the pine beetle epidemic in the Prince George area. The pine beetle decimated large areas of commercial timber and conversion of this effected wood into wood pellets was one part of a mission to salvage the woodstock. Now that the pine beetle induced boom in wood supply has subsided, the infrastructure of pellet mills remains and the supply chains to those buyers of wood pellets are founded. It follows that if there are still keen buyers in the market, BC has an established way to capitalize, although the feedstock would logically have to come from alternative sources.

The low costs of marine shipping means that export of wood pellets to the UK from BC by water is comparable to the costs of shipping from BC to Saskatchewan and is even lower in cost than it would be to ship to Ontario[32]. Therefore, economically speaking, the international trade in wood pellets via water is more desirable than inland domestic trade in Canada.

Methane emissions in supply chain

Methane emitted through the storage of wood pellets, and wood pellet composite materials, is also a key potential greenhouse gas factor in the supply chain and one of particular uncertainty[31]. Methane is released in storage when microbes and bacteria break down the wood pellets, wood chips or sawdust. The composite materials are more prone to decomposition than the processed pellets, therefore, efficient storage practices favor post-pelleting storage if storage is required.

A study from Röder, Whitaker and Thornley, 2015[31] analyses the emissions from 2 main supply chains for residual wood biofuel:

-        Forest residues: 80% thinning’s, 20% forest residues (branches, tops, bark)

-        Sawmill residues: 91% sawdust, 9% sawmill residues (shavings, bark, chips)

Methane emissions during storage: ‘a period of 1 month storage at the pellet mill increased the greenhouse gas emissions of the forest residue baseline scenario by about 140%’ (Röder, Whitaker and Thornley, 2015, p.56)[31]. Overall, the study found that; the ‘largest amount of emissions were transport (39% for forest and 36% for sawmill residues), followed by processing activities (31%and 29% respectively)’ (Röder, Whitaker and Thornley, 2015, p.56)[31].

Feedstock Variation

The Feedstock (what the wood pellet is made from) is a critical factor in assessing Carbon output. Due to variation in emissions of different feedstock and supply chains, it has been suggested that different subsidies be used depending on the emissions and costs of wood pellet manufacture and transportation for different sources of biomass[30]. Chattam House recommends that the UK and EU make criteria for biomass suppliers to account for the impact that their different feedstocks have on the environment, including the health and vitality of forest ecosystems[21]. ‘The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states that biomass energy cannot be assumed to be Carbon neutral a priori because of the heterogeneity in feedstock types, sources, and production methods’ (Fanous and Moomaw, 2018, p.2)[3].

Wood waste and residue use

Drax claims that 99% of its pellets are sourced from waste wood[9]. Although, the definition is loose enough to accommodate some types of whole tree[9], waste wood is generally comprised of products such as chips from sawmills as well as slash from harvested forests which would be left to biodegrade or be burned on site. The argument follows that by utilizing this waste product, which often would be burned anyway, wood pellets can offset the continued use of coal in power stations. While initially sounding as an innovative way to mitigate waste, the reliability of the wood waste claim has been subject of controversy. Furthermore, while the utilization of waste products is commonly held as a effective use of materials, particularly from an economic standpoint, it is not clear that with Carbon output in mind, it is of benefit to the environment.

Waste Semantics

Emissions from forest residue bioenergy are often considered Carbon neutral because don’t account for the emissions produced by the harvest of their primary product[31]. Regarding the semantics of ‘waste’; if wood pellets are consistently being produced, its arguable that their composite materials are not ‘waste’ by virtue of not being wasted. As such, they should be accounted for as other wood products would be, to assign them their fair share of emissions in production compared to the ‘primary wood product’. If by being considered ‘waste-wood’, the responsibility for being a driver for the cultivation of the wood is alienated, then by the same logic, sequestration benefits should not be attributed to the utilization of the by-product[9].  

Perspectives of value

Wood materials, which could be utilized for pellets, that are discarded to decompose or be burnt are considered ‘wasted’ in terms of industry and economy. However, burning wood for fuel compared to natural decay is speeding up Carbon release with no benefit for natural fertilization and boosted growth[18]. To have a return of nutrients to the soil through these methods would be of ecological benefit and therefore not considered wasteful in other value contexts. There is an ‘unscrutinised intuition that wastes should be used rather than ‘wasted’, even if this emits Carbon’ (Millward-Hopkins and Purnell, 2019, p.169)[9]. Within the frame of climate-sensitive values, that more Carbon is emitted through the utilization of waste wood as wood pellets makes it an overall worse practice than allowing natural decomposition. ‘A molecule of Carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere today has the same impact on radiative forcing – its contribution to global warming – whether it comes from fossil fuels millions of years old or biomass grown last year’ (Sterman, Moomaw, Rooney-Varga and Siegel, 2022, p.128)[5].

War as a market driver

The ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine is one factor that drives the UK and the EU to seek wood pellets from the US and Canada. The supply of biomass fuels from Russia has been suspended due to the conflict and related trade sanctions with Russia. Wood pellets from Russia represent just 1% of the Drax supply but 15% of the total European supply. Therefore, we can expect that to meet the demand, the wood pellets need to be sourced elsewhere i.e. from the US and Canada[7]. Furthermore, other fuels such as natural gas have been heavily restricted due to sanctions and pipeline maintenance issues. The lack of fossil fuel for European energy production mounts more pressure on the supply of biofuels for reliable energy. Correlating to the decrease of natural gas availability is its soaring price, up by 500% recently, another reason to source cheaper solutions such as biomass fuels[7]. The increase in biomass use is only gaining momentum; ‘in its recent joint-action energy plan, the European Commission called for an increase in the use of biomass and biomethane… to replace Russian fossil fuel imports (European Commission 2022)[33]' (Koester, 2022, p.149)[7].

War is therefore a driver for increased demand of wood pellets and, accordingly, the price of the wood pellets themselves. An increase in the market for wood pellets could have knock on effects for the supply chains. To cope with product demands, drying processes in pellet production may switch from drying with biomass fuels to drying with fossil fuels which, potentially causing an emissions increase by 101-107%[31]. This point highlights potential for unregulated and hidden Carbon costs in the supply chain which could occur due to external factors. The irony of using fossil fuels to produce a fossil fuel alternative, which emits more Carbon than the fossil fuel itself, is often lost in biomass Carbon-neutrality analyses.

Compounding Factors in the UK

Compounding market drivers in the UK include the UK’s recession and cost-of-living crisis, attributed partly to the COVID-19 pandemic and exacerbated by politically induced economic turmoil. As such, UK household energy bills have seen significant increase and there is an accumulating public pressure on the government for affordable energy. Wood pellets do serve as a reliable source of energy at a time of energy crisis in Europe and one which does not require a massive change of infrastructure to use[7]. A surge in the market could leading to an exploitation of the difficult-to-regulate supply chains and favor options which are most readily available over those with emissions focused best-practice.

Analysis of Carbon Neutrality Within a Climate-Sensitive Time Frame

Time as a key factor for Climate-change mitigation

‘Time may be the most precious resource that humanity lacks when it comes to tackling climate change’. (Koester, 2022, p.149)[7]

Within a climate change sensitive context, time is a key factor. We are already experiencing the effects of climate change on a global scale and according to the IPCC; (International Panel on Climate Change) to even be within a 50:50 shot of keeping rising temperatures under 1.5 degrees Celsius, action has to be taken now to achieve net-zero Carbon emissions by 2050[34].

There are many varying estimates of Carbon-debt payback time with regard to the biomass for energy cycle, but all suggest that more damage will be done to climate in the short and medium-term before the neutralizing effects of grow-back have a chance to kick in. Lower estimates of grow back and sequestration are around 60 years but different species, environments and harvesting practices suggest different grow-back times depending on context[17]. Some models suggest it realistically would take 190-340 years to repay a Carbon debt from an increased harvest in the boreal forest[35]. ‘A time delay therefore exists before bioenergy systems reach a “break-even” point where total emissions for the bioenergy and reference fossil pathways are equal. Only after the break-even point are net emissions reductions achieved’ (M.,C.,C.,M.,M., 2011, p.793)[17]. The trouble with the wood pellet closed-loop cycle is that the Carbon debt payback time is too long; negative effects will occur for the next 60+ years at least at a time when we need climate action the most.

As a planet we are rapidly approaching climate tipping points where extreme weather conditions will alienate plant life and cause mass extinctions. Just because wood pellets can be considered renewable, doesn’t make them sustainable nor a viable solution in the short to mid-term[35]. Furthermore, ‘Eventual Carbon neutrality is not Carbon neutrality’ (Sterman, Moomaw, Rooney-Varga and Siegel, 2022, p.134)[5]; the harms from additional warming due to increased emissions are not undone by an eventual re-sequestration of the Carbon. ‘Eventual full forest recovery will not replace lost ice, lower sea level, undo climate disasters, put Carbon back into permafrost, or bring back homes lost to floods or wildfires’ (Sterman, Moomaw, Rooney-Varga and Siegel, 2022, p.134)[5]. The reality for the planet is that tipping points can’t be un-tipped.

Final Analysis

Adopting the Carbon neutral standpoint of wood pellets overstates their potential for greenhouse gas emission mitigation because It fails to emphasize the significance in the time delay required for the re-sequestration of Carbon emitted. Furthermore, it does not account for the uncertainty that emissions would indeed be recaptured nor the significant emissions emitted through the supply chain. Such oversights are enabled by the disparity in International Carbon accounting which shifts blame between nations and justifies large subsidies and tax breaks to the wood pellet energy production industry. Yet, where the climate loses out, those who are involved in the trade of wood pellets, as well as those who benefit politically from the associated green imaging of renewable energy have capitalized.

There is a strong case in the science and literature to argue that the UK government stop subsidizing the Wood pellet industry and this is a currently unfolding issue[11][36]. Other countries, such as Australia, are starting to dismiss solid biofuels as a viable energy source[37]. Furthermore, if the Carbon accounting system were changed to recognize biomass emissions at the point of combustion, it is likely that wood pellets would be stripped of their 'renewable energy' status, their subsidies would be halted and their business in the UK would become economically unviable. The money that would no longer be given to subsidize the wood pellet industry could be used to continue to develop the energy production capacities of the UKs true clean energy providers such as wind and solar[5].

In this crucial period of humanities efforts to mitigate climate change, wood pellets should not be considered a viable energy solution and it is dangerous for them to be labelled and treated as such. The Drax case exemplifies the dangers of greenwashing in our current climate-sensitive and time-lacking situation and how an international, holistic analysis is required for demystifying the detrimental effects of wood pellets.

‘The unmitigated use of woody biomass to replace fossil fuels like coal and natural gas is a fool’s bargain, comparable to continuing to dig when we’re already in a hole’ (Koester, 2022, p.150)[7].

Theme: Wood pellets for energy production
Country: Canada, UK

This conservation resource was created by Rory Read.
It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0.


References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 "Drax Sustainable Bioenergy". Drax. 12/12/2022. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ↑ "Drax Biomass FAQ". Drax. 12/12/2022. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Fanous, J., Moomaw, W. R. (2018). "A Critical Look at Forest Bioenergy: Exposing a high carbon "climate solution"" (PDF). Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University. Policy Brief Volume 8: 1–6.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ↑ "Drax, about us - sites and buisnesses". Drax Website. 12/12/22. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Sterman, J., Moomaw, W., Rooney-Varga, J. N., & Siegel, L. (2022). "Does wood bioenergy help or harm the climate?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 78(3): 128–138.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 "UK Bioenergy Strategy". Department for Transport, Department for Energy and Climate Change, ECC, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. 2012.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Koester, S. (2022). "Burning biomass: A Drax-tic idea, and bad for environmental justice". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 78(3): 148–151.
  8. ↑ "Drax Completes Acquisition of Pinnacle". Drax.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 Millward-Hopkins, J., & Purnell, P. (2019). "Circulating blame in the circular economy: The case of wood-waste biofuels and coal ash". Energy Policy. 129: 168–172.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ↑ BBC Panorama, 'The Green Energy Scandal Exposed', 2022 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001cw6z
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Coombe, Savannah (18/11/2022). "Drax Bosses Face Parilamentary Grilling over Panorama Claims". Resource. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ↑ Parfitt, Ben (7/4/2022). "BC Chief Forester Jumps to Multinational Wood Pellet Corporation". The Tyee. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ↑ "Former Chief Forester and leading Canadian forestry expert joins Drax". Drax.
  14. ↑ Hammond, Herb (23/11/2022). ""The forests are in trouble. Earth's climate is collapsing. The ABCFP and many of its members are complicit in this trouble."". Evergreen Alliance. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ↑ Parfitt, Ben (6/4/2022). "The Revolving Door: Troubling questions raised as BC's chief forester prepares to work for global wood pellet giant, Drax". Policy Note. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Abt, R., Galik, C., & Baker, J. (2022). "When burning wood to generate energy makes climate sense". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 78(3): 152–157.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 McKechnie, J., Colombo, S., Chen, J., Mabee, W., & MacLean, H. L. (2011). "Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels". Environmental science & technology. 45(2): 789–795.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 Booth, M. S. (2019). The great biomass boondogle. NYR Daily, 1https://biomassmurder.org/docs/2019-10-14-nybooks-the-great-biomass-boondoggle-english.pdf
  19. ↑ "BECCS and Negative Emissions". Drax.
  20. ↑ Yassa, S. and Greene, N. (10/12/2021). "A Bad Biomass Bet: Why the Leading Approach to Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage Isn't Carbon Negative". NRDC. Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 Brack, D., & Birdsey, R. (2021). "Greenhouse gas emissions from burning US-sourced woody biomass in the EU and UK" (PDF). Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ↑ Voegele, Erine (15/12/2022). "UK offers funding for hydrogen from BECCS projects". Check date values in: |date= (help)
  23. ↑ Cooke, Richard (19/7/2022). "NextTech: Making unseen emissions visible". esri. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. ↑ EPA, (2018). “EPA’s Treatment of Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources that Use Forest Biomass for Energy Production.” biomass_policy_statement_2018_04_23.pdf (epa.gov)
  25. ↑ OECD, 2019. Taxing Energy Use 2019: Country Note - United Kingdom. https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-energy-use-united-kingdom.pdf
  26. ↑ MacDonald, Phil (25/2/2021). "The extent of Drax's biomass subsidies". Ember. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. ↑ Matthew Smith, Sarah Elsaid, Andrea Finesso, Tiddo Kiewiet de Jonge, (2022). Government subsidies for electricity generation and combined heat and power (CHP) from solid biomass. Trinomics. Microsoft Word - NRDC - Biomass subsidy update 2022 v7.1 clean (trinomics.eu)
  28. ↑ Stashwick, Sasha (26/10/2021). "The UK Must Stop Subsidizing Its #1 Climate Polluter: Drax". NRDC. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 MacDonald, Phil (25/3/2022). "Subsidies for Drax biomass". Ember. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 Dwivedi, P., Johnson, E., Greene, D., & Baker, S. (2016). "Tracking economic and environmental indicators of exported wood pellets to the United Kingdom from the southern United States: lessons for policy?" (PDF). Bioenergy Research. 9(3): 907–916.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.7 Röder, M., Whittaker, C., & Thornley, P. (2015). "How certain are greenhouse gas reductions from bioenergy? Life cycle assessment and uncertainty analysis of wood pellet-to-electricity supply chains from forest residues". Biomass and Bioenergy. 79: 50–63.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 32.6 Yun, H., Clift, R., & Bi, X. (2020). "Process simulation, techno-economic evaluation and market analysis of supply chains for torrefied wood pellets from British Columbia: Impacts of plant configuration and distance to market". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 127.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. ↑ Jones, C., & Borchardt, K. D. (2022). "REPowerEU: Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy". European Commission. 8.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. ↑ "Global Warming of 1.5 ºC". IPCC.
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Holtsmark, B. (2012). "Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt" (PDF). Climatic Change. 112(2): 415–428.
  36. ↑ Greenwood, Dareen (17/112022). "Drax slammed by National Resources Defense Council in new report". York Press. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  37. ↑ Catanoso, Justin (21/12/2022). "Australia rejects forest biomass in first blow to wood pellet industry". Monga Bay. Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Open_Case_Studies/FRST522/2022/Drax_and_the_International_Wood_Pellet_industry;_Biomass_as_renewable_energy_or_a_false_climate_solution%3F&oldid=744261"