Skip to content

Pulp Fiction

February 9, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




The EU is currently reviewing UK subsidies for biomass power, but mainly in respect of business and economic impacts. As we already know, there are much wider and potentially damaging ecological and environmental impacts.

However, one issue that seem to be totally ignored is the question of whether biomass even reduces GHG emissions.

Climate Central, an outfit that thinks we are going to fry, put together this far reaching report last October, which goes to the heart of the nonsense that is biomass:




Pulp Fiction

The European Accounting Error That’s Warming the Planet


As the world tries to shift away from fossil fuels, the energy industry is turning to what seems to be an endless supply of renewable energy: wood. In England and across Europe, wood has become the renewable of choice, with forests — many of them in the U.S. — being razed to help feed surging demand. But as this five-month Climate Central investigation reveals, renewable energy doesn’t necessarily mean clean energy. Burning trees as fuel in power plants is heating the atmosphere more quickly than coal.

Climate Central reporter John Upton traveled to England and through the U.S. Southeast to investigate both ends of the global trade in wood pellets, interviewing scientists, politicians, policy makers, activists, workers and industry leaders. Europe has long been viewed as the wellspring of climate action. But the loophole that’s promoting wood burning is so overlooked, he discovered, that it’s unlikely to even be raised during global climate treaty negotiations in Paris this December.





SELBY, U.K. – The heavy power lines and narrow roads between the steam-billowing towers of three of England’s biggest power plants traverse an energy industry in upheaval. Shuttered coal mines are flanked by emerald pastures. Towering wind turbines and solar arrays have taken root in windblown cereal fields.

In the middle of the transition is the Drax Power Station — Western Europe’s largest coal power plant, as big and powerful as many nuclear stations. The 4-gigawatt facility was built in the 1970s and ‘80s in this bucolic Yorkshire parish to burn the fruits of a local coal-mining boom. Droves of miners arrived in double-decker bus loads at a region known as Megawatt Valley.

“We used to sit on the doorstep — me and the kids — singing, ‘Hi ho, hi ho,’” said Pamela Ross, a former mine administrative worker and union rep. In the dining room of a converted farmhouse between castle remnants and two village thoroughfares, where she has lived since 1988, she rifled through yellowing government documents and photos of mine groundbreakings, lamenting the wheezing of what once was a strapping local industry. “We have hundreds of years of coal still underground,” she said. “But it’s likely to stay there.”

Nostalgia about the coal sector’s misfortune is far from universal. The cheap black rock that powered the Industrial Revolution is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. As the world cracks down on climate pollution and deadly air pollution, it’s scrambling to deploy cleaner energy alternatives. The European Union has led the world in passing stringent climate laws — and urging the rest of the world to follow.

In England and across Europe, the most popular source of renewable energy is wood. But chopping down trees — many of them in the U.S. — and burning the wood heats the planet more quickly than burning coal. Yet plants like Drax receive financial support to switch from coal to wood. That’s because of an entrenched loophole in the EU’s climate rules.

That loophole treats electricity generated by burning wood as a “carbon neutral” or “zero emissions” energy source — the same as solar panels or wind turbines. When power plants in major European countries burn wood, the only carbon dioxide pollution they report is from the burning of fossil fuels needed to manufacture and transport the woody fuel. European law assumes climate pollution released directly by burning fuel made from trees doesn’t matter, because it will be re-absorbed by trees that grow to replace them.

The assumption is convenient, but wrong. Climate science has been rejecting it for more than 20 years. It ignores the decades it can take for a replacement forest to grow to be as big as one that was chopped down for energy— or the possibility that it won’t regrow at all. The assumption also ignores the loss of a tree’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide after it gets cut down, pelletized and vaporized.


The accounting trick allows the energy industry to pump tens of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air every year and pretend it doesn’t exist.

Analysis of Drax data reveals that its boilers release 15 to 20 percent more carbon dioxide when they burn wood than when they burn coal. That doesn’t even factor in the loss of a forest’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide after it’s cut down and used for electricity, nor does it account for pollution from drying and transporting the wood.

Drax isn’t the only power plant switching to wood from coal, but it’s the biggest. It’s importing more wood pellets than any other as it pioneers a new biomass energy supply chain. (Biomass energy refers to the burning of organic matter to produce power, heat or electricity.) With the last active coal pit in Selby about to be boarded up, nearly half of Drax’s electricity is now coming from biomass — mostly from wood pellets.

Wood has quietly become the largest source of what counts as “renewable” energy in the EU. Wood burning in Europe produced as much energy as burning 620 million barrels of oil last year (both in power plants and for home heating). That accounted for nearly half of all Europe’s renewable energy. That’s helping nations meet the requirements of EU climate laws on paper, if not in spirit.



Nearly Half of Europe’s Renewable Energy Comes from Wood Energy

While Europe is ground zero for coal-to-wood power plant conversions, the impacts aren’t being contained inside its borders. To feed the growing appetite of power plants now burning wood, forests of the U.S. Southeast are being cut down, pelletized and shipped across the ocean. And now Asia is joining the trend, accelerating the wood pellet sector’s growth — and worsening its toll on the climate.

The utilities and other companies producing Europe’s renewable energy are receiving big, publicly funded payouts that virtually guarantee profits. Because wood counts as a renewable source of electricity, power plants that burn it are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in climate subsidies. They’re also avoiding tens of millions more in fees normally levied on climate polluters.

Those subsidies mean wood energy is projected to continue to grow steeply in Europe, hastening climate change as global warming’s effects become more profound. Average global temperatures have risen more than 1.5°F since the Industrial Revolution. Seas have risen more than half a foot. Global warming appears to have contributed to the drought that inflamed warfare in Syria, and it’s making the drought worse in California. Earth models warn of bleak futures unless climate pollution is radically reduced. Incinerating trees for electricity is exacerbating those dangers, say scientists.

“For mitigating climate change,” said Stephen Mitchell, a Duke University researcher who led research a few years ago that modeled the climate effects of using forests for energy, “it makes much more sense to just continue to let them grow.”

In 2011, the science committee of the EU’s environment agency warned that the “bioenergy accounting error” had “immense” potential consequences for the planet’s forests and climate. Attempts to introduce sustainability standards that could curtail the use of harmful wood energy across the EU have so far been blocked by Finland and Sweden. Those countries are poor in fossil fuel reserves but home to vast forests, which they harvest and burn for heating and electricity. About 100 wood pellet plants operate in those two countries alone.

“A forest isn’t instantaneously renewable,” said Oregon State University professor Mark Harmon, an advisor to the EPA on measuring climate pollution from wood fuel. “It renews over a time horizon that’s quite long. If people go out and start burning wood from an area that hasn’t been harvested for that purpose, it won’t be carbon neutral.”

Harmon helped Mitchell design landscape modelling experiments. They simulated how much fossil fuel use was avoided when trees were used as fuel; how much climate pollution the wood burning put into the atmosphere; and how much pollution forests sucked back out of the air.

Inside the computer model, some natural forests and plantation forests were left to grow. Others were clear-cut every few decades to provide fuel for power plants. It took centuries before using older natural forests for wood energy provided climate benefits, compared with leaving them to grow. Plantation forests took decades to centuries.1 Other studies have shown similar results; it takes decades, or even centuries, before burning trees for electricity can be considered carbon neutral.

From a climate perspective, wood energy is unlike most other renewables. Wind turbines, solar panels and hydropower suck energy out of the environment to produce electricity. Wood must be burned to release its energy, which also releases its climate-changing carbon.

Pound for pound, burning wood releases less energy but more carbon than a fossil fuel. And burning wood releases an immediate pulse of carbon dioxide. It takes a long time for a forest to begin to recover, and then to absorb an equivalent amount of pollution as it regrows — if it ever does.




Section 2.

European Energy, Grown in America



One wintry morning in 1998, John Swaan found salvation in Europe’s budding appetite for wood pellet energy. He had borrowed against his home to invest in a wood pellet mill. His family faced financial ruin.

Shortly after the mill began operating in the mid-1990s, the booming market for home heating pellets in the Pacific Northwest tanked — undercut by cheap natural gas flowing from the fracking boom.

Swaan and his business partners needed a new market. He flew to Sweden where he had heard power plants were burning wood to try to reduce pollution from fossil fuels. Within a year, Swaan was helping to load up a cargo ship bound for Helsingborg, with 15,000 tons of pellets produced by his 50,000-ton-a-year pellet mill.

The shipment secured Swaan’s financial future. “It was out of necessity and desperation,” he said. Orders from Europe kept flowing — and growing. Nearly 20 years later, Swaan is an investor in a Canadian company that produces wood pellets for export to Europe and Asia, and he’s a prominent consultant to the fast-growing sector — one that has turned to the lush forests of the Southeast for the bulk of its wood.

Nowadays, European power plants buying pellets are seeking expedient relief from Europe’s 2009 renewable energy directive, which requires at least 20 percent of energy needs be met by 2020 from renewable sources. Biomass — including the burning of wood — and some biofuels count as renewable. Europe’s “20-20-20” targets also require 20 percent improvements in energy efficiency and 20 percent reduction in climate pollution by 2020, compared with 1990.

A global wood pellet industry serving power plants is being built on the back of subsidies in Europe. Purchases of pellets are being funded with hundreds of millions of dollars in renewable energy support from national governments seeking to meet the continent’s climate targets. That money could be funding cleaner alternatives.

The wood pellet trade wouldn’t exist were it not for those generous subsidies — the fuel can’t compete with coal or gas on price. And those subsidies are only available because of the EU’s unscientifically rosy view of wood energy’s effects on the climate.

Drax’s ledgers reveal the critical importance of public support for the growth of wood pellet energy. The company is able to post annual profits despite rising fuel expenses from importing wood pellets. It reported nearly $700 million in profits in 2014, which was supported by about $550 million in U.K. green energy subsidies. The subsidies come from climate levies on electricity bills.

Much more money than that is potentially at stake. The U.K. government has estimated that using wood pellets to help meet its European climate obligations could save it more than $50 billion by 2050, compared with relying solely on other renewables. Alternatives like solar and wind energy are cleaner than wood burning. But they’re currently more expensive and, unless they’re paired with powerful batteries, they can’t produce a steady supply of around-the-clock electricity.


“When the wind’s not blowing, when the sun’s not shining, you need the plant to be there to actually keep the lights on,” Drax Power CEO Andy Koss said. “When you look at the whole system-cost basis, we would say biomass conversion is one of — if not the — cheapest renewables on the system.”

Drax’s switch to wood pellets is sparing the plant from the threat of permanent shutdown. The company is in talks with the U.K. government to convert the fourth of its six units to run on wood pellets. The U.K. has already provided or promised nearly $1 billion to help Drax meet the cost of running three boilers on wood, according to estimates. The company also received a loan for about $150 million from a bank created and funded by the U.K. government to back green projects.

“There’s no reason why we couldn’t convert the whole plant to biomass,” Koss said. “The issue is biomass is about four times the cost of coal, so we do need government support in order to make those switches from coal to biomass.”You can buy a lot of wood pellets with those kinds of subsidies. In 2015, Drax expects to burn through more than 6 million tons of them — which would be produced by dehydrating about twice that much fresh wood. That’s equivalent to the yearly wood harvests from all U.K. forests combined.

Drax Power Station is releasing more carbon dioxide than when it was burning only coal. In 2013, when just one of Drax’s six boilers was running on wood, it released nearly 3 million tons of carbon dioxide that it was not required to report. Now burning mostly wood in three of its six boilers, the company is keeping more climate pollution off its books every year than is being produced by many small nations.



And that’s just for one power plant — albeit England’s largest.

Drax is trailblazing through American forests — and others are following it. The owners of the 420-megawatt Lynemouth coal power plant in Northumberland have tentatively secured U.K. subsidies to convert to run on wood pellets. Uskmouth Power Station reopened in Wales this year with the intention of running on wood pellets, and numerous smaller electricity generators in the U.K. are also running on wood or planning to do so.

Similar conversions have been planned or undertaken in Denmark, France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands.





Europe has long used pellets to keep buildings warm; using wood pellets in power plants is new. The EU produces enough pellets for roughly two-thirds of its growing demand, industry figures show. The U.S. is meeting more than half the continent’s rising demand for imported pellets, exporting about three times as much to Europe as Canada and nearly five times as much as Russia last year, U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. Yearly wood pellet exports from the U.S. to Europe have more than doubled in the last few years — to nearly 4 million tons in 2014.

The expanding use of pellets in power plants is harming the climate, but burning wood for energy isn’t always harmful. If it would have been burned in a field as logging waste, it may be better to burn it in a power plant instead. The carbon was going to enter the atmosphere anyway, and using the wood for electricity could reduce fossil fuel use. And if a forest loses a sustainable amount of firewood every year, a balance with the climate is eventually struck.

Mitchell’s and Harmon’s modeling experiments showed that planting a forest on an abandoned farm — and eventually cutting it down and burning it for energy every few decades — helps the climate overall. That’s because carbon dioxide was absorbed by a formerly barren landscape prior to it being released to the atmosphere.

None of that is happening in the American forests where whole trees are being cut down to meet the needs of this fast-growing energy industry. Forestry waste isn’t normally burned off in the Southeast, where most of the wood pellets are being made. And the industry has quickly grown too large to rely on forestry waste.




Section 3.

The Tiny Oversight With a Climate Hangover



The misnomer of carbon neutrality was spawned by a misinterpretation, and it wriggled into European policies virtually unnoticed.

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its debut climate science assessment in 1990, it listed climate impacts from energy and forestry sectors in different chapters. Energy got its own chapter. Forestry was lumped in with the “land use” chapter.

Whenever forest products were harvested for energy, the IPCC scientists noted the climate impact in the land-use chapter. To avoid duplication, they did not count it in the energy chapter. Their decision to note the climate impacts under land use instead of energy was a seemingly arbitrary decision that’s being seized upon by the growing wood energy industry.

In the 1990s, little thought was given to large-scale wood energy. So the potential loophole was barely noticed when it was included in the Kyoto Protocol, the historic 1998 climate agreement. The protocol ultimately affected few nations: the U.S. never ratified it, Canada withdrew, China and India were excluded, and Australia’s targets were so weak as to be nearly meaningless.


But civic-minded Europe took the protocol seriously and the EU launched a carbon cap-and-trade program in 2005 to help it meet its pollution reductions required under the protocol. The program governs pollution produced by fossil fuels, and it treats wood energy like any other renewable.

Article 2 of the EU Renewable Energy Directive lists biomass right after “hydropower” and just before “landfill gas” on its list of 11 items exempt from cap-and-trade fees.

The blanket definition of biomass as carbon neutral is scientifically flawed, but it’s been left unchallenged by international law. The U.N. climate agreements that came after Kyoto have all been silent on wood energy’s impacts on the planet.

“There have never been very strong incentives in the global climate agreements for industrial countries to care about emissions from land, agriculture and forests,” said Sini Eräjää, a bioenergy policy officer with Birdlife International. The nonprofit is involved with international climate negotiations, and it co-published a paper in March calling for reforms in how Europe treats wood energy. “It’s been easy to just move emissions from the energy sector to land and forests, as in the case of bioenergy.”

The EU does not report any climate pollution when wood is burned

Taking the IPCC’s approach as its blessing, the EU does not report any climate pollution when wood is burned. Nor does it report any climate pollution when trees are cut down to provide the energy.

Even in the late 1990s, as John Swaan’s maiden pellet shipment was forging a new path abroad for America’s wood pellets, scientists knew that wood is not always carbon neutral.

“The idea of carbon neutrality is kind of a silly one,” said Gregg Marland, an adjunct professor at Appalachian State University.

During the 1990s, while Marland was researching climate change at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, he collaborated on a seminal series of papers that attempted to grasp climate implications of burning forestry material for energy.

Different “strategies proposed for using forest management” to generate energy “can have very different paths” for any climate benefits, Marland and two coauthors wrote in a 1997 paper.2

A large team of mostly American scientists drew fresh attention to wood energy’s climate impacts in 2009. Writing in Science, they described a “far-reaching but fixable flaw” of treating wood energy as zero-carbon in global climate policy — a flaw that the scientists warned would “severely undermine greenhouse gas reduction goals.”3

A year later, a report commissioned by Massachusetts convinced state officials to restrict the use of some wood electricity as a renewable. That study, led by the non-profit Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, pushed forward the concept of a carbon debt.

When trees are cut down, they stop absorbing carbon dioxide, and when they are burned for electricity, all the carbon that had been stored in their wood becomes fresh carbon dioxide pollution. That’s a debt to the climate. If the forest regrows, it may eventually absorb enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to pay off that debt. If wood replaces natural gas as an electricity source, the payoff time was found to be more than 90 years. Using wood to replace coal, it still took 20 years.

Modeling by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental nonprofit, suggests it takes some American hardwood forests 40 to 70 years to soak up as much carbon as they spill to the atmosphere when they’re cut down for wood pellets. Findings like those have recently turned NRDC into a vocal foe of using biomass for fuel. “We don’t need to be creative when it comes to using forests to slow climate change,” NRDC policy analyst Sasha Stashwick said. “They’re already doing all that they can do.”



Wood Pellets Emit More Carbon Than Coal

Europe’s IOUs to the climate are racking up with every cargo ship that docks at the continent with holds full of wood pellets.

The EU has encouraged the burning of wood for electricity, without any rules to ensure that the debt to the climate is repaid — such as requiring that forests used for pellets are replanted or allowed to fully regrow. Nor do power plants pay any interest on their climate debts through Europe’s carbon trading program.

North America’s oldest cap-and-trade system, the U.S. Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, affecting states such as Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York, treats wood energy in much the same way as Europe. So, too, does California’s. Pollution from wood is simply being wiped clean from climate ledgers.

But that isn’t keeping it out of the atmosphere.

  1. Joe Public permalink
    February 9, 2016 4:36 pm

    Paul, there’s a massive source of biomass on our doorsteps.

    Apparently, Europe has been planted with the wrong sorts of trees.'Wrong+Type+of+Trees

  2. February 9, 2016 4:53 pm

    This merely demonstrates clearly that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

    The USA continues its climate-fear game of driving the EU into further carbon-mania while selling coal and wood very successfully. If wood were really economic it would have been a main fuel many years ago: and it is a prime fuel in Scandinavia for this reason.

    It beggars belief that the IPCC / EU / UK government advisers cannot see that burning wood is bad economics as well as technical nonsense. As one of the “Researchers” pointed out, it is far more carbon-efficient to burn coal and leave the trees while planting more.

    Joe Public’s “wrong type of trees” made me laugh, maybe I should have cried!

  3. Ben Vorlich permalink
    February 9, 2016 5:47 pm

    Wood is a major fuel for domestic heating across the European mainland. This too should be added to the equation.In fact Parisians have recently been permitted to use wood again.

    Since 15 December, Parisians – like all the inhabitants of the municipalities of Île-de-France – are allowed to light a fire in their fireplace. However, several conditions must be met for the 800,000 households so equipped. It must first verify that the building regulations authorize their use and of course scrupulously respect both prefectural orders issued. These stipulate that in fact only the approval fires are allowed. If fans want their chimney to be their main source of heating, then they must be equipped with an insert, that is to say of an enclosed stove.

    If all 800,000 fires are put into operation burning roughly 2 cords of wood per year is about 3,000,000 tonnes just in Paris. Two cords based on what people in Limousin use.

    • February 10, 2016 1:52 pm

      I’m pretty sure that’s already done. A few months back I suddenly noticed Germany got a huge percentage of it’s energy from biomass..and concluded it must be cos they traditionally burn wood in home woodstoves.

  4. February 9, 2016 6:17 pm

    Someone on TV recently gave a figure of 1 hectare (about the size of a rugby ground) as the area of woodland required to supply wood (dare I include the word “sustainably”) to heat a small cottage in the UK. Clearly, biomass heating will only ever be a small niche thing for people without access to grid gas or district heating, plus of course providing some “free” money via the Renewable Heat Incentive.

  5. manicbeancounter permalink
    February 9, 2016 7:07 pm

    The classification of wood as a renewable is through letting climate advocates decide their own performance standards. It is similar to climate scientists deciding on the standards to evaluate the average temperature anomaly data sets or proxy temperature data.
    Then you have the climate bullies who railroad through the results they want, and denounce any questioning as lies. So even with standards in place, the would be sufficiently opaque that the results would be still biased. A bit like the accounting standards of the 1980s that the late Robert Maxwell bulldozed aside and sued anyone who dared suggest otherwise.

  6. John F. Hultquist permalink
    February 9, 2016 11:10 pm

    Wealth creation and wealth destruction are two things governments do well. John Swaan, the pellet guy from western North America, found “out of necessity and desperation” a way to get his share of other people’s money. Years ago, power from coal was encouraged to help the US be less dependent on over-seas oil. Miners worked, companies grew, and investors made money. Now the government wants to get rid of coal power (easier because of lessening costs of natural gas) and miners don’t work, companies go bankrupt, and investors loose money.
    When governments turn against wood pellets the wealth now being created will be destroyed. Tax payers and users of energy will have to pay more for a replacement, whatever that might be. But the costs of turning DRAX and others to wood from coal will not magically disappear. Nor will they be recovered.
    These disruptions by government are wasteful and disheartening.

  7. February 9, 2016 11:46 pm

    We heat with wood when occupying my Wisconsin dairy farm. A woodburning stove/firebox/fireplace (depending on door placements) in the 1880’s log cavin, and a double walled heater next to the propane furnace for the rest, feeding the same warm air plenum as the high efficienct propane furnace via an electricity powered fan under the firebox. Works great. Uses maybe 6- 8 true wood cords/ winter, easily supplied by our three woodlots totalling over 100 acres. Cut with gas powered chain saws, snagged to the woodpile with diesel ag tractors, cut to bolts with gas powered chain saws. We still like to split the bolts by hand, since firewood can warm twice: splitting, burning. Doubt most folks in UK have such landholding opportunities. Or anywhere else in the OECD.

  8. Mark Hodgson permalink
    February 10, 2016 8:41 am

    It makes a pleasant change to read this report from Climate Central. My problem with the eco-fascists and their belief system is that they seem determined to introduce policies which, as well as destroying our economy and plunging millions into fuel poverty, fail by their own lights – often increasing rather than reducing CO2 emissions.

    Challenge them on this and they either go quiet (while admitting nothing) or howl you down as being “in the pay of big oil, big coal or” other similar rubbish. Yet it ought to be possible to believe that CO2 emissions are a threat (I don’t, but that’s not the point) whilst recognising that the policies they have saddled us with are either useless at dealing with that perceived problem, or even make the situation worse (while having the undesirable side-effects I mention above).

    I have long been mystified why a belief in the danger of CO2 emissions apparently has to go hand in hand with scientific and economic literacy. So it’s nice to see some common sense for one. Let’s hope it’s the start of something more sensible (though I’m not holding my breath).

    • Mark Hodgson permalink
      February 10, 2016 8:44 am

      That final paragraph should have referred to “scientific illiteracy” rather than literacy. It’s too early in the morning for this retired person!

  9. AndyG55 permalink
    February 10, 2016 11:39 am

    If Trump gets in as next US President, I suspect he will put a very quick stop to the woodchip harvesting of American forests.

  10. February 10, 2016 12:02 pm

    ” Global warming appears to have contributed to the drought that inflamed warfare in Syria”

    Oh dear. Then they went and spoilt it…

  11. February 10, 2016 1:55 pm

    What’s the PARTICULATE pollution one has given me a clear answer

    I suspect wood emits more particulates that coal.
    (much other biomass is gas-ified first.. as is some coal underground)

  12. Wally permalink
    February 13, 2016 3:20 am

    There is a verse in the Bible which describes the “Scientists of the Settled Science Religion”. Romans 1:22 “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools”. Do they really know what they are doing?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: