Burning wood for energy may not be as environmentally friendly as many believe. Recent research shows that using wood as fuel can produce more carbon emissions than burning natural gas, even if some emissions are captured and stored.
This new understanding raises questions about government plans in countries like the UK to support wood-burning power with subsidies aimed at carbon capture. The strategy, known as Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), has been promoted as a clean alternative to fossil fuels. However, scientists from the US, UK, and China suggest that it could take as long as 150 years to offset the carbon released when using wood for energy. This delay largely stems from the time required to grow replacement forests and the negative impact on land when biomass is sourced from savannas or cropland.
In their study published in Nature Sustainability, researchers found that emissions from wood burning occur primarily before the wood even reaches the power plant. This means many of the carbon emissions can’t be captured. In fact, wood can emit twice as much carbon per energy unit compared to fossil gas, making it a less efficient energy source.
Tim Searchinger, a scholar at Princeton University and the study’s leader, pointed out that supporting wood burning could increase carbon emissions for decades, even surpassing the impact of doing nothing at all. He argues there needs to be a change in laws that disregard the carbon emissions from burning wood.
Campaigners echo this sentiment, urging governments to step away from wood power. In the UK, the Drax power station, which generates a significant portion of biomass electricity, is a major contributor to CO2 emissions. It reportedly received nearly £1 billion in subsidies last year for burning wood.
Environmental experts like Douglas Parr from Greenpeace UK emphasize that cutting down trees to burn for energy is fundamentally flawed. Matt Williams, a forest advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, states that the findings underscore the need for genuinely clean energy sources that do not rely on imported fuels.
Drax has since paused its investment in BECCS, linking this decision to uncertainties surrounding government subsidies. A spokesperson from Drax maintains that they source wood from sustainable forests and manage their supply chains carefully.
Trevor Hutchings, from the Renewable Energy Association, highlights the complicated nature of BECCS. He notes that while these systems have their challenges, they are crucial for achieving the UK’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. He stresses the importance of focusing on sustainable practices in the biomass industry to ensure emissions reductions and energy security.
Despite differing opinions on the research, the UK government has dismissed the findings, stating that no final decisions have been made about large-scale bioenergy projects. They assert that any support would need to provide value for money for taxpayers.
In summary, the debate over wood as a power source is ongoing. As we strive to meet climate goals, it’s clear that better options must be explored to reduce emissions and protect our environment.
