Skip to content

Shock News! Govt Report Says Govt Is Right.

March 14, 2017
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2017/03/uk-government-report-positive-on-biomass.html

 

Shock news. UK government commissioned report gives it the results it wanted!

 

From PEI:

 

A report commissioned by the UK Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has found that using biomass instead of coal is playing a positive part in decarbonizing the power sector.
The findings, by Ricardo Energy & Environment, come in a week where the biomass power sector has had to defend the technology’s reputation as a positive replacement for coal-fired power.

The study titled “Use of North American woody biomass in UK electricity generation”, reaffirms the positive impact of US biomass industry on US forests and carbon emissions.

 

No surprise there then!

 

According to PEI, the report shows that using wood pellets for energy generation supports healthy forests and generates significant carbon savings at a lower cost. Thanks to a strong forest market, to which woody biomass contributes,  forest inventory in southern US forests has continued to increase year over year for the last several decades.”

 

So the fact that forests have grown for several decades has something to do with the fact that we are now burning them. You could not make it up.

Did anybody seriously expect that the report would come to any other conclusions? If it had, a large plank of the government’s decarbonisation strategy would have gone up in smoke.

After all, plant biomass is now producing 6% of the UK’s electricity.

 

Not everybody is convinced though, as PEI report:

 

However biomass’s doubters remain undeterred. RSPB website pointed out the introduction to the report, stating it “openly admits that ‘bioenergy is not carbon neutral’ because of direct and indirect land use changes. And it goes on to admit that its own emissions calculation methodology is the reason that high-carbon bioenergy is being classified as low carbon and as eligible for subsidy. This is an astonishing admission in a Government-produced report, and suggests the need for urgent action to fix a broken bioenergy policy that could be failing to deliver emissions savings.

The report’s findings are centred around a questionnaire sent to 56 stakeholders. As the Table below shows, the respondents are heavily skewed to those involved in the pellet supply chain -  forest owners, pellet producers and users.

Even Drax were involved!

 

image

image

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-of-high-carbon-north-american-woody-biomass-in-uk-electricity-generation#_blank

 

The idea that this study is in any way objective is frankly ludicrous.

Advertisements
13 Comments
  1. AlecM permalink
    March 14, 2017 12:29 pm

    So, when the Carbon Stazi tell me that my wood burner in London ist verboten, I must apply to legalise it as biomass?

    • March 14, 2017 12:54 pm

      You’re ahead of the game on that one though I strongly suspect that it would only be legal if you apply to import the wood from the US and use it to make electricity. On the other hand that would probably entitle you to £Squillions of subsidy which should comfort you in old age.

      Off topic … The scientific illiterates at the Telegraph are at it again. Apart from breathlessly trumpeting that today is likely to be the warmest day of the year so far (with Spring starting officially in a week’s time and unofficially having started two weeks ago this is a news item how exactly?) it appears that today will be “twice as warm” as the average!

      it’s probably as well the article isn’t open for comments. It would be hard to know where to start without being in danger of getting banned for life!

  2. Joe Public permalink
    March 14, 2017 12:58 pm

    Ocean acidification:

    How do oceans know how to not absorb biomass-emitted CO2 at the expense of other fossil fuels-emitted CO2?

    • catweazle666 permalink
      March 14, 2017 2:20 pm

      Can’t the EUSSR make a law to oblige CO2 molecules have little labels saying whether they’re good CO2 molecules or bad CO2 molecules?

      That shouldn’t be difficult for them, I mean, they’ve already repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics, haven’t they?

  3. Gerry, England permalink
    March 14, 2017 1:08 pm

    Table 8.1 should say that ‘The majority of the people – if not all – who responded to the survey have a dog in the fight.’

  4. dangeroosdave permalink
    March 14, 2017 1:56 pm

    Can’t we burn the biomasses directly in our cave, and get heat and light and cooking directly without all the wires? Who is going to bring me the biomass directly every am? And we can make pictures on the walls…

  5. martinbrumby permalink
    March 14, 2017 3:03 pm

    Of course, HMG has much form with this kind of twaddle.

    Look at HMG’s “Scientific Advisors” who almost invariably are carefully selected to give precisely the ‘advice’ that HMG has decided they most need. All part of the policy based evidence making process.

    The ethics of this merry team would make ‘Miss Whiplash’ look like a blushing novice in a convent.

  6. March 14, 2017 3:05 pm

    “Govt Report Says Govt Is Right”. That is why it is pointless to respond to Government consultations about Government policy – but I do continue to respond anyway. There is no way I can be blamed for Government catastrophic policies. I can say I told you so on dozens of occasions.

  7. March 14, 2017 7:54 pm

    In other news…100% of widget salesmen recommend widgets.

  8. March 14, 2017 8:25 pm

    Why importing biomass from the USA? Wouldnt it be GREENER to import from Amazon?
    UK could also burn cheap mahogany or ebony from Africa.
    Or even ivory tusks.
    Anything is better than dirty coal or damned oil!

  9. March 14, 2017 10:57 pm

    Purely Orwellian double speak.To new readers of this site,it is well known that burning wood produces more CO2 than the burning of coal.Search back thru previous papers on this subject for the info.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 15, 2017 1:37 pm

      And less heat due to the difference in energy density. I burn both on my fire.

      • David Richardson permalink
        March 15, 2017 6:22 pm

        I find government reports burn well Gerry. I think it is the fact that they are impregnated with pure steer droppings.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: