Wood-Burning Power Plants May Harm Climate More Than Gas, Report Warns
Burning wood to generate electricity can be more detrimental to the climate than burning natural gas, even when carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored, according to a new scientific study. This finding raises serious questions about government plans, including those in the UK, to provide subsidies or financial incentives for carbon capture technologies attached to wood-burning power facilities.
Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage Under Scrutiny
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, commonly known as BECCS, has been promoted as a clean alternative for producing reliable baseload power, replacing fossil fuels like gas and coal. Proponents argue it could lead to "negative emissions" as new forests grow and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. However, researchers from the United States, the United Kingdom, and China have discovered that such systems might require up to 150 years to become carbon negative.
This lengthy timeline is attributed to the slow regrowth of forests and the environmental damage caused by converting existing savannahs, pastures, or croplands into biomass plantations. Even when half of the wood is sourced from waste materials and half from fast-growing plantations, models indicate it could take decades to achieve negative emissions.
Key Findings from the Nature Sustainability Study
The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Sustainability, utilized data modelling techniques to demonstrate that a significant portion of emissions from wood-burning occurs before the fuel reaches the power plant, making it impossible to capture. Wood can emit twice as much carbon per unit of energy produced compared to fossil gas and is considerably less efficient in energy generation.
Tim Searchinger, a senior research scholar at Princeton University who led the research, stated: "Governments should not subsidise burning wood from existing forests, with or without carbon capture and storage. Doing so will increase carbon emissions for decades, even compared with doing nothing, and greatly raise people’s energy prices." He emphasized that carbon emitted from smokestacks when burning wood does contribute to global warming, contrary to some legal declarations.
Implications for the UK and Drax Power Station
Campaigners are urging governments to halt power generation from wood. In the UK, the primary generator of biomass electricity is the Drax power station in North Yorkshire, which is also the country's largest single source of CO2 emissions. According to recent estimates from a thinktank, Drax received nearly £1 billion in subsidies last year for burning wood.
Douglas Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, commented: "Common sense tells you that cutting down trees to burn them and then burying the resulting carbon emissions is a bad idea. This scientific study confirms that. Removing trees from one country to balance our carbon budget in the UK leaves the whole world poorer." Matt Williams, a senior forest advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, added that the findings support previous research and suggested the UK should seek other clean power sources without relying on imported fuels.
Industry and Government Responses
Drax has temporarily halted its investment in BECCS, citing uncertainty over government subsidies. A spokesperson for Drax defended their practices, stating: "We agree that biomass for BECCS and bioenergy should not be sourced in the way described in the paper. We only source from well-managed, sustainable forests including sawmill residues, low-grade roundwood and forest residues." They highlighted strict sustainability requirements in place to prevent the use of material harvested in harmful ways.
Trevor Hutchings, chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, noted that the UK's net zero by 2050 targets depend on BECCS and other carbon capture methods. He said: "The paper highlights many of the complexities and risks around BECCS, yet it’s important to recognise that, without BECCS and other forms of negative emissions, we will not achieve our legally binding net zero targets." He advocated for sustainable deployment within a broader renewable energy system.
A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero rejected the report's claims, stating: "We do not recognise these claims. No final decisions around the deployment of large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage projects have been made, and any support would need to provide value for money for taxpayers and meet our sustainability criteria."
