Skip to content or view screen version

Biofuels and biomass protest outside DECC

Biofuelwatch | 23.10.2011 09:41 | Bio-technology | Climate Chaos | Energy Crisis | World

As different actions continue across London, campaigners from across the country joined forces outside the offices of DECC yesterday to denounce the government's latest plans to carry on subsidising destructive biomass and biofuels despite the fact that their use leads to human suffering across the globe, and increased carbon emissions.

Protesters outside DECC from across the country
Protesters outside DECC from across the country

Protesters from across the country gather outside DECC
Protesters from across the country gather outside DECC


Protesters gathered outside the Department of Energy and Climate Change offices at noon yesterday, calling for the end of subsidies for bioenergy, in a demonstration organised by environmentl NGO Biofuelwatch with the support of Campaign against Climate Change.

As a public consultation on the financing of renewable electricity launched last week, campaigners warn that government proposals to prioritise bioenergy over wind and solar will speed up global warming and cause human suffering across the globe. Campaigners travelled from as far as the Isle o Wight, Scotland, Bristol, Port Talbot in Wales, and Manchester to unite in a common call.

Bioenergy currently accounts for 82.5% of the UK’s renewable energy generation. But Biofuelwatch and Campaign against Climate Change warn that bioenergy power generation, which involves burning fuels such as wood pellet from Brazil and palm oil from Malaysia, speeds up deforestation, climate change and land-grabbing in the global South. Last month, the European Environment Agency cautioned that Governments across Europe are ignoring the true carbon costs of bioenergy, and that it can release more carbon emissions than traditional fossil fuels.

However, the new government proposals will allow for a boom in biomass and energy crop imports, as biomass and bioliquids remain eligible for Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). In addition, the proposals include new increased support for the enhanced cofiring of biomass and biomass conversion. Enhanced cofiring refers to stations which combust biomass and coal, but which will switch to full biomass in the future.

Biofuelwatch has estimated that the existing subsidies for bioenergy have already caused a surge of at least 42 new planning applications for bioenergy power stations across the UK, which, if built, will cost the public £3 billion in subsidies each year.

Earlier this year, the UN identified the UK as the third largest land grabbing country after China and Saudi Arabia with over a million hectares acquired for biofuel production, mostly in Africa. This area represents about 10% of UK agricultural land.

Emilia Hanna, Biofuelwatch campaigner, said, 'Colonialism continues because of our consumption addiction in the West, in Europe, in the UK, and in the areas where people have travveled from. The government's latest proposal to continue the subsidies for biomass and bioliquids is what is fuelling our addiction. Companies are promised profit, so thay are going for biomass and bioliquids on a massive scale, with 60 million tonnes of wood and 400000 tonnes of bioliquid demanded per year. This will come mainly from overseas leading to more land grabbing and more forest destruction. We are here to show that we are united in our call of NO to subsidies for biofuels and biomass, and YES to reducing our consumption in the West.'

Biomass use is also incredibly polluting and can release more emissions than ordinary fossil fuels, threatening people's right to live in a healthy environment. Jayne Dillon, campaigning against a biomass incinerator in Trafford, near Manchester, said, 'We are facing a proposed 25 year sentence of biomass incineration in our suburban, family-based community in Manchester. We already tolerate elevated levels of air pollution and we are determined that this dirty technology which releases a wide range of harmful emissions, including arsenic, will not be built. Too much evidence exists which associates these air pollutants with serious illnesses and deaths and this cannot not be ignored. We don’t want this incinerator to operate and generate profit at the expense of our health, as the burden of decisions made now will be carried for decades.'

Biofuelwatch
- e-mail: biofuelwatch@ymail.com

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

The alternative ?

23.10.2011 10:00

Would the organisers and participants in the protest let us know what form of energy they used to travel there and what they use in their day to day lives as I look forward to hearing about the alternative they have discovered.

Thanks

Info requester


I empathise, understand

23.10.2011 19:35

,,and I agree with the concerns of these protesters, however, as a building services engineer, I'm all too aware of the issues surrounding energy usage and carbon emissions. Biomass is quite possibly a viable alternative to fossil fuels, biofuels, in my humble opinion, not so. If these people seriously think you can power this country solely on wind farms, they need to do some real research, starting with the likes of CIBSE and BRE, because it won't happen. The only other real alternative is powering down, including all its consequences. Accept my apologies if they have investigated these sources.

Sensible heat


There is one choice

24.10.2011 10:34

If we face a few realities for a moment, these being:

1 - Global demand for energy will continue to rise
2 - Renewables such as wind and wave are not suitable for large scale power production
3 - Climate Change is real and must be dealt with now

If we accept the facts of these above then the case for nuclear is overwhelming. To deny that is simply nuts.

Al


Al - I agree with you but....

24.10.2011 11:57

you must remember the sort of people were are talking about here. Opposition for them to nuclear power is a matter of ideology not scientific reality. I am however glad to say that there will be widespread nuclear power in the UK over the next ten years and we can enjoy the very low cost, clean efficient power that the French do.


France, lowest CO2 output of any industrialized country on Earth - 80% of electricity generated by nuclear power.

Kowlan


Large scale biomass energy is not green or sustainable

24.10.2011 14:45

This protest was not about nuclear.

An informed and caring group of people want to correct policy makers' mistaken view that we should be burning biomass and bioliquids in huge quantities, most of it imported, to tackle climate change.

When it is abundantly clear that:

a) it doesn't reduce our carbon emissions
b) it contributes to global hunger
c) there are no adequate mechanisms to ensure 'sustainability' of the supply chain. One glaring omission from the official criteria for bioenergy sustainability is the impact on people's access to food, water and free choices about how they use their own land
d) get-rich-quick businesses are cashing in through land-grabbing to create biofuel plantations in Africa and elsewhere. To my shame, the UK is leading the way in this. And I am paying for it through my electricity bill.

The land areas required to produce feedstock for bioenergy at the scale envisaged by Govt is shocking. Competition for land is only going to intensify as the global population rises, prosperity leads to more meat eating and as climate change affects agricultural yields.

Bioenergy's key raw ingredient is land. Land is not renewable. Hence bioenergy is not renewable. Contrast wind and solar, which are at least 100 times more land efficient.

Photosynthesis is simply a poor way of harvesting solar energy. However many different generations of biofuels are developed, they will never be able to produce more than a tiny fraction of mankind's energy consumption. One respected commentator - Timothy Searchinger - estimated that if we burnt every shred of biomass on the planet, it would generate about a third of our energy needs. When the oil runs out or is too expensive to extract, we will need replacement energy systems that are viable at the scale needed, and which can last for centuries. Industrial-scale bioenergy just doesn't do it.

More immediately, it is simply immoral for the UK - having played a huge part in creating the climate change problem - to pretend that we are now a world leader in emissions reduction if a key part of that 'development' is to force/entice other countries to give up their land to grow our energy.

Our scientists know it is wrong, but politicians want to meet the 2020 EU Renewable Energy targets. So policy prevails.

What should happen instead of this huge shift to bioenergy?

1. deep and rapid reductions in the levels of energy use in the UK and other so-called developed countries, using carbon / energy rationing.
2. huge investment in the true renewable energy technologies - solar, wind and marine. The money can come from scrapping indulgent vanity projects and military hardware.
3. banning of practices that are grossly wasteful of energy - for example: most flying, all Virgin space travel, cars above a certain size, houses above a certain size, domestic heated swimming pools and airconditioning.

Bioenergy is a false solution. Contact Biofuelwatch to find out more or to support our work.

Robert Palgrave
mail e-mail: robertpalgrave@hotmail.com
- Homepage: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk


To the above comment

24.10.2011 16:01

Yes, I agree in principle with what you're saying, the real savings in emissions will come from the building stock of the UK (if memory serves me righ, it accounts for over 40%). Solar and wind power are sporadic, not too sure about marines viability (Salters duck and all), however, people are going to need hot water in the depths of winter. You're not seriously proposing using green electricity for heating are you? That would be immensely wasteful. I believe the way forward IS making limited use of biomass, in the interim at least, making use of agricultural waste etc, however off the grid, maybe using small district CHP, making use of the waste heat for vapour absorption cooling where needed. Of more importance is building new houses and commercial premises to the Passivhaus standard. No energy inputs are better than limited ones. Also, the energy credits - the best model I jknow of I read in the book the last oil shock by David Strahan. A chap named David Fleming has proposed TEQs' (tradable energy quotas). You can find out via the link www.teqs.net. Essentially, if I remember correctly, it's a per capita emissions quota, issued yearly, and reduced yearly. It offers scope not just for reductions, but also wealth redistribution, the less well off being able to sell their excess quotas to the more well off for a premium. Anyway, I enjoyed your post. Sorry if you already know all this, just my tuppence worth.

sensible heat


biomass is incineration

24.10.2011 16:35

Bioenergy not only adversely affects climate change, biodiversity, human rights, food security & food sovereinty, water & soil quality, it is incineration. Most people object to incinerators. Burning biomass to 'keep our lights on' rather than reducing demand for energy reduces air quality. The biggest pollutor in Vermont USA is McNeil biomass power station in Burlington - one which only burns untreated 'clean' wood. It produces 79 air pollutants including arsenic, VOCS, benzene, doxins, Nox, PM1,, PM2.5 particulates. the WHO has said there is no safe limit of PM2.5 particulates that adversely affect health. The comment below from Jim Fotzpatrick should be chilling. DECC have said the UK is rated World No1 for UK wind industry. True renewables do not produce pollutants or balck carbon. Black Carbon is affecting the albedo of the arctic and increasing global warming. Jim Hansen has said reduction of black carbon is one of the quickets ways we have left to avert runaway climate change.

10th November 2009: "Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what recent assessment he has made of the effects of the use of biomass boilers installed to meet Renewable Energy Strategy targets on (angel) air quality, (b) levels of particulate emissions and (c) levels of (i) morbidity and (ii) mortality.

Jim Fitzpatrick: (angel) The Government have, in support of the development of the Renewable Energy Strategy (RES), carried out modelling of the effect of an increase in the use of biomass for heat and power on the emissions, ambient air concentrations and public health impacts of fine particles (PM2.5), coarser particles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide. The key air quality results of this analysis are given in the Renewable Energy Strategy on page 121.

(b) As part of the analysis the increases in the emissions of particulates were estimated over a number of different scenarios. For PM2.5 these were between 0.75 and 9.1 ktonnes from a baseline in 2007 of 82 ktonnes. For PM10, emissions were estimated as being between 1.3 and 9.5 ktonnes from a 2007 baseline of 135 ktonnes.

(c) (i) The impacts on morbidity resulting from the uptake of biomass as a renewable energy source were not assessed.

(ii) The mortality health impacts of these scenarios were estimated to be between 340,000 and 1,750,000 measured as the number of life years lost in 2020 from the impact on air quality of increased biomass combustion."

Ian Lander

Ian Lander
mail e-mail: ianalander