Enviva Near Collapse
By Paul Homewood
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/11/enviva-the-worlds-largest-biomass-energy-company-is-near-collapse/
Enviva is one of Drax’s major suppliers of wood pellets, supplying 15% of its total requirement.
But what is interesting is this part of the Mongabay report:
“The problems have been there for years. There are lots of issues, but they stem from fundamental challenges Enviva faces in wood costs and keeping its manufacturing plants operating at full capacity,” a former Enviva maintenance manager told Mongabay. “It’s all coming home to roost in a kind of cumulative way.”
In exclusive interviews with Mongabay, the former Enviva employee detailed critical problems he witnessed and grappled with as a top operations manager at two of Enviva’s 10 Southeast U.S. plants between mid-2020 and mid-2022. His insights help explain why Enviva is now in dire financial straits.
In a Dec. 5, 2022, Mongabay story that reverberated globally, this Enviva whistleblower was the first insider from the multibillion-dollar international wood pellet industry to ever go public. At the time, he accused Enviva of falsifying its green claims and not being truthful about where and how it sourced forest wood for the tons of pellets it makes every day in the U.S. for export.
“The company says that we use mostly waste like branches, treetops and debris to make pellets,” the whistleblower told Mongabay a year ago. “What a joke. We use 100% whole trees in our pellets. We hardly use any waste. Pellet density is critical. You get that from whole trees, not junk.”
But junk wood is cheap, while whole trees are not, and therein lies a part of Enviva’s operational problems.
The former employee — who declined to be named to protect his professional and family’s privacy — said last week that this wood-sourcing deception is one reason Enviva has been losing money.
“Enviva built a business model saying it uses mostly scrap and waste from lumber mills and cut sites to make its pellets,” he said. “If that were true, its feedstock would basically be free. But it has to buy trees, a lot of trees, and it’s competing for them with other companies that want that wood. Loggers sell to the highest bidder, right, and that drives up the price. It’s something Enviva can’t control.”
Drax of course have long maintained that its wood pellets are sustainably sourced and made mostly from sawmill residue and forest overgrowth. The evidence coming out of Enviva suggest that is a lie.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
‘Drax of course have long maintained that its wood pellets are sustainably sourced and made mostly from sawmill residue and forest overgrowth.’
“Fool me twice . . . .”
Journalists believed it. No rational person ever believed that.
We never believed the lies from Drax. They were making too much money from the subsidies paid for the scam of “green” (actually very dirty) energy.
Now that’s a bit of good news for a change. But let’s face it, if politicians get involved in trying to rescue the business they will, a: make things worse, and b: make things even more expensive. And, of course, I suppose Drax can’t be converted back to coal – or any other form of energy now.
” I suppose Drax can’t be converted back to coal ”
My guess is that this would be technically achievable, with the usual unknowns:
Cost
Timescale
My preference would be to construct new coal-fired stations where coal-fired was previously installed
I believe Drax still has two coal units and I recall that they were considering converting one to gas. But I suspect they gave up on that idea.
I thought Drax wanted to convert the remaining units to wood but the government refused to give them more taxpayers cash to do so. Not going to spend their own money, naturally.
Riddle me this, Batman: Could Drax be throwing some lumps of coal into that wood pellet fire (wink, wink)?
We know they have lied. We don’t know the extent of their lying.
Drax was the one who denuded the forest of the southeastern United States. Especially along the rivers.
it would not be that difficult – the boiler would need changes as it would be fed by pulverised coal dust rather than pellets (they may need another pulverising plant). whether the coal could again be produced from the nearby Kellingley or Selby coalfields (far better to use our own than imports) is another question.
The reason Drax was built where it is is because it is on top of one of the best coal seams in the area.
Very true, Mr Passfield, as the EU are looking at trying to save the windmill industry from collapse as having wind energy in the grids makes it too expensive to er….make windmills. There will be taxpayers cash and protective tariffs to help make the European windmills more competitive. Nothing they do will make electricity any cheaper in the EU of course.
Drax is a grand deception. It’s allowed to categorise it’s generation as carbon neutral because the trees will grow back…in 60 years.
Meanwhile its business case relies upon hand outs in the shape of government (tax and bill payer) subsidies, £617m in 2022 alone.
https://news.sky.com/story/drax-subsidies-for-power-giant-questioned-as-annual-profits-soar-12817690#:~:text=Drax's%20bioenergy%20operations%20makes%20it,chief%20operating%20officer%20at%20Ember.
Drax claims to generate 11% of our renewable electricity (one source claimed 7% of all electricity). If it cannot run its business on free market conditions it should wither and die.
‘It’s allowed to categorise it’s generation as carbon neutral because the trees will grow back…in 60 years.’
Yep. Grow the trees first, then burn them. Otherwise, it’s completely fake.
That’s the same as using corn or sugarcane to make ethanol for biofuels. They have to keep replanting (using vehicles that run on those fuels. A con game?
The ‘con’ is that you can manufacture energy with a net positive result.
Devoncamel,
Drax is not all bad, it is a very needed source of inertia, reactive power and short circuit level current, and could even assist with balancing although that reduces it’s profits. It’s the right sort of generator just using the wrong fuel and getting paid hansomely for it.
‘balancing…(costs)’. I assume you mean the costs for balancing that ruinables cause and which they don’t pay for – afaik.
Exactly. But the 60 years creates an ever-increasing deficit.
We have to be mindful of priorities here. I don’t care about sustainability and all that nonsense but I do care about keeping the lights on. As I understand it, Drax is key to the latter at least as far as the current UK supply situation is concerned. Lying about things is moral turpitude but burning wood for energy isn’t intrinsically sinful – we’ve always done it as a premium fuel and after processing as charcoal as a high temperature heat source for industrial processes. Replace Drax with a more efficient power source eventually for sure, but keep it running now (especially admiring the beauty of this morning’s ground frost).
The problem here isn’t burning wood (although I think it a silly idea) but the fact it was clearly done to deliberately mislead the public on the feasibility of using so called renewables as its relatively easy to convert a large baseload coal power station to burn wood and now a double digit share of the electricity is from biomass which can be hidden in the renewables label.
If biomass/ tree burning & the dash for interconnectors was never allowed in the first place as chartered electrical engineers were actually consulted the UK electricity supply situation would have being exposed over a decade ago so we would have had this energy price fuels cost of living situation now as we couldn’t have closed the coal power station or had no plan for replacing the then 7 GW approx nuclear capacity (AGR & magnox ) which was generating 18%+ of GB electricity as replacing them with either natural gas which would have required the lack of natural gas storage & dual fuel capability to be addressed as we already had close calls with supplying both gas for heating and electricity generation in extended cold weather where without coal there would have being rolling blackouts. So we would likely properly explore a proper new nuclear build 40 GW+ & fracking.
That is why the we really need an public inquiry lead by chartered electrical engineers & forensic accountants to review if the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority have complied with their duties under the Electricity Act 1989 and if any politicians or civil servants make any decisions they financially benefited from especially if a reasonable person would have made a different decision for potential misconduct in a public office charges and hopefully if a few of them end up in prison it will be a lesson to future politicians & civil servants.
If you care about keeping the lights on you do have to care about if the process to do so is sustainable in the sense that it can continue for the foreseeable future – clear cutting forests abroad and pretending this better for the environment and the thing being heavy subsidised gravy train was predictably going to end in a scandal at some point and be abruptly stopped vs coal mining which is more what you see is what you get.
But I do thing its good Drax is still around and can revert back to coal which I suspect will happen after the public outcry from the rolling blackouts that will likerly happen with the inevitable unusually cold winter.
I don’t dispute any of that – we shouldn’t be where we are for all the reasons given by posters. But we are where we are, and that includes not being able to do without Drax’s phoney renewable MegaWatts.
I agree & we need all the non natural gas dispatchable electricity generation we can get and if anything we need to resume burning coal in drax instead of wood ASAP as wood burning results in a lower output than coal.
Another nail in the net zero coffin, light at the end of the tunnel, ray of sunshine.
Its metaphor day!
Talking of a Ray of sunshine – that’s what my wife calls me…..sometimes.
When, and not if, Enviva collapses Drax etc. will be forced to find alternative suppliers, which are likely smaller and more widespread, operating on the same principle of free raw materials.
They will also be forced to purchase whole trees to meet demand, and they too will go the same way as Enviva.
We all knew events like this were coming, but they seem to be converging into one huge global energy train crash. Wind and solar are supported regardless of cost; EV’s are not selling; heat pumps are a disaster as people find them next to useless; predatory wind operators are pulling out of major contracts (and paying to do so); smart metre’s have cost the UK billions, and have never worked properly; 20mph limits cause congestion, pollution and are destructive to vehicles; 15 minute cities are being abandoned almost as fast as they are established.
The public are ignored by the technocrats masquerading as politicians, they are in thrall to unscientific proposition that the world is “Boiling”. The NATO alliance is crumbling; the UN is a disaster having failed to fulfil its primary roll to stop, or at least reduce, conflict across the world and has turned to climate change to justify its existence.
Our public discourse is poisoned by far-left activist’s infesting our broadcasters and legacy print media, many funded by Bill Gates and his vile billionaire acolytes.
Our freedom of expression is being plundered by well funded activist organisations attempting to enact 1930’s German suppression policies and to demonise the white Christian majority across the western world.
I would love to be my usual positive self and find a glass half full rather than one half empty. But I honestly can’t see anything in the glass at all.
Excellent analysis, though rather optimistic in my opinion.
Agreed, particularly with the UN , Antonio Guterres, is a useless leader, failing totally to manage conflict around the world, and fuelling the climate change scam. The world is “on fire” and “boiling”.
COP28 next week, let us hope that reality wins and the fall of net zero gathers pace, apparently 70,000 delegates are on the gravy train.
Gamecock expects snow in UAE.
Leader? You must be joking – surely he is being led by his Chinese sponsors…
Time to call time on Drax. Others may know better but I recall Drax said that it could revert to coal. Coal would again be pulverised and burnt in fluid bed combustion chambers.
The Selby coalfield was opened up next to Drax and the East Coast main line diverted to anticipate potential subsidence and avoid the severe speed limit required at Selby Bridge.
Drax has become a notorious drain on the Exchequer and a nice little earner for the shareholders. Talk about abuse of the market. The Greens seem indifferent to these surcharges on what might otherwise be a tolerable supply cost.
Michael Moore filmed the activities of the wood chip fuel industry in the U S .
Not a drain on the Exchequer but a drain on the taxpayers.
The subsidies are not funded by taxes but via bills. Every energy retailer must buy ROCs or pay into the cashout fund which is administered by OFGEM. The cost is included in your power bill. Much the same applies to CFDs with the Low Carbon Contracts Company as the intermediary.
We all knew that ‘waste wood’ was a lie. You only have to look at the Enviva processing plants to see that. I see no waste wood….
Drax says they have other sources of supply. But Drax is still negating any attempt to offset CO2 by planting trees.
.
Mind you, carbon offsets are a con anyway. Trees will always rot or burn after 50 years or so, so the ‘offset’ is only a temporary carbon storage anyway. So a Bill Gates company is planning to bury the trees, to create a new carboniferous era.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/15/1065016/a-stealth-effort-to-bury-wood-for-carbon-removal-has-just-raised-millions
This has to be a bat-shiite-crazy idea. The burial pit will have to be the size of Florida, and how do you stop fungi getting into it, and breaking down the lignin?
The carboniferous era only ended because fungi learned to eat lignin, which is why we have no new coal and oil seams. Bill Gate’s new carboniferous strata will suffer the same fate – fungi will thrive and the CO2 will leak out.
R
“I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” — Wimpy
Actually the Carboniferous coal measures ended because the world more or less ran out of carbon dioxide during the Karoo ice age. Fortunately carbon dioxide levels revived around the end of that ice age – probably because the Siberian steps volcanism burnt Carboniferous deposits. Most currently mined coal formed subsequently during the Cretaceous. It is true that the biological digestion of lignin makes it harder for new coal measures to form but I don’t think it would necessarily be impossible – however, there really isn’t enough carbon dioxide…
Cretaceous? Not in Britain, where all the coal is in Carboniferous rocks. Hence the depth the mines go down to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Extent_and_geology
Do you have links to Cretaceous coal seams?
R
I remember being taught in college many years ago that coal came from Cretaceous rather than Carboniferous – it seems it isn’t true. Don’t think it changes the rest of my comment.
Brown coal is more recent https://www.britannica.com/science/lignite
Well, it does change your assertion a bit.
It again suggests the rise of the lignin eating fungi largely ended the coal and oil deposition era (peat bogs aside). Thus the world can never repeat the coal and oil deposition era, in the far future.
This is important, because as a result, modern man will be the only technical civilisation on the planet. This can never happen again – we only have one shot at this. (We are dependent upon Musk getting us to Mars and beyond.)
Should modern man expire, for some reason, the world can never store up any fresh deposits of coal and oil. We have already taken all the easy coal and oil, and largely squandered it.
Another civilisation in 500 million years time, could never make the transition from wood to deep-sea oil drilling, without intermediate easy coal and easy oil deposits to fuel the industrial revolution. Without those easy deposits – our industrial revolution and any future industrial revolution, could not happen.
R
Why can’t lignite be converted into bituminous coal (by geologic compression)? Lignite would seem to prove that the long term preservation of timber is possible. I don’t take quite such a pessimistic view of biological and intelligent potential. I believe the main reason there cannot be significant new coal measures in the current era is there simply isn’t enough carbon dioxide. I cannot pretend any realistic prediction of what may be in 500 million years or so.
“Squandered?”
[citation needed]
“We have already taken all the easy coal and oil, and largely squandered it.”
There’s plenty of coal and oil. The problem is that it’s either in inhospitable locations (without power, roads, water or a workforce) or it’s in unfriendly countries or countries infested by Climate Activists.
The answer is to develop fission reactors, either using Uranium or Thorium, and encourage the population to have a better understanding of Science, R&D and Production, and how they are related to each other so we can have a viable Energy policy. The UK has has this suicidal policy for over 15 years, the BBC for 17 years, and the UN for over 50 years, and it is only now that the wheels a coming off the gravy train.
A bigger problem is finding and exploiting mineral deposits to produce the Metals required for a modern economy. And people with enough intelligence to do the necessary work.
(Lignite).
Lignite comes from peat bogs, which will indeed preserve woody lignin. But this means we (or nature) would have to create vast boggy areas, in order to preserve a few trees. This coal production would not be on the same scale as the Carboniferous era.
R
(There’s plenty of coal and oil. The problem is that it’s either in inhospitable locations)
Precisely. So no future proto-civilisation can possibly go from wood to inhospitable or deep coal deposits.
And no future proto-civilisation can possibly go from wood to nuclear power.
We have mortgaged the future, for far-future generations, by using up all the easy coal and oil. If we fail as a civilisation, then no technical civilisation can ever evolve in the far future.
That is why we cannot afford to allow the regressive political ambitions of the Mud-Hut Greens or Dark Age MusIims to destroy our post-Reformation technical and industrial civilisation. If we fail, that will be forever – until eternity.
It is essential that we push out across the Solar System, just as we were promised back in 1968 with ‘2001, A Space Odyssey’. Look how far we are behind that schedule. We are in 2023-4, and not even on the Moon yet, let alone orbiting Jupiter.
R
(“Squandered?”)
Yup. We are rapidly using up our fossil fuels, and we still don’t have:
Widespread uranium power.
Any thorium power.
Any fusion power.
Any bases on the Moon or Mars.
Squandered is the word for this. We can dither with fossil fuels and a few ridiculous renewables until all the lights go out. Like ruminating upon the words of a wise sage, until the very page falls into dust.
That will be squandering our technical heritage.
R
“Thorium” shouts IGNORANCE!
Australian coal is largely Permian, although some is Cretaceous and not mined (too far away from any port).
There is also large quantities of lignite (brown coal) which fuels the Victorian electricity supply, although both the Victorian and Federal politicians have fantasies about wind mills.
These was a process worked out that the brown coal could be up-graded by pressure – squeezing the water out and upgrading the carbon content but again forbidden by the local politicians along with developing known gas supplies close to the shore.
(thorium – ignorance).
Pray tell us why – in another separate posing, preferably.
Kirk Sorensen would beg to differ with you. So unless you are better qualified than Kirk Sorensen, I would confidently side with his more positive assessment of thorium.
R
(Permian)
So just after the Carboniferous era.
Again, lignite is peat. So unless someone can create vast swamp areas, no more lignite is going to be produced.
R
” We are rapidly using up our fossil fuels… ”
No-one knows how much fossil fuel is left
(No-one knows how much fossil fuel is left)
And therein lies the problem – how can we rely on a resource, when we don’t know how large it is.
People love to say that Britain is sitting on 300 years of coal. Yeah – but it is deep, fractured, and thin.
I used to work in the pits, and the Doncaster pits were all some 1,500 ft deep, working long-wall cutter in just 1 m thick seams (so you are on hands and knees). And if that was not bad enough, you could only advance 50 m before hitting a fault line, where the seam jumps or falls.
Even the Selby super-pit failed. The government put a billion pounds in today’s money, to open the most technological pit in the world, using all the latest technology. But even having surveyed the depths with 100 bore holes, they found that the new seams (never before worked) were deep, thin, and fractured. And the pit closed.
Britain may have lots of coal, but it would be 10x the price of Australian or American (surface) coal to extract.
R
” how can we rely on a resource, when we don’t know how large it is.. ”
We don’t know how large the fossil fuel resource is because the world is a (relatively) big place.
“Britain may have lots of coal, but it would be 10x the price of Australian or American (surface) coal to extract. ”
Does anyone accurately know the cost of extracting UK coal on a reasonable scale?
It’s absurd to say “squandered” or to suggest we should have somehow used less. Our descendants will be far wealthier and far more technically advanced than us and we therefore owe them nothing whatsoever.
(descendants wealthier)
Not if Greta the Gremlin gets her way, our descendants will all be living in mud huts.
This is the trouble with the new generation of nihilistic and eschatological Green extremists. They WANT our technological civilisation to end. They are embarrassed by our wealth and comforts, and want to bring about privation and destitution.
(Although they have no experience of real privation and destitution, and will be horrified if it actually comes upon them.)
R
Can you validate the source of the photograph you refer to please? I ask simply because a photo in a recent article here regarding a school’s heat pumps were subsequently found (by poster Oldbrew) to be of a different site and completely irrelevant to the subject. I am suspicious of all media.
Is this definitely an Enviva site for wood pellet production?
It was on the article about Envia. If they got it wrong, I presume Envia would be taking them to court.
R
Okay, so you cannot verify it , thanks for the confirmation. As I said, Joe Public (not oldbrew – sorry) pointed out this recent article https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/11/17/school-told-to-remove-heat-pumps-that-are-so-loud-neighbours-are-unable-to-open-windows/
The photo appearing in the Daily Sceptic was not of the school in Reepham mentioned in the article but actually a school in Anglesey -a point I was able to corroborate.
Why should I blindly trust the Mongabay article? Why should I presume a company possibly hitting the skids would have the wherewithal or inclination to prosecute?
I personally have tried to verify that photograph and have been unable to do so far.
I dare say Drax would say they had been assured by all their suppliers that the source of the wood was scrap. I’m sure they would say they are shocked at the revelation and so would the Government.
Did the 16 million trees (allegedly) felled in Scotland (to make way for wind farms) get converted to pellets? Or were they sold off to timber mills to make wood frames for eco-friendly Homes? Follow the money……
The SNP accepted the tree figure was near 16 million.
https://tvpworld.com/71419271/scotland-chops-down-almost-16-million-trees-to-make-way-for-wind-turbines
Hi oldbrew, I recently picked up on your notification on a different thread that the photo relating to a school’s 5 heat pumps actually related to a completely different site. Do you know any way to verify images in articles? I am potentially suspicious of the image shown by Mongabay to this article as searching Enviva sites I have been unable to track down anything so blatantly obvious. Thanks Ray
In this particular instance Google Earth gives a location in North Caroline.
This is at Faison Highway, Faison.
This looks like the location in question, with the donut of trees and many more besides.
I can recommend double checking for yourself.
Hi Glen I have studied that site on google Earth pro going back to 2017 when it was constructed. The “donut” does not appear to materially change over the years. I am in no way trying to defend Enviva but recently I have noticed many cases of photographs “implanted” on reports that do not apply. For example like the BBC photo shopping plastic bags on turtles or supposed before and after scenes of clean air views due to no flying during Covid supposedly a year apart but with the same people in exactly the same position. The recent article from the Daily Sceptic referenced on here had photos of a school in Anglesey over details of a school in Norfolk.
I was wondering if there was any means of searching against images to verify them.
Hello Ray,
How often does Google Earth update their images. Looking at places I’m familiar with about once a year or so I’d say. So day to day changes are not visible.
How you check a photo is what it claims is a major problem . I’ve complained to the BBC about their use of stock images in stories about weather and climate change. Their response is waffle about they’re illustrative.
They’ll have gone for pellets. Or possibly paper-making. Scottish trees grow too quickly to make usable structural timber – find a piece and look at the growth rings: they are huge.
And the pellet industry is booming.
OT but on the subject of wood. A researcher is surprised that there are trees under the peat in virtually every bog in the UK proving it’s wetter and colder now than in the past
“We often travel all over the world to collect ice cores or ancient trees, but it’s really special to find such a unique archive so close to the office.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-67508644
That has long been knowns, as the Siberian Taiga forest was up to 200 km further north than now.
Here is a study that demonstrates that the far north was 3ºc warmer than now, during the Holocene Maximum 8 kyr ago.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589411000184
R
So their cheap raw materials aren’t quite so cheap after all, which may have blown a great big hole in their finances. Almost as if these guys have spent years barking up the wrong tree.
One Hune, C a bought & paid for biomass promoter will have presumably cashed in all his share options long ago.
Huhne , a self styled expert on energy and climate change (ie Bullshitter), Skilled negotiator and facilitator (ie experienced liar). Experienced in european and national politics. (Jeez) Track record in business, finance and project management. (Track record = following the money).
Huhne…. if ever there were a candidate for the Tyburn Jig, he’s your man.
I’ve got three points to take on Chris Huhne…but it appears someone else already has.
The two main reasons for Drax are :
1) It boosts the Government’s figure for the amount of “renewable” energy.
2) It provides dispatchable power and keeps the lights on.
We should be grateful for its existence for otherwise, as a coal-fired station, it would have been explosively demolished by now by our COP26 president as seen for Ferrybridge in this official SSE video :
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1429456184902393858/pu/vid/720×720/JwPnpycxEiyBmqVJ.mp4?tag=12
Ralf :
I think to describe the easy use of coal and oil as being “squandered” is somewhat OTT. Firstly, the discovery and use of coal has saved our forests which were rapidly diminishing as they were our only source of fuel and building materials. Secondly it started/enabled the Industrial Revolution which has brought us enormous prosperity and the knowledge and technical advances we enjoy today. The next step of course is to use this advance of our existing knowledge to develop nuclear to produce the cheap, reliable and abundant energy we know is possible.
When I hear that we shouldn’t be using hydrocarbons because they won’t last forever, I always wonder if anyone in 4000 BC thought that we were mining too much flint and there wouldn’t be sufficient supplies for future generations.
As the head of OPEC once said, the Stone Age didn’t end because they ran out of stone.
I say, steady on there sold as greener than coal – the board of drech and indeed hmg have a great green swindle to protect.
The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.
– Sheik Yermani
Our precious planet will never, ever run out of fossil fuels: the price will simply increase as supplies diminish. Users will adjust to e.g $1000 per barrel oil, slowly over time ? It was always so.
At which price it won’t be used. Oil is simply a hydrocarbon. We know how to make its derivatives, its just currently expensive to do so.
See ‘Planet of the Humans’. For whole trees being shredded.
In matters green the default assumption is “He’s lying”.
Enviva to be renamed ‘Enmuerta’ shortly.
The problem is, if Drax runs out of pellets, the Green Blob will close it. And that will be our last solid-fuel power station gone.
The wood pellet industry has other problems: premature combustion….
https://gcaptain.com/us-coast-guard-issues-safety-alert-for-wood-pellet-fires/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-707602d3d4-170410014&mc_cid=707602d3d4&mc_eid=9275323244