Representation by Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group (Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group)
- Date submitted
- 5 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
Firstly, we would argue that BECCS technology should be considered as a separate technology in its own right, rather than merely as an addition to an already consented biomass burning installation. Since the purpose of this technology is net removal of carbon from the atmosphere through negative emissions, the credibility of the application cannot be evaluated by looking at the carbon capture installation alone. Whether it delivers negative emissions or adds to CO2 in the atmosphere will depend on each stage of the system performing as claimed. It is therefore relevant that: - In general, harvesting wood and burning for biomass is not carbon neutral but creates a significant carbon debt because of the time delay for trees to regrow. (1) - In particular, Drax’s claims of sustainable sourcing are contradicted by evidence of the serious impact of their logging in biodiverse forests in the US, Canada and Estonia. (2) - The most recent review of carbon capture and storage technology found that power CCS had without exception failed or performed significantly below its efficiency targets. Predictions for BECCS at Drax should be adjusted downwards to take account of this, and considered as on a sliding scale of probability, not just the best-case scenario. (3) - This project depends entirely on the construction of a pipeline to carry compressed CO2 to storage under the North Sea, but no details are given of this. Given that this is a major infrastructure project and one which has safety implications (CO2 is a potentially lethal asphyxiant and pipeline ruptures can impact over kilometres, not metres), it should be properly considered alongside the installation of carbon capture technology, not ‘taken as read’. Secondly, the promises both for emissions reductions and jobs should be assessed in relation to public value for money. Climate and energy think-tank Ember estimate that BECCS at Drax will require £31.7bn of public subsidy over 25 years. (4) The jobs provided would be mostly of short duration, and unlikely to offer significant skilled and well-paid work to local residents. We argue that this represents poor value for money when this subsidy could be better spent reducing overall energy demand (for example through home insulation) and rolling out well-established renewable technology such as cheap wind and solar energy. And that this alternative is not just a safer and more reliable route to emissions cuts but also a better strategy for providing a diverse base of jobs which are long-term, skilled and provide additional benefits to communities. [Redacted]