“Renewable” Power Station Owner Caught Felling Primary Forest for Fuel in Practice Slammed as “Absolutely Insane” by Ecologists

A company that has received billions of pounds in green energy subsidies from U.K. taxpayers is cutting down “environmentally-important forests”, a BBC Panorama investigation has found. BBC News has the story.

Drax runs Britain’s biggest power station, which burns millions of tonnes of imported wood pellets – which is classed as renewable energy. The BBC has discovered some of the wood comes from primary forests in Canada. The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood.

Panorama analysed satellite images, traced logging licences and used drone filming to prove its findings. Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest.

Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop. “It’s really a shame that British taxpayers are funding this destruction with their money. Logging natural forests and converting them into pellets to be burned for electricity, that is absolutely insane,” she said.

The Drax power station in Yorkshire is a converted coal plant, which now produces 12% of the UK’s renewable electricity. It has already received £6bn in green energy subsidies. Burning wood is considered green, but it is controversial among environmentalists.

Panorama discovered Drax bought logging licences to cut down two areas of environmentally-important forest in British Columbia. One of the Drax forests is a square mile, including large areas that have been identified as rare, old-growth forest.

The provincial government of British Columbia says old-growth forests are particularly important and that companies should put off logging them. Drax’s own responsible sourcing policy says it “will avoid damage or disturbance” to primary and old-growth forest.

However, the latest satellite pictures show Drax is now cutting down the forest. The company told Panorama many of the trees there had died, and that logging would reduce the risk of wildfires. The entire area covered by the second Drax logging licence has already been cut down.

The BBC report explains that although burning wood produces more greenhouse gases than burning coal, the electricity is classed as renewable because new trees are planted to replace the old ones and “these new trees should recapture the carbon emitted by burning wood pellets”. However, “recapturing” the carbon takes decades, plus the “offsetting” can only work if the pellets are made with wood from sustainable sources. It adds:

Primary forests, which have never been logged before and store vast quantities of carbon, are not considered a sustainable source. It is highly unlikely that replanted trees will ever hold as much carbon as the old forest.

Panorama’s “The Green Energy Scandal Exposed” is being shown on BBC 1 at 8pm this evening, October 3rd, and will be on iPlayer afterwards.

Worth reading in full.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

35 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NeilParkin
3 years ago

The first sign that the BBC are waking up to this enviro-charade..?

psychedelia smith
3 years ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

I doubt it. That would be like Tom
Cruise waking up to the fact that his entire religion is founded on a crap science fiction novel. The BBC are in this for the long haul. It’s just that they’ve been ignoring the Drax scandal for years because it suited their agenda. But some things get so blatantly insane and corrupt, they can no longer be ignored.

wokeman
wokeman
3 years ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

No the BBC angle here is destroy all coal/wood burning plants, they are good comrades afterall. Don’t get me wrong drax is an utter disgrace, but at least it’s somewhat reliable. The BBC really want us to be totally reliant on the wind blowing, freezing to death.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  wokeman

I work on some local farms and last Summer one of the farmers told me that the price of straw had trebled, when I asked why he informed me that Drax were buying up straw – to burn.

wokeman
wokeman
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Ditto, know someone who works in a straw burning power station. Farcical.

AethelredTheReadier
AethelredTheReadier
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

That’s insane. No other word for it.

JohnK
3 years ago

Years ago, when I was a youngster, I used to like watching Panorama, but not now. They are a bit behind the curve on that issue to do with Drax power station (which as you might know was a large coal fired one burning pretty locally mined coal, not travelling many miles from the colliery to the power plant). I bet they don’t say much about the shipping running on Heavy Marine Fuel Oil HFO) across the Atlantic, then hauled along behind diesel locomotives to Drax etc.

A more robust response would have been to suggest that Drax could have had Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) installed and kept (say) Kellingley colliery operational. That would have been more efficient and kept a few local jobs going for a while.

JohnK
3 years ago
Reply to  JohnK

A few more supplementary comments. In the past, many power stations were built in areas that minimised the need for fuel transport, which is part of the reason why there were so many in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. Quite a few years ago, when I was in Scotland for a while, I became familiar with Cockenzie power station, which at that time used coal from Monktonhall colliery – almost local, with short “merry go round” (MGR) train operations between the two. Until around 1985, the old Didcot A power station (now demolished) used Nottinghamshire coal, which was transported via Oxford, but after the strike, they switched in the main to coal from Colombia, which came by ship to Avonmouth docks near Bristol, then by train to Didcot. The other side effect of the strike was that a large coal storage area was established at Didcot, c.f. how it was when routine MGR services ran to it from the collieries. Must have had an effect on their balance sheet, with so much in stock. Incidentally, the increased traffic from Avonmouth to the East led to the construction of quadruple track between the Shrivenham area and Didcot to deal with it all. Done… Read more »

RJBassett
RJBassett
3 years ago
Reply to  JohnK

Carbon Capture Storage? Do you have any idea how much that costs and how mind numbingly useless that is?

The global average price of carbon credits is about $3 a tonne. The manipulated EU price is about $40. The cost of carbon storage facilities costs a minimum of $700.

Shipping pellets from my native British Columbia is insane but mandated as part of the net zero idiocy. However, carbon storage is an unnecessary fantasy and not a solution to any real problem.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  RJBassett

“The global average price of carbon credits is about $3 a tonne.”

This carbon credits industry really is ‘money for nothing.’ Unbelievable.

EppingBlogger
3 years ago
Reply to  JohnK

No sweat – they probably think solar or battery powered bulk carriers are about to be launched.

Quizzical
Quizzical
3 years ago

Excellent that these practices are finally being exposed and the whole establishment is being made fools of (yet again).

But, of course, at least this wood provides reliable electricity unlike sun and wind.

TheGreenAcres
3 years ago

The BBC report explains that although burning wood produces more greenhouse gases than burning coal

And there you have the madness of it all. We could be burning coal from 30 miles away, yet instead it is considered eco-friendly to ship wood pellets from 3000 miles away.

Utter clown world. AND they get subsidies for it paid for from our energy bills.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago

My unavoidable initial reaction is BBC? WTF are they up to now?

I just can’t help it these days. Wait and see I suppose.

“It’s not always about what they say it’s about.”

wokeman
wokeman
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

They are trying like good comrades to utterly destroy all reliable parts of the grid.

RW
RW
3 years ago

I’m beginning to suspect that the by-now routine incorrect substitution of carbon for carbon-dioxide is an attempt to get away from the climate emergency story as it has been desribed so far. Lifeforms on earth don’t store carbon, they’re pretty much composed of it. Extremely simplified, living plants draw CO2 from the atmoshphere, utilizing the carbon for further growth and releasing the oxygen.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago

Green Blob attacks Green Blob.

Snake eats its own tail.

AethelredTheReadier
AethelredTheReadier
3 years ago

If only Panorama’s investigative reporting had been used to effect on other pressing newsworthy stories we might not be in the situation we are in. On this story, I can’t see how burning wood pellets – basically compressed sawdust – is environmentally friendly at all. The energy needed to compress the sawdust so that it’s a hard pellet must be enormous. Fuelled by fossil fuel energy no doubt. It’s all a charade.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago

Are the trees being chopped down and turned in to sawdust? And if not how is the sawdust being produced because chopping a tree in to a few planks is definitely NOT going to produce thousands of tons of wood pellets.

RJBassett
RJBassett
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

The trees are harvested for lumber not for pellets or residuals. Lumber is about 60% and the residuals are about 40%.

The residual 40% should go to pulp mills or to produce particle board or OSB, not wood pellets.

The fundamental error in this story is the suggestion that the forest was harvested for wood pellets, it wasn’t. The problem arises in the subsidies from net zero plans that make using the residuals for pellets more valuable than for making pulp or other products.

AethelredTheReadier
AethelredTheReadier
3 years ago
Reply to  RJBassett

I’m interested about the whole pellet making industry.Just how do you make a wood pellet? It must use an enormous amount of energy. I’ve used them before and they’re very hard and dense and because of their density, they don’t just burn up immediately, they glow like coal. To manufacture enough wood pellets to fire a furnace, especially one hot enough to drive steam turbines, must be a massive industry.

HicManemus
3 years ago

Do they use a bonding agent to make the pellets. If so, how toxic is that when burnt?

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  RJBassett

Thank you.

richardw53
richardw53
3 years ago

The government briefly released a CO2 calculator for Drax when the project first started, supposedly to show how environmentally friendly it was. The calculator showed emissions from harvesting, processing and shipping the pellets – before any emissions from combustion – at around 50% of those released by burning coal to release the same amount of energy. The calculator was rapidly withdrawn.

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
3 years ago

It’s worth remembering which government minister first declared wood pellets to be carbon neutral and therefore eligible for subsidies.
It was Chris Huhne when he was a minister in the coalition government.
The same Chris Huhne that is on the board of directors of at least 2 companies that produce wood pellets. Oh! and he also went to prison after persuading his wife to accept points on her driving licence for an offence that he committed, proving what an honest, trustworthy chap he isn’t.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  Matt Dalby

MP’s on the fiddle?

Truly shocking 😑

Human Resource 19510203
Human Resource 19510203
3 years ago

Just when you think the carbon-neutral net-zero obsession can’t possibly get any madder, it does. Here’s why:
https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/science-has-been-unhooked-by-market:9

RJBassett
RJBassett
3 years ago

Why is the Daily Sceptic repeating obvious lies from the BBC?

British Columbia is the home of Greenpeace and the provincial government is run by the equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party, the NDP, together with the Green Party. Does anyone really believe that they allowed some “absolutely insane” forest practice to take place on Crown land?

No one harvests tress for wood pellets as the economics for that have never made sense; they harvest trees for lumber not for wood pellets.

The best case lumber yield from a tree is about 60%, what does the BBC propose is done with the residuals, the remaining 40%?

This story is the phony sort of outrage generated by the abjectly ignorant.

Covid-1984
Covid-1984
3 years ago

There’s a ton of useless “deadwood” in the chambers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and I don’t mean the benches.

VAX FREE IanC
3 years ago

This coming from the BBC, whatever it is, must mean there is an agenda. End of!

HicManemus
3 years ago

Some of the readers’ comments on this article are so good. The information about pellets, storage, fuel transport costs and historical perspectives of our existing power stations is fascinating. Thanks folks for a most illuminating (ooh that pun, sort of just popped out) conversation. This is NOT an ironic post, btw ;-), and I still don’t trust the BBC’s agenda.

nige.oldfart
3 years ago

There is a massive disconnect between environmental control and the net zero agenda, one works in direct conflict with the other. The tree planting for harvest is another insustainable sustainable. You cannot immmediately one crop after felling after felling the other, the ground has to be left fallow for about 40-60 years to affect good growth.. eg. If a fuel/ construction timber type tree takes, 50 yrs to grow, with a fallow time eg 50 yrs, before replanting, then 50 to harvest, your harvest to re- harvest on any one piece of land is going to 100 yrs. Therefore if you require a square mile of forest per year (for example) for energy generation, then you require 100 square miles of land to sustain it.

EppingBlogger
3 years ago

Burning wood is considered green BY CO2 FANATICS, but it is controversial among CO2 SCEPTICS!

SomersetHoops
SomersetHoops
3 years ago

It should be realised that wood pellets are not a sustainable or green fuel. There is no check on their source and they are easier to make from the results of uncontrolled logging, so that is their source and forrests are being destroyed as a result.

Oowotwnwrwyhow
Oowotwnwrwyhow
3 years ago

It just shows how brain dead the catastrophists are. If we burnt UK coal and planted an equivalent number of trees compared to transporting woodchips from the US and planting the same number of trees we’d reduce CO2 emissions.
PS I don’t believe there is a manmade climate catastrophy other than failing to frack and build nuclear power stations.