Drax Is Burning Virgin Forest

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dave Ward/Robin Guenier

The BBC have finally caught up! There have been complaints for years about this:

A company that has received billions of pounds in green energy subsidies from UK taxpayers is cutting down environmentally-important forests, a BBC Panorama investigation has found.

Drax runs Britain’s biggest power station, which burns millions of tonnes of imported wood pellets – which is classed as renewable energy.

The BBC has discovered some of the wood comes from primary forests in Canada.

The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood.

Panorama analysed satellite images, traced logging licences and used drone filming to prove its findings. Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest.

Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop.

“It’s really a shame that British taxpayers are funding this destruction with their money. Logging natural forests and converting them into pellets to be burned for electricity, that is absolutely insane,” she said.

The Drax power station in Yorkshire is a converted coal plant, which now produces 12% of the UK’s renewable electricity.

It has already received £6bn in green energy subsidies. Burning wood is considered green, but it is controversial among environmentalists.

Panorama discovered Drax bought logging licences to cut down two areas of environmentally-important forest in British Columbia.

The Panorama team used drones to survey the area

One of the Drax forests is a square mile, including large areas that have been identified as rare, old-growth forest.

The provincial government of British Columbia says old-growth forests are particularly important and that companies should put off logging them.

Drax’s own responsible sourcing policy says it “will avoid damage or disturbance” to primary and old-growth forest.

However, the latest satellite pictures show Drax is now cutting down the forest.

Satellite images show forests cut down in British Columbia

The company told Panorama many of the trees there had died, and that logging would reduce the risk of wildfires.

The entire area covered by the second Drax logging licence has already been cut down.

Drax told the BBC it had not cut down the forests itself and said it transferred the logging licences to other companies.

But Panorama checked and the authorities in British Columbia confirmed that Drax still holds the licences.

Drax said it did not use the logs from the two sites Panorama identified. It said they were sent to timber mills – to make wood products – and that Drax only used the leftover sawdust for its pellets.

The company says it does use some logs – in general – to make wood pellets. It claims it only uses ones that are small, twisted, or rotten.

But documents on a Canadian forestry database show that only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality, which cannot be used for wood products.

Panorama wanted to see if logs from primary forests cut down by logging companies were being transferred to Drax’s Meadowbank pellet plant. The programme filmed a truck on a 120-mile round trip: leaving the plant, collecting piles of whole logs from a forest that had been cut down by a logging company and then returning to the plant for their delivery.

Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets. The company said they were species the timber industry did not want, and they would often be burned anyway to reduce wildfire risks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348

It is amazing how Drax have changed their story as evidence mounts against them.

There has been plenty of investigative work in the US, where Drax also operate, which has come to similar conclusions. All along though, Drax has insisted they never use prime wood. That is now proven to be a lie.

I am also pleased that the BBC has pointed out the nonsense that these trees will soon be replanted, with the carbon offset. As they note:

Primary forests, which have never been logged before and store vast quantities of carbon, are not considered a sustainable source. It is highly unlikely that replanted trees will ever hold as much carbon as the old forest.

The government however finds itself in the horns of a dilemma. Without this pretend reduction in carbon emissions, it would be nowhere near meeting its climate targets.

If it decides to stop treating biomass as renewable, it will have to drastically ramp up wind and solar instead.

Bioenergy accounts for 13% of the UK’s electricity generation, which is more than onshore wind.

4.9 32 votes
Article Rating
130 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4 Eyes
October 4, 2022 2:10 am

Maybe the BBC has worked out that trees burn a lot quicker than they grow.

Reply to  4 Eyes
October 4, 2022 2:16 am

I doubt it.

Bill Powers
Reply to  4 Eyes
October 4, 2022 7:19 am

Yet, Let those trees mature and then cut them for lumber to build homes and the Greens would be all over the evening news predicting end of days. How many different ways can we spell hypocrite in order to look past woke environmentalist double standards.

michael hart
Reply to  4 Eyes
October 4, 2022 8:44 am

Yes, 4 Eyes, they really did. That was one of the surprising things about it. A real curate’s egg.

It can be painful sometimes, watching people learn slowly.

October 4, 2022 2:15 am

Well they wouldnt let Drax burn coal, and now they want to stop it burning wood.
That will crash the UK grid. Drax is more than 10% of it.

Drax has merely done what environmentalists in government told it it had to.

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 4, 2022 3:13 am

Coal is just really old wood.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
October 4, 2022 3:47 am

Well seasoned wood at that, much more energy per Kg

Rod Evans
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 4, 2022 6:17 am

And it does not rot if left outside in a pile….

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Rod Evans
October 4, 2022 12:32 pm

It will, however, spontaneously combust.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
October 5, 2022 7:26 am

Only likely in a ships hold where it is subject to friction. Probably less likely than a Li-On battery.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
October 6, 2022 3:08 pm

I did work at PSEG’s Hudson plant in Jersey City. It had two coal-fired boilers. Depending on weather conditions, all throughout the coal pile you could see little fires. They were most common near the supports for the coal feed. I was quite alarmed the first time I saw one, but the station personnel said, “We get them all the time.”

Mark D
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
October 6, 2022 9:12 pm

Bulldozers are used to agitate the piles to reduce the risk of spontaneous combustion otherwise the coal pile would always be on fire.

Mark D
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
October 6, 2022 9:08 pm

Statement of fact. Why the down votes? Someone please enlighten me?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Mark D
October 10, 2022 11:58 am

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Last edited 1 month ago by D. J. Hawkins
Ubique
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
October 4, 2022 7:11 pm

Coal is fossilised sunshine. What’s not to like?

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 4, 2022 3:18 am

The only sensible idea is to go back to burning coal, and declare it a ‘renewable’ source of energy.

tgasloli
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 4, 2022 6:31 am

”sensible idea”
Well, that pretty much guarantees the elites will oppose it.

If they were sensible there never would have been the climate nonsense, the sanctions against Russia for the Ukraine business, or the suicidal destruction of the natural gas pipelines by NATO.

For the international elites sensible is exactly what the are against.

Patrick B
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 4, 2022 9:11 am

Well, another sensible alternative is for the government to simply stop using electricity. What are the chances the government uses 10% of the electrical energy in the UK?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 4, 2022 5:47 pm

I don’t think they’d buy calling it “renewable”.
Call it recycling.
Long dead trees helping new trees to grow.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 4, 2022 5:03 am

That is true. The government/EU policy left them with little choice but to go down the less efficient wood burning route especially as they got given taxpayer cash to convert from coal. When they applied for more taxpayer cash to convert the remaining units they were refused so luckily they can still burn coal. They should be doing nicely during this governmental energy crisis as anyone with costs lower than gas generation is making excess profits.

michael hart
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 4, 2022 8:52 am

Yup. And then there will be calls for a windfall tax on such companies. Profit is still a dirty word for many in the UK. This kind of thinking seems to come around once every couple of generations. How quickly common sense is lost before things get worse before it can be restored.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  michael hart
October 4, 2022 9:31 am

Since you preferred renewables to fossil fuels let renewables supply you.

h/t ‘since You Have Preferred Sheep to Men, Let Sheep Defend You!’

DiggerUK
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 4, 2022 7:20 am

At full throttle Drax could supply 12% of UK needs. When fact checked it is normally a bit short, 8% is normal.

The website makes it sound like paradise of course…_

roaddog
Reply to  DiggerUK
October 5, 2022 7:53 pm

I’ve long suspected Paradise has live trees.

Liberal Nirvana, however, is a clearcut stump-fest.

bigman
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 5, 2022 11:43 pm

It is actually 12% of the renewable supply, not 10% of the whole power provided to the grid, that’s impossible for one facility.

Last edited 1 month ago by bigman
RickWill
October 4, 2022 2:23 am

Burning virgins in the forest. That is the way of religious cults!

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  RickWill
October 4, 2022 3:14 am

> Burning virgins in the forest. That is the way of religious cults!

Christmas tress, Yule logs.

michael hart
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
October 4, 2022 8:55 am

A Christmas Truss? (It’s a UK joke).

Richard Page
Reply to  michael hart
October 4, 2022 1:47 pm

Are you insinuating that our darling PM is, somehow, pure?

Gregory Woods
October 4, 2022 2:36 am

Drax is burning virgins?

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 4, 2022 3:15 am

No wonder there is a shortage! 😉

MarkW
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 4, 2022 8:03 am

They’re trees. How do you tell if they are virgins or not?

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
October 4, 2022 1:52 pm

If they’re pines, you won’t like the answer.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
October 4, 2022 2:38 pm

Do they suffer with morning wood?

roaddog
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 5, 2022 7:55 pm

A progressive virgin simply has no tattoos.

Roy Everett
October 4, 2022 2:45 am

Which reminds me (but a bit off-thread): what was the outcome of the NASA OCO 2 satellite project, which aimed to chart the density of and flow patterns of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? There were some early images, including some shown and even re-calculated on this site, then it seemed to go quiet.

Roy Martin
Reply to  Roy Everett
October 4, 2022 5:55 am

I don’t think it fit the narrative – now it’s models all the way down: https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/whats-new-oco-2/

“What’s New with OCO-2?September 26, 2022
Cressie and co-authors apply a new analysis technique to CO2 flux estimates from the OCO-2 Model Intercomparison Project (MIP) to obtain a statistically optimal consensus result from model output from 9 different teams. This technique allows for weightings that account for common features between models as well as the quality of numerical approximations used within the models. The end result is a more precise and informed consensus on CO2 fluxes than a simple weighted average of results. See full article here: From Many to One: Consensus Inference in a MIP

roaddog
Reply to  Roy Martin
October 5, 2022 7:56 pm

WTF?

Ron Long
October 4, 2022 3:09 am

I worked summer jobs in Oregon in sawmills, which had a “hog” a whirling blade arrangement that reduced the trimmed wood into chips, sold for making particle board. All of that came to an end when the environmentalists championed the Spotted Owl. Now Environmentalists are OK with cutting down old-growth forests, owls and other inhabitants notwithstanding, to engage in phony virtue-signaling? Full circle? Values for sale? Idiots costing taxpayers millions? Yes.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Ron Long
October 4, 2022 3:49 am

Also when cutting down trees for Windmills, making owls homeless and increasing the risk of an early death at the same time

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 4, 2022 7:21 am

Not to mention, since the owls don’t have opposable thumbs, they can’t panhandle.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 5, 2022 1:33 pm

If they don’t kill them by cutting the trees down for something-ingerior-to-coal to burn, they’ll finish the job with wind mills.

Simonsays
Reply to  Ron Long
October 4, 2022 2:13 pm

What happened to all the real environmentalists? When was the last time we saw them changed to a tree protecting a forest or ramming whaling ships to save whales.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Simonsays
October 4, 2022 5:52 pm

changed to a tree”
Are they auditioning for the role of Treebeard? 😎

roaddog
Reply to  Ron Long
October 5, 2022 7:58 pm

It was never about the owls.

ltexpat
October 4, 2022 3:20 am

Is there a more regressive, back-to-the-past, “renewable” energy source than bio-mass?

In past centuries, a far less densely populated Europe was denuded of forests to provide fuel for heating – bio-mass!
At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, at the birth of the IC engine, up to 40% of all agricultural output was devoted to feeding work and transportation animals – bio-mass!

Now we grow corn, convert it to ethanol and use it to power IC engines – bio-mass!

This is progress?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  ltexpat
October 4, 2022 3:50 am

As long as we don’t go back to wooden ships and charcoal burning the ending of both saved Europes few remaining forests

Spetzer86
Reply to  ltexpat
October 4, 2022 3:54 am

We could argue for converting Drax from wood chips to cow chips, that’d take them back another century….

joe
Reply to  ltexpat
October 4, 2022 5:19 am

fwiw – part of the burning of forests in the olden days was due to:

1) more farmland since yield per acre was considerably less
2) needed more land to feed the work horses since horses worked as the primary machine in agriculture.

#2 being the primary reason for the burning/clearing of forests . Once the mechanical machines were invented, the livestock decreased which allowed much of the forests to grow back

Bob boder
Reply to  joe
October 4, 2022 6:31 am

Yeah that’s why the mountains in PA were cleared to provide farm land. Oil saved the Forrest and the whales fact!

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  joe
October 4, 2022 9:50 am

Sorry but
By the mid-eighteenth century, Britain had suffered centuries of continual deforestation, wood having served as the principal source of fuel for heating and industry. Timber increasingly had to be imported from the Baltic. This was a mercantilist “drain upon this nation”, and was even a threat to Britain’s independent existence. Of the utmost importance were Britain’s warships, its “wooden walls”. Building a typical 74-gun warship required massive amounts of timber − some 3,000 thousand trees − so the worst-case scenario for the Royal Navy was that if the main fleet were destroyed, an enemy blockading the coast and stopping Baltic timber from arriving might leave Britain totally incapacitated, unable to repair its fleet or construct a new one.

RSA History
The Royal Navy had over 300 vessels at the end of the 18th century, many larger than 74 guns. There was a whole merchant fleet of wooden ships.
Huge amounts of charcoal were used in the production of metals throughout Europe nd the United States. Not only did coal save forests but producing coke for steel production created the chemical industry.

Fossil Fuels saved the forests of Europe and America by supplying energy for industry and indirectly by making iron and steel cheap enough to replace wood in buildings and ships. the chemical industry led to the production of fertilizers increasing yields and saving more forests.

MM from Canada
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 4, 2022 11:16 am

Ben, your post supplies more information, but it doesn’t negate what Joe said.

In 1900, it took 10 acres of land to provide enough food to feed one person for one year. Five of those acres were needed to feed the horses and mules. Today, it takes less than 1/3 of an acre to feed one person for one year, thanks to diesel and synthetic fertilizer. And the increase in productivity allowed many acres of land that was poorly suited for farming to return to its natural state.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  MM from Canada
October 4, 2022 2:49 pm

Apart from deciding what the area of forest removed to increase agricultural output and what was taking advantage of forest cleared for industrial and domestic reasons which is difficult in itself there are other factors in a complex situation in the UK.

But between early 17th and late 19th centuries crop yields rose dramatically, bushels/acre
Wheat, 10.45 -> 26.69
Rye 16.28 -> 26.18
Barley 11.16 -> 23.82
Oats 10.97 -> 31.36
Peas/Beans 8.62 -> 16.30
A doubling or tripling of yields
I’m not sure about yields of potatoes over the same period allowing for blight of the 19th century
In the same time UK population increased from 5 million to 33 million. But at the end of the 19th start of the 20th centuries the UK was importing over half the food it consumed. Taking those numbers it seems that population rose by a factor of 7, grain output rose by a factor 2.5 and over half the food consumed was imported.

The increase in arable land to support the increase in population is not as much as you might imagine from the population increase.
The increase in arable land came not just from cutting down trees. The major part of the draining of the Fens was effected in the late 18th and early 19th century. That area of marsh and bog was roughly equivalent to 100 million trees or 30,000 ships of 74 guns. The Somerset Levels a smaller area of marsh was drained in the same period. As were areas in Cheshire and other English counties.
Lazybed and Runrig farming, mainly potatoes, was largely falling out of use by the early 20th century.

MM from Canada
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 4, 2022 4:53 pm

Interesting. I would have thought crops yields would decrease because of the Little Ice Age.

I wonder if the difference in our perspective might also be because you are apparently in the UK and I am in North America.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  ltexpat
October 4, 2022 7:08 am

Depends upon whom you are asking…

roaddog
Reply to  ltexpat
October 5, 2022 8:00 pm

Progress is, to the woke, a dirty word.

Incidentally, we can yet regress to burning dung.

Ben Vorlich
October 4, 2022 3:46 am

I read this article a few days ago.
Since then I’ve been wondering, even if as Drax claim it is “waste” wood from ot other processes, if it is such a good idea why isn’t the wood burnt for electricity in the USA and Canada?
The USA in particular had many coal burning power stations which like Drax could be converted to wood burning. In these times of energy shortages you’d think a zero carbon fuel like wood would be in short supply.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 4, 2022 3:54 am

Because it’s been tried in the U.S. already. Even at small scale, it is uneconomical and polluting. It takes an overseas national government to give massive tax incentives and subsidized pricing to create the temporary illusion that it is feasible.

Scissor
Reply to  Pflashgordon
October 4, 2022 6:07 am

Here’s a list of U.S. biomass plants, which includes those that burn wood in addition to municipal solid wastes, agricultural residues. Most are small plants. It makes sense to recover energy in many cases.

https://biomassmagazine.com/plants/listplants/biomass/US/

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Scissor
October 4, 2022 8:30 am

When I was at Duke Energy, I investigated several waste to fuel plants, including two wood burners in California, at Redding and in the Sierras. Aside from emission control challenges due to variable fuel quality, their biggest challenge was “feeding the beast.” Fuel buyers had to go out to a 100 mile radius to find anything that would burn. The ~60 MW plant in Redding was burning peach pits, pistachio shells, orchard wood, urban wood, etc. to the tune of >100,000 tons/year. Duke declined to buy them.

joe
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 4, 2022 5:21 am

wood burns at considerably lower temps than coal,

The article noted that the claim is a lot of the wood burned is rotten which burns at extremely low temps.

MM from Canada
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 4, 2022 11:19 am

In BC there isn’t any need to burn wood for electricity, because almost all our electric power is hydroelectric. There are a few locations where it is not, and then diesel is used.

roaddog
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 5, 2022 8:06 pm

We make it a point to raze coal-fired power plants as soon as they’ve been de-comissioned.

John Garrett
October 4, 2022 3:58 am

The New Math:

Where BG= Big Government,
BG2=Big Green, and
CAGW=Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming,

then

BG+BG2+CAGW=Corruption

strativarius
October 4, 2022 4:05 am

The BBC have reported this because it now suits their agenda.

If we knew there have been complaints for years about this, you can bet the BBC did, too.



JeffC
Reply to  strativarius
October 4, 2022 4:51 am

There was a programme about this on Channel 4 about 4 or 5 years ago. Just got ignored. Too many powerful people with fingers in the pie.

strativarius
Reply to  JeffC
October 4, 2022 5:01 am

Channel 4 has a reputation all of its own.

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
Charlie
Reply to  strativarius
October 4, 2022 7:43 am

The answer is, of course, Drax’s very own BECCS project – bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. CEO Will Gardiner recently wrote

“With the right support from government, Drax stands ready to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in developing BECCS and Cruachan 2 so we can do even more for our communities and the climate.”

New research outlines Drax’s contribution to the UK economy – Drax Global

I wonder if that “right support from government” be denominated in millions or billions of taxpayers’ money?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Charlie
October 5, 2022 1:43 pm

If it was worth “investing” in, “government support” would not be necessary.

roaddog
Reply to  Charlie
October 5, 2022 8:09 pm

The capital investment necessary to burying ashes is pretty small.

H.R.
October 4, 2022 4:41 am

What’s the answer to this Drax problem?

Whatever solution is put forward, I’d be willing to bet a fair sum that it will be the wrong one, costly, and most likely will make things worse.

Time after time in poll after poll, everyone is all for ‘Saving the Planet’ or preventing ‘Climate Change’, but they are unwilling to pay for it.

When will politicians get a clue and just announce serious sounding grandiose plans for some vague time in the future, and then waste the money on something else?

strativarius
Reply to  H.R.
October 4, 2022 5:02 am

“What’s the answer to this Drax problem?”

Coal.

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
H.R.
Reply to  strativarius
October 5, 2022 4:57 pm

Do you really think the politicians are going to choose the obvious solution, strativarius?

How do you think they came up with wood pellets in the first place?

roaddog
Reply to  H.R.
October 5, 2022 8:12 pm

A task force no doubt spent millions seeking out the least efficient technology.

roaddog
Reply to  roaddog
October 5, 2022 8:14 pm

Speeches were given, ribbons awarded, children were promised highly remunerative new green jobs, articles were written, idiots were re-elected. And then they moved on to the next scam.

H.R.
Reply to  roaddog
October 6, 2022 9:01 pm

Handshakes all around.

Gerry, England
Reply to  H.R.
October 4, 2022 5:05 am

Convert back to burning coal is the simple answer.

John R T
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 4, 2022 3:43 pm

C2N (via biomass, in UK)
USA DOE recent research:
coal to nuclear – clean, safe power conversion

H.R.
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 5, 2022 5:02 pm

Yeah, coal is the simple answer, Gerry.

But the politicians will probably decide to switch to burning toenail clippings or something like that.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  H.R.
October 4, 2022 12:37 pm

Admit mistakes

H.R.
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 5, 2022 5:00 pm

🤣 🤣 🤣 Good one!

Yeah. Like that will ever happen, ResourceGuy.

LdB
October 4, 2022 6:25 am

What are they thinking …. clearly some of those trees could be turned in to eco-friendly wind turbines 🙂

Old Man Winter
October 4, 2022 6:31 am

This is just hit piece by The Beeb’s self-beatified green purists who are
pretending to be heroes by nitpicking the much-loathed, but reliable bio.
This distracts people from the MAJOR DISASTER of solar & wind (SAW),
which in 2021, averaged a paltry 7 GW out 40 GW nameplate- 17% capacity
factor (cf). That’s the MAJOR DISASTER purists WILL NEVER admit THEY
created & will do anything to keep the spotlight away from this much,
much bigger SAW scam!

The total redlines for the much-loathed nuclear & bio are 9 GW & usually run
CONTINUOUSLY @ 5 GW & 2 GW, respectively- 78% cf. When the wind
blows, like it’s doing now, they reduce bio, & possibly nuclear (seasonally),
so as to waste less of the intermittent & unreliable SAW power when it does
produce. The reality purists WILL NEVER admit is that “STEADY EDDIE”
MUCH-LOATHED nuclear & bio with 9 GW nameplate are saving the UK’s
bacon by producing as much energy as their beloved, but absolutely
stinky, SAW with its 40 GW nameplate!

With Ireland & the UK being two of only several exceptions, the wind
doesn’t blow on land where the world’s people live, which should’ve
told planners it was a worthless source of unreliable power. Off shore,
there are some more spots where people live that wind does better. But who
wants to deal with the much more expensive turbines in/near harbors or
cluttering NIMBY shorelines (On that count, NIMBYs are correct but are
hypocrites shoving that worthless garbage down our throats.)? Solar was
already a bust with sunshine available only 12 hrs/day, with an effective
8-hr generating day, when the sky is clear. Thus, SAW should’ve been a
non-starter even before it began, a fact greenies WILLINGLY OVERLOOKED
because they KNEW they were right but failed to check if it was a good
strategy! What a bunch of clowns!

glwndp00.jpg
Bryan A
Reply to  Old Man Winter
October 4, 2022 2:41 pm

Considering most of the wind is in the polar region
And
That the polar regions are the fastest warming regions globally
I think your map might very well be just a lot of hot air

Jeff Alberts
October 4, 2022 7:16 am

Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop.”

And yet, 12000 years ago, those forests didn’t exist, due to the mile-thick glaciers occupying most of what would become Canada.

Forests are renewable.

Jeff Alberts
October 4, 2022 7:23 am

Drax… Time for a dragonslayer.

Carlo, Monte
October 4, 2022 8:21 am

Q—How are these wood pellets transferred to England for burning?

A—Using hydrocarbon fuels, of course.

Bryan A
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 4, 2022 2:46 pm

Hydrocarbons to harvest them (Chainsaws)
Hydrocarbons to transport them (for initial processing)
Hydrocarbons to dry them (kiln)
Hydrocarbons to pelletize them
Hydrocarbons to package them
Hydrocarbons to transport the pellets to the docks
Hydrocarbons to transport them across the sea
Hydrocarbons to off load them
Hydrocarbons to transport them to DRAX
Hydrocarbons to unload at DRAX into hoppers

Gunga Din
Reply to  Bryan A
October 4, 2022 5:57 pm

And they still emit CO2.

Bryan A
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 4, 2022 9:49 pm

At a rate 36,525 times faster than can be sunk in Forrest regrowth in 100 years

Dan
October 4, 2022 8:21 am

Also here in Canada, single-use plastics are being banned by the end of the year. No more plastic shopping bags or utensils or straws and so on. Got to be paper or wood now. Paper bags and straws, wooden utensils. Stuff like that.

The plastics were introduced decades ago as the enviros decried the cutting of forests for single-use paper products. Now plastics are bad (they come from oil and gas) and paper, which comes from trees, is good. Got to cut down lots of forest now for this stuff.

It’s so stupid.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dan
October 4, 2022 9:57 am

They can’t use paper or wood for all the single use plastics used in surgery and many other uses in hospitals. Paper or wooden implants? No thanks.! Huge growth in cross infections No thanks!

Bryan A
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 4, 2022 2:49 pm

Have you ever drank anything through a paper straw? What a foul taste they impart on any liquid.

John Garrett
Reply to  Dan
October 4, 2022 11:04 am

I started hoarding plastic bags and straws in anticipation that the climate nutters will do the same thing in the U.S.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  John Garrett
October 4, 2022 12:47 pm

They’ve already started. NJ banned single use plastic bags starting this past May 4.

Bryan A
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
October 4, 2022 2:51 pm

Buy handle tie trash bags and take them to the store with you. Have your groceries bagged in them and enjoy the looks you get

Gunga Din
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
October 4, 2022 6:06 pm

Hmmm … before our dog passed we made them double-use bag when we took him for walks. Since then I’ve noticed single-use plastic bags sold for just that purpose.
What do dog owners in NJ do with the doo? Leave it?

Bryan A
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 4, 2022 9:50 pm

Serve it to Party Poopers

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 6, 2022 3:12 pm

It goes in the garbage. We have those dispensers that clip to the leashes so when you walk the dog you automatically have bags with you. Around the yard, we do have a stockpile of small bags that we are slowly going through. Same fate; tossed into the garbage.

michael hart
October 4, 2022 8:41 am

Glad you caught this one. I had just watched it.

Like the idea of destroying tropical rainforests to grow palm oil, they seem to have had a Beavis and Butthead moment: “Errrrr… this is stoopid. Let’s do something else.”

They never seem to learn, or if they do, it is very slowly despite sensible people telling them beforehand that their green solutions suck to the back teeth.

Credit where credit is due, they actually showed an exhaust tower emitting nothing visible and said CO2 is invisible. Sometimes you take small mercies where they come. The BBC usually shows exhaust stacks emitting steam, carefully photographed at low sun angles where the backlight makes white steam look like black smoke.

Mark
October 4, 2022 9:04 am

Erm….

What is coal?

Bryan A
Reply to  Mark
October 4, 2022 2:52 pm

A high density low cost energy source created by nature to store renewable sunlight and plant matter for millennia

griff
October 4, 2022 9:06 am

Greenpeace was saying this nearly 10 years ago.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
October 4, 2022 10:03 am

And 10 years ago Greenpeace was calling GM crops “Frankenstein Foods.”

Today GM foods are providing billions of people with healthy food that was unavailable to them beforehand.

michael hart
Reply to  griff
October 4, 2022 1:08 pm

Yes, Griff. And they were a decade late onto the idea that flogging down rainforests to provide “eco palm oil” was a really dumb idea too. Their thinking seems doomed to be at least a decade late, implying not much thinking at all.

Unfortunately they are still several decades late to the idea that nuclear power is the future.

Charles Higley
October 4, 2022 9:16 am

This has nothing to do with carbon or CO2. This is just wrong science driving an ecologically damaging policy. CO2 is plant food and releasing more CO2 into the air from coal and fossil fuels is GOOD for the environment. Cutting down and burning the forest environment in the name of junk science is simply stupid and even evil.

We have no effect on climate. It is only by misinforming the public and pretending we can that these globalists are getting their goals met, which have nothing to do with climate, but all about power and money.

AndyHce
Reply to  Charles Higley
October 4, 2022 12:35 pm

While the CO2 is bad may be nonsense, and no excuse for denuding forests, burring fossil fuels is far from ideal. Admittedly there isn’t any feasible alternative at the moment, but fossil ‘fuels’ are such an important, and essentially irreparable source of needed products that the waste from burning is another long term dead end of monumental proportions, just like clearing away all the forests.

Cam_S
October 4, 2022 9:16 am

BC old growth forest is going to burn anyways, because of heatwaves.
– – – – – – – – –

B.C. study links policy changes and logging patterns, shows targeting of old growth
The worsening effects of climate change are compounding the historical loss of British Columbia’s old-growth forests, says the co-author of a new paper that shows decades of logging on the province’s central coast targeted the highest-value forests first.

https://theprovince.com/news/local-news/bc-study-links-policy-changes-and-logging-patterns-shows-targeting-of-old-growth

michael hart
Reply to  Cam_S
October 4, 2022 1:21 pm

Quite apart from the climate twaddle, it does distress me to see whole areas being clear cut, erasing every single tree. I’m sure it should be done more sensitively (a much abused word).

In the UK, the forestry commission used to get a lot of grief for their monolithic planting practices until they were persuaded to, at least a bit, start planting trees of different kinds and not in monolithic lines like a Roman Army phalanx (and even installing some fire breaks).

So often is it the case with environmental issues. It doesn’t take much for companies to ameliorate their worst practices, yet greenalists continue to demand something better than what nature may have provided in the first place. I still believe the middle ground to be cheap, desirable and achievable.

MM from Canada
Reply to  michael hart
October 4, 2022 4:58 pm

“Quite apart from the climate twaddle, it does distress me to see whole areas being clear cut, erasing every single tree. I’m sure it should be done more sensitively (a much abused word).”

Clear cutting opens up the forest, providing meadows where deer graze and bears feed on berries, etc. Old growth forest provides nothing in the way of food on the forest floor, shich is heavily shaded by the canopy.

michael hart
Reply to  MM from Canada
October 5, 2022 8:15 am

I’ve got nothing against that, where appropriate. But you don’t generate a meadow, pool, or lake by clearcutting the side of hill. You generate soil erosion.

How about maybe just cutting in lanes separated by banks of trees? This will actually provide a greater amount of land that forms the interface between deep forest and open land where life gets to do its new things.

roaddog
Reply to  michael hart
October 5, 2022 8:26 pm

When (and where) did you last see an actual, recently harvested large clear cut forest?

ResourceGuy
October 4, 2022 9:41 am

This is what happens when you stack tax incentives on both ends of the operation-credits in the UK for burning and various incentives for job creation and investment on the producer side. The result is more than sawdust and a pack of lies.

ResourceGuy
October 4, 2022 9:46 am

Let’s see the tally again.

1) burning virgin forests for DRAX
2) buying solar panels with forced labor components from western China
3) ignoring the Russian energy strategy of conquest

At this rate they will sell jet engines to Stalin and protest American forces in Korea.

Ben Vorlich
October 4, 2022 9:53 am

This isn’t good for UK woods and forests.

Chainsaw sales soar as Brits buy 35,000 woodburners in three months to keep themselves warm during the energy crisis

  • Retail giant Toolstation revealed that sales have rocketed by a third recently
  • The news comes as people have been finding cheaper ways to heat their homes
  • Experts warn the rise in woodburning could lead to higher pollution levels

Daily Mail

The knowledge that freshly cut wood is not a good fuel for domestic heating has long gone

roaddog
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 5, 2022 8:27 pm

They’ll cure it in the oven.

Peta of Newark
October 4, 2022 9:59 am

and much much MUCH worse – relentlessly lying about it

That is the crime here, the mendacity, and is why Everything Is Now Wrong in this world and why it, and everybody on board, is fuqqed

MM from Canada
October 4, 2022 11:09 am

I would just like to point out that so-called “old growth” forest – which the enviro-crazies worship – do not provide any food for the deer or the bears. The forest floor, shaded by the dense canopy, is basically bare. But open spaces in the forest become meadows for a number of years before the conifers take over, where deciduous trees (birch and alder, primarily) and berry bushes (huckleberries) grow. When I was growing up, my Dad knew all the best places around where we lived to pick mountain huckleberries, which look a lot like blueberries and are larger and sweeter than the red huckleberries that grow closer to the coast.

The people who were already living in BC when the Europeans arrived would regularly set fires in the forest to clear areas for meadows.

Bob
October 4, 2022 12:10 pm

At what point are these lying hound dogs going to be held accountable? These people disgust me.

“The government however finds itself in the horns of a dilemma. Without this pretend reduction in carbon emissions, it would be nowhere near meeting its climate targets.”

To hell with your climate targets, they are absolute nonsense. You are putting good people at risk for no good reason, lying to cover your bad behavior and looking more and more like criminals than public servants.

stinkerp
October 4, 2022 1:11 pm

Ummm…did we forget that trees are a renewable resource? They grow back. But you need an awful lot of them to replace the energy and heating needs of Earth’s population. Burning forests is an inefficient way to heat and produce power. It’s what our ancestors did before they discovered petrol and built hydroelectric power plants and nuclear power plants. But if European governing elites want to regress back to unsustainable technology from the Dark Ages, well, burn your own forests.

Last edited 1 month ago by stinkerp
Smart Rock
October 4, 2022 1:18 pm

Regardless of the foolishness of burning wood pellets in a power station, it appears to be a really expensive proposition to ship wood pellets from British Columbia. They would have to travel about 5,000 kilometres by (diesel powered) train just to get to an east coast port before getting shipped across the Atlantic.

There are in fact plenty of trees in the boreal forest of eastern Canada, much closer to seaports. And mostly they are not in “old growth” forests.

It looks as if being in receipt of massive subsidies has distorted the economics of the business by allowing Drax to source wood pellets anywhere, regardless of shipping costs.

Alternatively, the BBC may have got the whole thing wrong (which wouldn’t surprise me).

Mike O
October 4, 2022 1:32 pm

I’m not one to normally advocate watching anything by Michael Moore, but his movie “The Planet of the Humans” is definitely worth a watch. He mostly skewers the sustainable, green efforts of a bunch of folks and covers this exact topic. You can see it on YouTube.

Andrew Dickens
October 4, 2022 2:15 pm

Dont get too excited. The BBC has not yet realised that the whole Drax biomass business is a scam, only that Drax are breaking their own rules by burning the wrong trees.

Laws of Nature
October 4, 2022 5:33 pm

This seems just a copy of Michael Moore´s “planet of humans” last year (the 2nd half of it .. I am afraid the first half does not seem very accurate)

This is known for a long time and no none does anything to save the nature.

Edward Katz
October 4, 2022 5:53 pm

It figures that British Columbia would allow part of its forests to be cut down because, like a few other jurisdictions, it talks a good game about fighting climate change until it stands to profit in less environmentally-friendly ways. For example, Vancouver is one of the largest coal-exporting ports in North America, and the province doesn’t hesitate to ship liquefied natural gas overseas either. So it’s also exporting its emissions in the process. Yet that hasn’t helped it guard against extreme weather events in the least since it’s been plagued by wildfires and droughts for several years now.

roaddog
Reply to  Edward Katz
October 5, 2022 8:56 pm

The vast majority of coal exported from Tsawassen is metallurgical coal, not thermal. Without metallurgical coal one cannot build towers for wind turbines.

gbaikie
October 4, 2022 7:26 pm

The Prime Minister Canada identifies as Chinese [and Black].
And the Chinese don’t give hoot about trees or CO2

emmanuelozon
October 5, 2022 5:10 am

I burn wood, and coal to heat my home. I care not at all what the greenies say. The wood I buy, and the coal I buy, cost me a third of what my neighbors pay for heating their homes.

ATheoK
October 5, 2022 7:14 am

Panorama discovered Drax bought logging licences to cut down two areas of environmentally-important forest in British Columbia.”

That must be one of the most absurd business practice, ever.
Using fossil fuels to cut down wood, ship it by land or sea many thousands of miles, yet claim it is environmentally friendly or cost efficient.

That is a clear misuse of UK taxpayer funds.

D. Dysart
October 5, 2022 9:31 am

Why BBC.Is it because of the left wing media ignoring this. Similar to ignoring all real news.

%d bloggers like this: