ChatterBank12 mins ago
Drax - Biggest U K Emitter Of Carbon Dioxide?
21 Answers
surely not?
according to both the EU and UK, burning biomass is carbon neutral, and attracts huge subsidies as a result. so it must be good for the environment, right?
https:/
this is before any account is taken of the carbon footprint of transporting the stuff thousands of miles, and the 40+ years needed to regrow the trees.
We're not having our cranks yanked, are we?
according to both the EU and UK, burning biomass is carbon neutral, and attracts huge subsidies as a result. so it must be good for the environment, right?
https:/
this is before any account is taken of the carbon footprint of transporting the stuff thousands of miles, and the 40+ years needed to regrow the trees.
We're not having our cranks yanked, are we?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// someone at Sky must have stumbled on a back-issue. //
entirely possible - but more likely it's on Sky's radar because the report referenced in Sky's news piece was only published yesterday.
https:/
entirely possible - but more likely it's on Sky's radar because the report referenced in Sky's news piece was only published yesterday.
https:/
Only a fool could fall for the notion that felling mature trees, processing the wood into pellets, transporting them 5,000 miles and burning them in a power station is somehow “carbon neutral.” The trouble is, in governments there are a lot of fools, particularly when it comes to “combating climate change.”
The chickens are now coming home to roost following the disastrous energy policies successive UK governments have followed in their efforts to look good on the world stage. We are an island sitting on huge reserves of coal and gas and surrounded by seas which produce a considerable tidal flow twice a day. So what have we done in the last thirty or forty years? Closed the coal mines, declined to extract the gas we are sitting on, littered offshore waters and much of the land with wind inefficient turbines, and built a few solar energy farms. Unfortunately in this country the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. Often neither of these happen with sufficient vigour to make a dent in our energy requirements. So Plan B – the backup? A few nuclear power stations which are slowly being decommissioned without replacements; a few “interconnectors” providing a small amount of electricity which can be cut off at the whim of a foreign government; and a gas supply depending on how a Communist dictator feels when he gets up each morning.
Fuel bills have already rocketed as a result of this folly, much of the increase being imposed as a result of “green” levies. They are set to rocket again and there are no guarantees of an uninterrupted supply of either gas or electricity. Industry is now suffering and some are talking of scaling back production as the cost of energy is making the businesses uneconomic. The ridiculous domestic price cap has seen many smaller energy suppliers go to the wall as they cannot buy energy below the maximum price they can charge for it. Those who applaud the idiots gluing themselves to the M25 will do well to consider their support when they get their next gas and leccy bill.
To continue down this road will see economic ruin and personal hardship on a massive scale. The government needs to have a debate with the electorate because once again, it has embarked on a strategy which will have profound effects on them without proper explanation or debate. It’s easy to reduce carbon emissions in the way this government has. Any fool could do it. The tricky bit is devising ways of keeping the lights on at a reasonable cost and so far they’ve come up woefully short. But they’ll score a success – rather like somebody who burned their house down to rid themselves of a wasps’ nest would.
The chickens are now coming home to roost following the disastrous energy policies successive UK governments have followed in their efforts to look good on the world stage. We are an island sitting on huge reserves of coal and gas and surrounded by seas which produce a considerable tidal flow twice a day. So what have we done in the last thirty or forty years? Closed the coal mines, declined to extract the gas we are sitting on, littered offshore waters and much of the land with wind inefficient turbines, and built a few solar energy farms. Unfortunately in this country the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. Often neither of these happen with sufficient vigour to make a dent in our energy requirements. So Plan B – the backup? A few nuclear power stations which are slowly being decommissioned without replacements; a few “interconnectors” providing a small amount of electricity which can be cut off at the whim of a foreign government; and a gas supply depending on how a Communist dictator feels when he gets up each morning.
Fuel bills have already rocketed as a result of this folly, much of the increase being imposed as a result of “green” levies. They are set to rocket again and there are no guarantees of an uninterrupted supply of either gas or electricity. Industry is now suffering and some are talking of scaling back production as the cost of energy is making the businesses uneconomic. The ridiculous domestic price cap has seen many smaller energy suppliers go to the wall as they cannot buy energy below the maximum price they can charge for it. Those who applaud the idiots gluing themselves to the M25 will do well to consider their support when they get their next gas and leccy bill.
To continue down this road will see economic ruin and personal hardship on a massive scale. The government needs to have a debate with the electorate because once again, it has embarked on a strategy which will have profound effects on them without proper explanation or debate. It’s easy to reduce carbon emissions in the way this government has. Any fool could do it. The tricky bit is devising ways of keeping the lights on at a reasonable cost and so far they’ve come up woefully short. But they’ll score a success – rather like somebody who burned their house down to rid themselves of a wasps’ nest would.
//Biomas is not a fossil fuel. While it is growing it absorbs CO2. And te source can be replanted. Definitely not pollution free, but is carbon neutral which coal and gas definitely aren’t//
You need to do a bit of research.
Trees absorb CO2 only in the presence of sunlight. The other 50% of the day they actually emit CO2. The amount they emit varies and is not quite as much as they absorb, but nonetheless there is a considerable offset. Yes, they can be replanted, but the amount of CO2 a sapling will absorb compared to the fully grown mature tree it replaces is miniscule. In short, if you chop down 100 trees and plant 100 saplings, you will see a severe deficiency in CO2 absorption for decades. Drax has been burning wood big time for only a few years. It will probably be fifty years or more before the trees planted to replace those felled will absorb as much CO2 as their dead ancestors. The notion that the entire process is “carbon neutral” relies on that deficiency not being included in the calculation. It also ignores the colossal amount of fossil fuel that is burnt in by felling, processing and transport. The whole idea is ludicrous.
There’s lots of stuff you can read on this topic which I cannot be bothered to cite but it’s easy to find. The general consensus among scientists (who climate change zealots are always keen on listening to when it suits them) is that burning wood cannot be considered “carbon neutral”. Drax is the third largest source of carbon emissions in Europe (among all sites – including fossil fuel power stations). Only two coal fired plants - one in Poland and one in Germany -are greater
//Not for biomas. That goes to the construction industry. They use the leftover waste wood to make biomas pellets.//
That is incorrect as well. Last year Drax burnt through over 7.5 million tons of wood pellets. This required 14m tons of green wood. Of those 7.5m tons, 4.7m tons came from the southern USA, 1.3m tons from Canada and almost a million tons from the Baltic States. Drax owns three pellet mills in the USA. These, along with the others they source their fuel from, cause enormous environmental damage and pollution and earlier this year Drax was fined $2.5m for environmental offences at the mills it owns. Forests (together with their ecosystems) are being cleared at an alarming rate in both the USA and Canada to feed Drax’s furnaces. Once again, there’s plenty of info available if you’d care to look it up. But this fuel is not made from “leftover waste wood.” These pellet mills process entire newly felled trees which are cut for one purpose only.
//Burning wood is far preferable to burning fossil fuels for heat.//
Really? On what basis do you make that claim?
Drax has conned foolish politicians into believing their output is “carbon neutral. This means it does not count towards the UK’s emissions (despite being the largest single site of those emissions in the country) and the plant attracts huge subsidies which are funded from energy bills. It is one enormous confidence trick. I expect politicians to be gullible (or to take a back hander to cloud their judgement) but that’s no reason why sensible people should be so easily fooled.
You need to do a bit of research.
Trees absorb CO2 only in the presence of sunlight. The other 50% of the day they actually emit CO2. The amount they emit varies and is not quite as much as they absorb, but nonetheless there is a considerable offset. Yes, they can be replanted, but the amount of CO2 a sapling will absorb compared to the fully grown mature tree it replaces is miniscule. In short, if you chop down 100 trees and plant 100 saplings, you will see a severe deficiency in CO2 absorption for decades. Drax has been burning wood big time for only a few years. It will probably be fifty years or more before the trees planted to replace those felled will absorb as much CO2 as their dead ancestors. The notion that the entire process is “carbon neutral” relies on that deficiency not being included in the calculation. It also ignores the colossal amount of fossil fuel that is burnt in by felling, processing and transport. The whole idea is ludicrous.
There’s lots of stuff you can read on this topic which I cannot be bothered to cite but it’s easy to find. The general consensus among scientists (who climate change zealots are always keen on listening to when it suits them) is that burning wood cannot be considered “carbon neutral”. Drax is the third largest source of carbon emissions in Europe (among all sites – including fossil fuel power stations). Only two coal fired plants - one in Poland and one in Germany -are greater
//Not for biomas. That goes to the construction industry. They use the leftover waste wood to make biomas pellets.//
That is incorrect as well. Last year Drax burnt through over 7.5 million tons of wood pellets. This required 14m tons of green wood. Of those 7.5m tons, 4.7m tons came from the southern USA, 1.3m tons from Canada and almost a million tons from the Baltic States. Drax owns three pellet mills in the USA. These, along with the others they source their fuel from, cause enormous environmental damage and pollution and earlier this year Drax was fined $2.5m for environmental offences at the mills it owns. Forests (together with their ecosystems) are being cleared at an alarming rate in both the USA and Canada to feed Drax’s furnaces. Once again, there’s plenty of info available if you’d care to look it up. But this fuel is not made from “leftover waste wood.” These pellet mills process entire newly felled trees which are cut for one purpose only.
//Burning wood is far preferable to burning fossil fuels for heat.//
Really? On what basis do you make that claim?
Drax has conned foolish politicians into believing their output is “carbon neutral. This means it does not count towards the UK’s emissions (despite being the largest single site of those emissions in the country) and the plant attracts huge subsidies which are funded from energy bills. It is one enormous confidence trick. I expect politicians to be gullible (or to take a back hander to cloud their judgement) but that’s no reason why sensible people should be so easily fooled.
Drax even has the nerve to run a large advert on the front of today's Sunday Times, boasting they are "the UK's largest single-site generator of renewable source electricity." Drax was converted to burn wood pellets made from US forests with the help of the huge subsidies added to all our electricity bills - costing each of us around £150 per year.
Besides, what is the point in their spending money on an advert? It's not as if we can choose to buy anything from them, is it?
Besides, what is the point in their spending money on an advert? It's not as if we can choose to buy anything from them, is it?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Food & Drink21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
ChatterBank57 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.