Energy created from burning organic matter could increase emissions and decimate forests - and questions remain over sustainability and security of supply
In the back room of a pub in Freemantle, Southampton, around 40 people discuss plans for a 100-megawatt (MW) biomass power station that could be built just a few hundred metres from where they are sitting.
They are part of the No Southampton Biomass campaign which, from its inception just a few months ago, has grown into a well-organised, well-informed protest group of almost 900 followers, with a professional-looking website and a Facebook group.
The campaigners are concerned about the potential effect on air quality in a city that is already failing to meet EU pollution targets. There are also worries about the visual impact of such a huge building that would include a 100-metre chimney built just 125m from the nearest houses.
Southampton is not an isolated campaign. As companies seek to take advantage of the government's generous renewables obligation certificate subsidies, plans to build new biomass plants – or convert existing fossil fuel-fired plants – are surfacing all over the country. Plans were approved in March to convert RWE npower's Tilbury B coal-fired power station to burn wood (PDF).
Such projects are generating a great deal of opposition; there are active protests against Forth Energy's plans in Leith, Dundee and Grangemouth, against Prenergy's plans for a 350MW plant in in Port Talbot, Peel Energy's plans in Trafford, and Bishop's Castle in Shropshire, to name but a few. While protesters are worried about the effects of these developments on their local communities their concerns cannot just be put down to 'nimbyism'. They say the whole concept of power generated from biomass on this scale is flawed.
Campaign group Biofuelwatch says one of the main problems of power generated from biomass (biological material from living, or recently living organisms such as wood) is that it is not carbon-neutral. Some research suggests that burning wood immediately releases more greenhouse gases than fossil fuel-related emissions, and takes many decades – even centuries in some scenarios – for the carbon emissions to be 'offset' by new biomass growth. This, critics points out, is far too long if the UK is to meet its target of reducing emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
Campaigners also say the scale of demand for fuel, mostly in the form of wood pellets, is unsustainable on at least two fronts. First, the claim that switching to biomass can ensure security of energy supply for the UK looks dubious. The Tilbury plant alone will burn more than 7m tonnes of wood pellets per year – compared with 9m tonnes burned in the entire European Union in 2010.
According to Almuth Ernsting, one of Biofuelwatch's co-directors, the UK will need 50m-70m tonnes of biomass a year to keep these new power stations running. The UK only produces between 8m and 10m tonnes, so the rest will have to be imported, which is why many of the new plants are being planned in ports.
But it is not just the UK that is planning to increase biomass-generated power; large numbers of plants are planned in Europe and North America, meaning increasing competition for fuel.
The government, however, insists the UK is not just reliant on wood for biomass. A Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) spokesman says the UK 'produces substantial amounts of waste that cannot be recycled or reused but which is suitable for energy production. Similarly, there are many agricultural residues which have no other use, such as husks, kernels and so on from food production'.
However, an official report for Decc (pdf) admits that there is considerable uncertainty about supply. The study concluded the potential biomass supply in the UK between 2010 and 2030 will depend on many market conditions, including price and competition.
The second issue resulting from such a surge in demand is the devastating effect it could have on the world's forests. There are already reports of concessions being granted for the destruction of rainforests to establish tree plantations for wood chips and wood pellets, as a result of the growing global market in biomass.
Ernsting highlights one study which predicts that as a result of increased demand there could be no natural forests left by 2065.
She also points out that as well as destroying the planet's ability to control emissions, such deforestation would have a huge impact on biodiversity and forest-dependent people.
The power companies, however, say they will source wood from 'sustainable forests'. Helius Energy, the company planning the Southampton plant, promises that it will not use feedstock or fuel sourced from protected areas, areas where biodiversity is shown to be vulnerable or at risk, primary forest, areas or plantations which threaten protected or endangered species or areas where high quality agricultural land has been displaced.
And last month the government introduced sustainability criteria for the use of solid biomass to generate electricity. That stipulates a minimum greenhouse gas emissions saving of 60% compared with fossil fuel assessed across a lifecycle that considers the emissions associated with cultivation, processing and transport of the biomass, together with general restrictions on the use of materials from land important on carbon or biodiversity grounds.
But critics are sceptical. Can sustainability and security of supply really be guaranteed?
No comments:
Post a Comment