{"id":167022,"date":"2021-10-10T13:02:13","date_gmt":"2021-10-10T11:02:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=167022"},"modified":"2021-10-10T13:02:14","modified_gmt":"2021-10-10T11:02:14","slug":"draxs-renewable-energy-plant-is-uks-biggest-co2-emitter-analysis-claims-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=167022","title":{"rendered":"Drax\u2019s renewable energy plant is UK\u2019s biggest CO2 emitter, analysis claims"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

OCTOBER 8, 2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Paul Homewood<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

h\/t Robin Guenier<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A government-subsidised renewable energy plant run by Drax is the biggest single source of carbon dioxide in the UK, according to new analysis shared exclusively with Sky News.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drax\u2019s<\/a> <\/strong>Yorkshire power plant receives multimillion pound subsidies for burning woody biomass pellets to generate renewable electricity<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New research by climate think tank Ember said the plant is among the biggest sources of carbon dioxide and PM10 (particulate matter of 10 micrometres and smaller) air pollution of all EU power stations \u2013 when biomass<\/strong><\/a> emissions are included \u2013 more even than some of Europe\u2019s dirtiest coal plants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the emissions are not counted towards the UK\u2019s total.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UK excludes these biomass emissions<\/strong><\/a> from its total count, because \u2013 like the EU \u2013 it treats bioenergy as immediately carbon neutral on the assumption that forest regrowth soaks up the carbon again. Advertisement<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But recent science disputes this carbon neutrality<\/a><\/strong>, said Ember\u2019s chief operating officer Phil MacDonald. In fact there is a \u201creal risk\u201d that biomass is responsible for \u201csignificant emissions\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duncan Brack, a policy analyst who has authored a report questioning biomass policy, said electricity bill-payers were \u201cin effect paying to increase carbon emissions to the atmosphere\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drax claims to have reduced its emissions by 90% since replacing coal with sustainable biomass. A spokesperson called Ember\u2019s interpretation of the figures \u201ccompletely at odds with what the world\u2019s leading climate scientists at the UN IPCC say about sustainable biomass being crucial to delivering global climate targets\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amount of pollution from burning wood for power is not disputed by bioenergy companies, but this analysis may fan the flames of the debate about bioenergy\u2019s renewable status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics point out that forests take decades to regrow and recapture all the carbon again, allowing warming emissions to accumulate in the atmosphere just when the world seeks to slash emissions by 2050.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In January the European Academies Sciences Advisory Council (EASAC) claimed that biomass technology is \u201cnot effective in mitigating climate change\u201d and in February more than 500 scientists asked the EU to revoke biomass\u2019s \u201ccarbon neutral\u201d status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRegrowth takes time the world does not have to solve climate change,\u201d the scientists wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A 2018 study estimated it would take 40 to 100 years or more for forests to recapture the carbon emissions from burning the wood pellets, if ever, because forests are subject to hazards like disease and fires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper\u2019s lead author John Sterman, professor of management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, warned that assuming biofuels were carbon neutral could actually \u201cworsen irreversible impacts of climate change before benefits accrue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His paper concluded that wood emits more CO2 per unit of electricity generated than coal because it is less efficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An energy department (Beis) spokesperson said it \u201cdid not recognise\u201d Ember\u2019s figures. They said biomass was key to government plans to slash emissions by 2050, and that the UK follows relevant guidance from the UN\u2019s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drax continues to burn a small amount of coal. In 2020 its emissions from coal were 1.5 million tonnes (Mt) and from biomass \u2013 which Drax calls \u2018biologically sequestered carbon\u2019 were 13.3 Mt. But even without the coal emissions, its Selby plant would remain the largest single point source of CO2 in the UK and the fourth highest in the EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/news.sky.com\/story\/climate-change-draxs-renewable-energy-plant-is-uks-biggest-co2-emitter-analysis-claims-12428130<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of us have been arguing this point for years!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note how both Drax and the BEIS are simply sticking their fingers in their ears! \u201cWe don\u2019t recognise these figures!!\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not surprising really. Drax would be bankrupt without their renewable subsidies, which would presumably disappear if their \u201clow carbon\u201d designation was withdrawn. And the government\u2019s decarbonisation strategy would be thrown off course, as Drax would then add an extra 3% to UK emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

via Watts Up With That?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/ift.tt\/2YzXQ1V<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

October 9, 2021<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT OCTOBER 8, 2021 By Paul Homewood . h\/t Robin Guenier A government-subsidised renewable energy plant run by Drax is the biggest single source of carbon dioxide in the UK, according to new analysis shared exclusively with Sky News. Drax\u2019s Yorkshire power plant receives multimillion pound subsidies for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","has-post-thumbnail","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-HrU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=167022"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167022\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":167026,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167022\/revisions\/167026"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=167022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=167022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=167022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}