Matt Ridley
August 6, 2014
America's Mr. Obama insists that various forms of "renewable" energy are the wave of the future and worth spending countless billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize. He is precisely wrong. An example emerged on my side of the Pond here in Britain the other day.
My train was diverted by engineering works near Doncaster. We trundled past some shiny new freight wagons decorated with a slogan: "Drax - powering tomorrow: carrying sustainable biomass for cost-effective renewable power." Serendipitously, I was at that moment reading a report by Dr. David McKay, chief scientist at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change on the burning of wood in Yorkshire power stations such as Drax. And I was feeling vindicated.
Believe it or not, Drax imports a million kilotons of wood from Canada and the US a year to burn in its power station in place of coal, producing twice-as-expensive electricity requiring government subsidies. And it plans to increase its imported subsidized wood to seven million kilotons a year by 2016.
When I wrote how ludicrous this is in the London Times, there was a howl of protest on the letters page from Drax's chief executive. Now, Dr. MacKay's report vindicates me. The entire rationale for burning wood rather than coal is that it allegedly produces fewer CO2 emissions. Yet the report shows that, if the wood comes from whole trees, as much of it does, the result is an increase in emissions compared with coal. And that's allowing for the regrowth of forests.
Nonetheless, the renewable-energy bandwagon careens onward, costing ever more money and doing real environmental harm, while producing trivial quantities of energy and risking blackouts next winter. This applies to every form of renewable energy. Here's the scorecard in Britain.
Read more...