From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness

Drax, once the UK’s dirtiest coal-fired power station, is set to stoke renewed controversy as ministers prepare to approve a multibillion-pound CO2 capture scheme it claims would make it “carbon negative”.
The scheme has infuriated greens already angered by Drax’s switch from coal to wood – burning eight million tonnes last year alone. They say Drax’s clear-cutting of forests in North America destroys the environment rather than supporting it.
Next week, however, Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho is expected to secure Drax’s future by approving a scheme to bolt two massive carbon capture plants onto Drax’s four generating units, potentially stripping out almost all their CO2 emissions.
Drax claims the scheme will allow it to remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than it produces – making it the world’s first carbon negative thermal power station. Greens claim it will destroy forests and cost consumers billions of pounds.
Ms Coutinho is also due to launch a consultation into how best to extend the subsidy system under which Drax last year received £617m from consumer bills. The scheme terminates in 2027 so Coutinho will propose extending it into at least the 2030s, keeping Drax in business for at least several years.
Schemes like Drax’s, known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or Beccs, are highly controversial – green groups argue that cutting down forests to generate electricity destroys the environment rather than protecting it.
Drax produces about 4pc of the UK’s electricity so ministers are keen to protect it on energy security grounds too.
The idea underpinning Beccs schemes is that as plants and trees grow they capture CO2 from the air via photosynthesis.
If they are burned then that CO2 is released back into the air so there is no overall loss or gain. This means wood-burning on its own can be described as “low carbon”.
However, if the CO2 from burning wood is captured and permanently buried underground, as Drax proposes, then the process actually removes CO2 from the atmosphere permanently. This would make it “carbon negative”.
Such claims infuriate environmentalists and Drax’s plans have been opposed by Friends of the Earth, Client Earth and Ember. They say that despite changing from coal to wood Drax remains the UK’s largest single source of CO2 emissions at more than 13 million tonnes a year.
Tomos Harrison, an analyst at global energy think tank Ember, said: “UK energy bill-payers have already paid billions to Drax to burn wood for electricity, a practice which is unlikely to reduce the UK’s contribution to climate change and could actually be increasing it.
“Beccs is an unproven and controversial technology that cannot be guaranteed to deliver negative emissions and will cost bill-payers even more.
“Instead of continuing support for wood-burning in the UK we should be investing in wind and solar which bring down energy bills and make a genuine positive contribution to the UK’s climate change efforts.”
I can’t describe it better then the Greens – it’s doubling down on destroying virgin forests in North America, it’s massively expensive, and it may not even work.
Drax alone are talking of investing billions, and on top of that comes the costs of piping it all away to the North Sea. We already know that Carbon Capture plants require a lot of energy to work, meaning that much of Drax’s electricity will be wasted in the process.
Simply extending the existing subsidy schemes for another 15 years, which will the very least Drax will demand, will cost £10 billion. All of this will end up being added to our energy bills.
And for what? Even if it works perfectly, carbon capture will only save 4% of the UK’s emissions, some 15 million tonnes a year or so. A mere drip in the ocean of the world’s total emissions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Surely all the green billionaires who are trying to change our lives to eat bugs and walk instead of driving would love to spring a few bucks on a carbon-sequestrator – they could paint their name on it!
It was the so-called greens who forced the change from coal to timber in the first place and us sceptics who said shipping cut timber across the Atlantic to burn in a power station was eco-madness!
The Greens always promote the idea, then after implementation shows the opposite effect to that claimed, suddenly say not their idea and its not working.
Lower Car Tax on Diesel’s in UK as they emit lower CO2 per mile than petrol cars. Remember that one.
Look on the bright side. It keeps our one remaining big coal station open until the madness abates.
While I would agree that burning wood versus coal makes little sense this latter statement shows the lunacy of the environuts “Instead of continuing support for wood-burning in the UK we should be investing in wind and solar which bring down energy bills and make a genuine positive contribution to the UK’s climate change efforts.”. Secondly, a minor quibble, there are no virgin forests being clear cut to supply Drax. I would suspect that the only virgin forests in North American are found on protected land such as national parks.
[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]
The idea underpinning Beccs schemes is that as plants and trees grow they capture CO2 from the air via photosynthesis.
If they are burned then that CO2 is released back into the air so there is no overall loss or gain. This means wood-burning on its own can be described as “low carbon”.
However, if the CO2 from burning wood is captured and permanently buried underground, as Drax proposes, then the process actually removes CO2 from the atmosphere permanently. This would make it “carbon negative”.
Could some engineer please teach these people to do a realistic mass balance on CO2?
If, instead of being clear-cut, the trees “in North America” remained alive, they would continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere by photosynthesis until they died or were blown down in a storm. Once they are cut down, they no longer remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and any CO2 they absorbed during their lifetime is re-emitted. Are there any plans to plant young trees to replace the ones that were clear-cut?
Besides, how much fossil-fuel energy is required to do the following?:
Clear-cut the trees (probably using gasoline-powered chain saws)
Transport the logs from the forest to a port city on the Atlantic Ocean (using diesel-powered trucks)
Ship the logs across the Atlantic Ocean to the UK (ships powered by bunker fuel)
Transport the logs from a British port city to the Drax plant (diesel-powered “lorries” again)
If they want to bury the captured CO2 underground, it needs to be compressed to at least 1100 psi (about 78 bars). Since it is usually emitted at low pressure from a power plant, the power required for compression reduces the efficiency of the wood-burning power plant by about 30%, so that the amount of wood needed per MWh generated increases.
Anyone believing that such a scheme to clear-cut forests in North America to fuel a British power plant is “carbon negative” does not have a triple-digit IQ.
Convert Drax back to a coal burner, make it as pollution free as is reasonable and don’t worry about the CO2. Energy will be cheaper, America can keep its forests and it will give you time to build lots of nuclear plants. It’s a win win.
“The idea underpinning Beccs schemes is that as plants and trees grow they capture CO2 from the air via photosynthesis.
If they are burned then that CO2 is released back into the air so there is no overall loss or gain.”
Malthusians are incorrigibly linear thinkers. If you didn’t burn the wood in the first place, that same wood would be growing bigger fixing carbon without a Drax. Why not burn coal which gives 50% more power than the wood (which also has a large carbon footprint to cut, ship and transport to Drax) and leave the the trees standing to sequester the much lower CO2 that would be emitted.
It would have been cheaper, cleaner, and more economically sustainable to switch to natural gas. It still would be.
But the “capture” plant wouldn’t be expensive at all: Drax just needs to bury a portion of their fuel without burning it. You’re about to be conned, again, UK, because you’ll have to pay a premium for that unburned fuel on top of the subsidies in your current electricity bill (which will more than triple in KWH when they take away your boilers and gas stoves).
Hre’s the Drax record of plant utilisation for the units subsidised by ROCs:
https://www.ref.org.uk/generators/include/graph_monthly.php?rid=C00083RAEN®oid=C00526BWEN&lecid=0
And here’s the CFD subsidised part together with Lynemouth