A group of environmentalists, NGOs and members of the furniture industry have called on government to impose ‘strict limits of subsidies’ for the use of wood in biomass power stations.

In a letter published yesterday (2 May) in The Times, signatories from 15 organisations urged government to ‘act quickly’ in support of industries that rely on Britain’s annual forestry harvest and limit subsidisation of biomass electricity, which could see annual wood consumption rise to 30 million tonnes, ‘the equivalent of six times the UK’s annual forestry harvest by 2017’.

According to the letter, cosigned by organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSBP), Greenpeace and the Furniture Industry Research Association (FIRA), not only would subsidisation plans increase greenhouse gas emissions in the medium term, they could also put 40,000 jobs, which rely on British wood, at risk.

The letter notes that as many as 8,400 individuals are reliant on the health of the wood panel industry, with a further 12,000 supported by the sawmilling industry, 25,000 ‘direct employees’ and an estimated 100,000 ‘indirect employees’ of the paper industry.

Speaking to Resource, Harry Huyton, RSPB Head of Climate Change, said: "Government plans to subsidise the burning of vast quantities of wood in power stations in spite of the threats it poses to our climate and to forests across the world are reckless.

"We wanted to appeal to the common sense of MPs debating the Energy Bill and ask them to limit support for electricity from wood and to focus on genuinely green sources of energy instead, such as wind, solar and wave power."

The Breathe Clean Air Group (BCAG) added further support to the alliance, adding that burning biomass also produced nitrogen dioxide, a potentially harmful toxin.

Pete Kilvert, Chairman of BCAG, said: "It is not only reckless, but downright dangerous… Economics, balance sheets and electricity production may be important to the government, but estimates of 29,000 premature deaths per year due to pollution need to be factored into the equation."

‘Dirtier than coal’

The letter follows on from a study published in November 2012 whichfound that burning whole trees in power stations can be dirtier than coal, with power generated from typical conifer trees resulting in 49 per cent more emissions than from coal.

However, energy companies currently argue that the burning of wood is ‘carbon neutral’ as trees that are burnt can be regrown, completing the carbon cycle. But the letter published yesterday highlights that the ‘carbon debt created when a tree is harvested and burned… can take between decades and centuries to repay’ as trees take a great deal of time to regrow.

It argues that energy production in this form ‘fails to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the medium term’, something that isn’t reflected in the subsidising of the biomass industry.

Biomass ‘performs worse’ than traditional sources

According to a Forest Research report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), ‘Carbon impacts of using biomass in bioenergy and other sectors: forests’, the use of ‘woody biomass for energy-only consistently performs worse from a carbon point of view than more traditional uses.’

However, speaking to The Times, a government spokesman said: “Biomass, alongside other renewables, will make a crucial contribution to the UK meeting its renewable energy targets and carbon budgets.

“We have robust rules in place to calculate the emissions from bioenergy, which take into account the energy used in harvesting, processing and transporting it. We are continually gathering further evidence to ensure these calculations are up to date and that future bioenergy has low associated greenhouse gas emissions”.

The letter urges however, ‘when using forest biomass the underlying principle should be to maximise the beneficial use of this renewable but ultimately, limited resource, and to apply a cascading approach to resource use wherever possible and appropriate’.

Conversion opposition

Image courtesy of Biofuelwatch

It was reported last week that 50 people turned out at the Drax AGM to protest the conversion of half of its power plant to biomass. At the demonstration, called by Biofuelwatch, protestors are said to have chanted “Drax Drax, what do you say? How many trees have you killed today?”, with banners bearing slogans such as “Big Biomass: Fuelling Deforestation, Land-grabbing and Climate Disaster” in hand.

Leader of Green Party in England and Wales, Natalie Bennett, said: “We absolutely must stand against big biomass. We need to write ‘decarbonisation by 2030’ into the Energy Bill and provide for the investment in solar, wind energy and energy conservation, which are the only answers for Britain.”

Spokesman for Biofuelwatch, Oliver Munnion, said: “I’m here to dispel a modern myth that big biomass is sustainable, low-carbon energy. Drax isn’t going green – it’s cashing in on massive subsidies to the tune of half a billion pounds a year and trying to keep its old, dirty power station going for as long as possible.

“You can’t paint a green façade onto the UK’s most polluting power station. Big biomass and coal spell disaster for communities and the climate – it’s time these dinosaurs closed.”

The demonstration was organised to coincide with an open letter on behalf of 49 organisations worldwide, including Friends of the Earth and the Global Forest Coalition, which called for a ‘halt’ to coal conversion plans in the UK as well as a renewed focus on ‘a serious reduction of energy consumption’, as well as ‘dramatic measures to protect and restore forests’.

Read the letter to government that appeared in The Times.