For those outside of the UK, you can watch BBC Panorama: "The Green Energy Scandal Exposed" here, to see where Drax gets its bioenergy from.
Basically, industrial bioenergy is a dirty business.
Though, the "bio is worse than coal" is misleading.
1/
Basically, industrial bioenergy is a dirty business.
Though, the "bio is worse than coal" is misleading.
1/
Yes, burning wood emits more CO₂ than burning coal. But, the entire point of burning wood is that it grows back. Unlike coal!
The question is whether the wood is sourced sustainably. Put the focus there.
2/
The question is whether the wood is sourced sustainably. Put the focus there.
2/
You can also get into semantic arguments: Did the wood grow first or was it harvested first? If you have a sustainable forestry operation, this is not really a question, as you consider the landscape under management.
3/
3/
As BBC Panorama showed, it seems at least some of the Drax feedstock is sourced in an unsustainable way. Now, think if we had thousands of these biomass plants around the world. It ain't going to work! The scale is too big.
(scenarios assessed in IPCC disagree though)
4/
(scenarios assessed in IPCC disagree though)
4/
Some forms of bioenergy maybe ok. Take each solution on its merits.
You don't need to say wood is worse than coal to make a case Drax is harvesting primary forest or doing things unsustainably.
5/
You don't need to say wood is worse than coal to make a case Drax is harvesting primary forest or doing things unsustainably.
5/
For those that missed it, here is how Norway uses its bioenergy. Mainly in heating homes and some in industry, but transport fuels are imported.
(if this is good or bad is not really related to coal vs bioenergy)
6/6
https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1577576915711533056
(if this is good or bad is not really related to coal vs bioenergy)
6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
