Drax power station, located in North Yorkshire, has come under fire after a report by climate thinktank Ember revealed that it was the UK’s largest carbon emitter in 2023, producing more than four times the carbon emissions of the country’s last remaining coal-fired plant. The findings have sparked controversy, especially given that Drax received over £500 million in clean-energy subsidies last year.
Drax, which transitioned from coal to burning wood pellets imported from North America, generated 11.5 million tonnes of CO2 in 2023. This accounts for nearly 3% of the UK’s total carbon emissions. Remarkably, Drax’s emissions were more than those of the next four most polluting power plants in the UK combined. In contrast, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the last coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire, which is set to close in September, emitted far less CO2 than Drax.
The report has brought into question the environmental benefits of burning biomass for energy. According to Frankie Mayo, an analyst at Ember, “Burning wood pellets can be as bad for the environment as coal; supporting biomass with subsidies is a costly mistake.” Despite these concerns, Drax has claimed nearly £7 billion in subsidies since it began switching to biomass in 2012, and it is seeking further financial support to continue operations beyond 2027.
The controversy lies in the claim that Drax’s biomass generation is “carbon neutral.” The company argues that the trees used for wood pellets absorb as much carbon dioxide while they grow as they emit when burned. This argument has won the backing of the government, which considers biomass sourced under strict sustainability criteria as a low-carbon energy source. However, critics, including the National Audit Office, have highlighted that the government has already handed over £22 billion in subsidies without concrete proof that Drax’s operations meet sustainability standards.
In an effort to solidify its environmental credentials, Drax plans to implement carbon capture technology to create a “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS) project. If successful, this would make Drax the world’s first “carbon-negative” power plant by the end of the decade. The company has dismissed Ember’s findings as “flawed,” accusing the thinktank of ignoring its “widely accepted and internationally recognized approach to carbon accounting.”
Government officials have also defended biomass, citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s endorsement of biomass as a viable low-carbon energy source under certain conditions. A government spokesperson stated that the report “fundamentally misrepresents” how biomass emissions are measured and reaffirmed that biomass will continue to be monitored to ensure compliance with sustainability standards.
However, critics argue that the continued reliance on biomass is not the path to achieving net-zero emissions. Mayo from Ember emphasizes that the UK’s energy security would be better served by investing in homegrown wind and solar energy, rather than relying on imported biomass. She called burning wood for power “an expensive risk that limits UK energy independence.”
As Drax continues to profit from its biomass operations, the debate over the environmental impact and financial cost of this energy source is likely to intensify. With nearly £300 million in dividends handed to shareholders in the first half of this year alone, the question remains: is Drax’s carbon-neutral claim a viable solution to the climate crisis, or just a costly mistake?
Drax Power Station: UK’s Biggest Carbon Emitter Despite Clean-Energy Subsidies
Drax power station, located in North Yorkshire, has come under fire after a report by climate thinktank Ember revealed that it was the UK’s largest carbon emitter in 2023, producing more than four times the carbon emissions of the country’s last remaining coal-fired plant. The findings have sparked controversy, especially given that Drax received over £500 million in clean-energy subsidies last year.
Drax, which transitioned from coal to burning wood pellets imported from North America, generated 11.5 million tonnes of CO2 in 2023. This accounts for nearly 3% of the UK’s total carbon emissions. Remarkably, Drax’s emissions were more than those of the next four most polluting power plants in the UK combined. In contrast, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the last coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire, which is set to close in September, emitted far less CO2 than Drax.
The report has brought into question the environmental benefits of burning biomass for energy. According to Frankie Mayo, an analyst at Ember, “Burning wood pellets can be as bad for the environment as coal; supporting biomass with subsidies is a costly mistake.” Despite these concerns, Drax has claimed nearly £7 billion in subsidies since it began switching to biomass in 2012, and it is seeking further financial support to continue operations beyond 2027.
The controversy lies in the claim that Drax’s biomass generation is “carbon neutral.” The company argues that the trees used for wood pellets absorb as much carbon dioxide while they grow as they emit when burned. This argument has won the backing of the government, which considers biomass sourced under strict sustainability criteria as a low-carbon energy source. However, critics, including the National Audit Office, have highlighted that the government has already handed over £22 billion in subsidies without concrete proof that Drax’s operations meet sustainability standards.
In an effort to solidify its environmental credentials, Drax plans to implement carbon capture technology to create a “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS) project. If successful, this would make Drax the world’s first “carbon-negative” power plant by the end of the decade. The company has dismissed Ember’s findings as “flawed,” accusing the thinktank of ignoring its “widely accepted and internationally recognized approach to carbon accounting.”
Government officials have also defended biomass, citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s endorsement of biomass as a viable low-carbon energy source under certain conditions. A government spokesperson stated that the report “fundamentally misrepresents” how biomass emissions are measured and reaffirmed that biomass will continue to be monitored to ensure compliance with sustainability standards.
However, critics argue that the continued reliance on biomass is not the path to achieving net-zero emissions. Mayo from Ember emphasizes that the UK’s energy security would be better served by investing in homegrown wind and solar energy, rather than relying on imported biomass. She called burning wood for power “an expensive risk that limits UK energy independence.”
As Drax continues to profit from its biomass operations, the debate over the environmental impact and financial cost of this energy source is likely to intensify. With nearly £300 million in dividends handed to shareholders in the first half of this year alone, the question remains: is Drax’s carbon-neutral claim a viable solution to the climate crisis, or just a costly mistake?