Energy, public money and the evidence
Britain pays subsidies for burning wood. Gas power stations pay charges for fossil carbon.
Yet in our example, wood releases about 3.4 times as much CO₂ at the chimney for the same electricity.
Before the public pays for more, that deserves a clear explanation.
The same electricity. More chimney CO₂.
Illustration: CO₂ released for 1,000 units of electricity.
| WOOD EXAMPLE1,150 kgof chimney CO₂ | MODERN GAS EXAMPLE340 kgof chimney CO₂ |
Assumed electrical efficiencies: 35% for wood and 60% for modern combined-cycle gas. Neither plant has carbon capture. These are illustrative chimney figures; they do not settle the complete lifecycle climate comparison.
A renewable label tells us where the fuel comes from. It does not, by itself, tell us everything about its emissions, its effect on forests or its cost.
Photograph: Chris Allen / Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 2.0. Original photograph reproduced without alteration.
Why wood is counted differently
Trees absorb CO₂ as they grow. Burning wood releases that carbon again. The wider assessment therefore has to consider what happens to the forest as well as the power station.
International reporting rules record changes in forest carbon in the land-use accounts. For imported wood, those forest changes belong in the supplying country. The chimney CO₂ is also reported separately, avoiding counting the same carbon twice.
A different way of counting carbon is not proof of a climate benefit.
The result depends on the wood used, how the forest is managed, what would otherwise happen to it, and the timescale. The UK’s own Forest Research says forest bioenergy can be better, similar to, or worse than fossil fuels.
Photograph: Stephen Craven / Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 2.0. Original photograph reproduced without alteration.
The Government has already warned about this
In research published in 2014, Government scientists found that some North American wood-fuel scenarios could perform worse than coal once wider forest effects were included—even while passing the narrower emissions calculation.
The same research identified low-emission possibilities. The lesson is straightforward: check the actual fuel supply and the full carbon balance.
Drax’s own reports show why labels matter. Its Group reported about 14 million tonnes of direct biogenic CO₂ in 2025. A separate figure for supplying fuel measures a different part of the process. Readers need to know which figure they are seeing.
The public has paid billions
More than £20 billion
Historical support for biomass power and heat since 2002, reported by the National Audit Office in January 2024.
That covered several schemes and many recipients, including businesses and households.
The National Audit Office said the Government could not demonstrate that its checks gave adequate confidence that industry was meeting sustainability standards. The Public Accounts Committee raised further concerns in 2025.
Public money should buy verified results. We should be able to see what a scheme achieves, what it costs and who pays.
Smaller plants matter too
Photograph: Trev Lea / Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 2.0. Original photograph reproduced without alteration.
Biomass is a broad label. It covers different fuels and technologies. Templeborough in Rotherham, for example, uses permitted waste wood.
Wood combustion can release dust, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. Fuel quality, combustion conditions and filters affect what escapes. Gas stations also produce pollutants and need controls.
The Government’s 2023 Biomass Strategy acknowledged that regulation of smaller biomass combustion plants was less effective at protecting local air quality. That deserves scrutiny alongside the carbon figures.
What about our farmland?
Photograph: Hamsterdancer / Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0. Original photograph reproduced without alteration.
The Climate Change Committee’s pathway envisages 700,000 hectares of energy crops by 2050. That includes miscanthus and fast-growing trees.
The crops support the wider bioenergy pathway, rather than all being earmarked for electricity. This is a proposed pathway, not a map of approved planting.
Before committing land, we need to understand the effects on food production, wildlife and other ways of storing carbon. We also need to know who receives the income and who carries the risk.
Carbon capture needs its own test
Capturing biomass CO₂ and storing it permanently underground can, in principle, remove carbon from the atmosphere.
But the full calculation must include fuel production, transport, land effects, the extra energy used and the emissions that are not captured.
Any proposal should show how much carbon is actually removed after those deductions, how much electricity remains for sale and what the public pays. The earlier chimney comparison is for plants without capture.
Show the full comparison
Gas releases fossil CO₂. Methane leaks and fuel production and transport—including liquefied natural gas—also affect its climate impact. Those emissions belong in a fair comparison.
Biomass needs the same scrutiny across its fuel supply, land use and useful energy output.
Gas faces charges for fossil emissions. Biomass carbon is treated differently in emissions trading, and qualifying schemes can receive support. Those rules affect the bill; they do not change what physically leaves the chimney.
For every major commitment, publish the answers:
- What useful energy does it deliver?
- What are its full emissions and land effects?
- What does it cost—and who pays?
- How does it compare with a realistic alternative?
Britain deserves reliable power, affordable bills and responsible land use. Before more public support is committed, make the evidence clear enough for everyone to understand.
MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
Support the call to suspend Climate Change Act targets and undertake a full national impact assessment.
Figures, sources and technical notes — tap to open
How the chimney figures were calculated
The IPCC default factors are 112 kg CO₂ per gigajoule for wood/wood waste and 56.1 kg for natural gas, measured against net calorific value (lower heating value). One MWh equals 3.6 GJ. Dividing the fuel factors × 3.6 by assumed net electrical efficiencies of 0.35 and 0.60 gives 1,152 and 336.6 kg CO₂/MWh: a ratio of 3.42.
The main text rounds these to 1,150 and 340 kg per 1,000 kWh. The comparison excludes upstream emissions, land-carbon changes and carbon capture. It is not a measurement of the pictured stations. The 35% wood efficiency is a scenario assumption. The Environment Agency says 60% or above is achievable for large new CCGTs; actual annual and part-load performance can be lower. At an assumed 40% wood efficiency and the same gas efficiency, the ratio would be about 3.0.
IPCC, Table 1.4 · Environment Agency guidance
Chimney emissions, reporting and lifecycle effects
Biogenic CO₂ is reported separately in energy inventories, with forest-carbon changes assessed in land-use accounting. National inventories, company emissions reports, subsidy calculations and emissions trading have different boundaries. A zero-rated or separately reported item is not a claim that no gas was physically emitted.
A lifecycle comparison must state the alternative land use or fuel use, the timescale, upstream emissions and the same useful energy service. Avoid double counting the same forest carbon. Useful heat from combined heat and power must be treated consistently.
What the forest studies do—and do not—show
Paragraph 237 of Stephenson and MacKay’s 2014 DECC report found both low-emission possibilities and scenarios worse than coal over 40 or 100 years despite passing the specified Renewable Energy Directive method.
In the follow-up published in 2017, questionnaire respondents judged five of 40 scenarios likely or moderately likely now or in future; four were high-carbon scenarios. Coarse-residue extraction could be common near pellet mills. Other scenarios had different limits on scale and assumptions. This was not a measurement of present-day UK fuel consignments.
Sterman, Siegel and Rooney-Varga’s 2018 study found 44–104-year carbon payback in specified clear-cut forest scenarios replacing coal, assuming the land remained forest. That is not a universal biomass payback time or a wood-versus-gas result. These sources support scrutiny of methods and supply chains; they do not establish deliberate manipulation by academics.
DECC 2014, paragraph 237 · 2017 follow-up · Original 2018 research
Drax: keep the reporting boundaries clear
Drax Group reported 14.085 million tonnes of direct biogenic CO₂ for 2025, tabulated in ktCO₂e and disclosed separately from headline Scope 1 and 2 totals. The reported biomass supply-chain KPI of 87.09 kg CO₂e/MWh concerns fuel consumed at Drax Power Station. It does not include all chimney CO₂. Group totals and station-specific measures cannot simply be combined into a complete station lifecycle figure.
Drax ESG report 2025 · Basis of reporting
Smaller plants and air pollution
The December 2025 consultation refers to hundreds of small-scale biomass generators across a broad fuel category; this is not a count of hundreds of wood burners with identical efficiencies. Tilbury’s 2024 report records 228,192 tonnes of waste wood combusted. Its reported average daily-mean stack concentrations at 6% reference oxygen are: nitrogen oxides 199.9; sulphur dioxide 46.4; particulates 0.1; hydrogen chloride 0.7 mg/m³.
These are not nearby residents’ exposure levels. Average concentrations do not establish compliance in every interval. Gas-turbine data commonly use a different oxygen reference, so raw stack concentrations cannot be compared directly. The annual CO₂ total field is blank in the Tilbury report; that does not establish that the information is unavailable elsewhere.
Templeborough’s 2023 permit review added hazardous waste-wood codes to formalise existing permissions. The Environment Agency said this would not change the actual waste types received or emissions. Gas-turbine pollutant profiles also depend on fuel and operating conditions.
Biomass consultation · Tilbury 2024 report · Templeborough permit review · US EPA gas-turbine guidance · Biomass Strategy 2023
Public support and the regulator’s findings
The NAO’s more-than-£20bn figure is a historical total across biomass power and heat support since 2002, reported in January 2024. It is not one year’s spending, a Drax-only figure or a future carbon-capture cost. Its assurance finding does not establish that all supported fuel was unsustainable or every payment improper.
Ofgem found Drax misreported annual profiling data for 2021/22; the company paid £25m into the Voluntary Redress Fund. In March 2025, Ofgem said its review of KPMG reports did not support the allegation that Drax breached sustainability obligations and wrongly received Renewables Obligation funding.
Ofgem’s 8 April 2026 update said the first phase of the independent audit assessed relevant 2023/24 reporting as materially correct, while identifying documentation improvements. Findings to date suggested no new compliance issues requiring investigation. The wider review was still underway at that date.
NAO, January 2024 · Public Accounts Committee, April 2025 · Ofgem, March 2025 · Ofgem update, April 2026
Who introduced the support?
The Renewables Obligation began in Great Britain in 2002. Chris Huhne announced biomass-inclusive Renewable Heat Incentive support in March 2011 and promoted coal-to-biomass conversion that October. Ed Davey announced revised electricity-support banding in 2012 for 2013 onwards. The policy arose through successive governments and decisions.
Ofgem scheme history · Huhne’s heat statement · Huhne’s conversion speech · Davey’s 2012 statement
Land, the CCC pathway and carbon capture
The CCC’s Seventh Carbon Budget pathway reaches 0.7 million hectares of energy crops by 2050: 7,000 km². It includes miscanthus, short rotation coppice and short rotation forestry for wider bioenergy uses. BECCS supplies less than 2% of modelled electricity generation in 2040. The pathway excludes high-load, large-scale unabated biomass beyond existing contracts ending in 2027 and assumes total bioenergy supply around half the level in its earlier Sixth Carbon Budget advice.
Those are CCC model assumptions. Separately, the Government’s February 2025 transitional-support decision envisaged lower generation volumes, stronger sustainability criteria and contract-specific assessments. A proposed framework or contract condition is not proof of compliance by every fuel consignment.
BECCS can deliver net removal only where a consistent full carbon balance supports it, including biomass sourcing, land effects, supply emissions and durable storage. Captured tonnes are not automatically net removed tonnes. Electricity remaining after capture, infrastructure reliability and total public support need separate assessment.
CCC Seventh Carbon Budget, sections 7.4–7.12 · Government transitional-support decision · Government scientific review of BECCS
Gas, carbon charges and a fair cost comparison
Under UK ETS guidance, the biogenic fraction of solid biomass is zero-rated; fossil material mixed into a fuel is treated separately. Biomass subsidy eligibility has distinct scheme rules. Gas generation faces carbon costs for fossil emissions. In April 2026 the Government announced removal of the separate Carbon Price Support tax from April 2028.
Compare fuel, construction, operation, financing, pollution controls, capture where applicable, decommissioning and useful output. Show subsidies and carbon charges clearly, distinguishing physical resource costs from policy transfers. This article does not establish a universal lifecycle or lifetime-cost ranking.
UK ETS biomass guidance · Scheme sustainability context · Treasury statement on Carbon Price Support
Sources and calculation audited on 16 October 2026. Historical findings are dated and later updates are identified separately.
Leave a Reply