Climate Briefing
Jun 25, 2025
BIOENERGY AT DRAX—THE FACTS
A1. Existing biomass process is far from carbon-neutral
A1.1 Drax sources biomass from clearcutting forests in North America and Eastern Europe—as documented by Panorama. These forests took centuries to build up carbon stocks—and take decades or longer to regrow and recapture the carbon burned (carbon payback time).
A1.2 At the point of burning, bioenergy emits more CO₂ per unit of electricity than coal, with Drax the UK’s single largest CO₂ emitter, despite generating only a small share of power.
A1.3 In a rapidly warming world, with ecosystems under mounting pressure, there are no guarantees that forest regrowth will re-capture anything like the same amount of carbon.
A1. 4 It is extraordinarily reckless to plan to emit large amounts of CO₂—in the hope it will be re-absorbed many decades hence—when we are facing the threat of crossing irreversible tipping points right now, like the collapse of the AMOC ocean current which holds UK temperatures from dropping to Ice Age levels.
A1.5 Because UK climate laws ignore the emissions we cause overseas, the Government pretends the significant emissions in logging, pelletchipping, burning in the UK, and shipping simply do not exist.
🚫 Bottom line: Burning forests emits carbon now—regrowth comes far too late to help.
A2. Competes with land, threatening food security and ecosystems
A2.1 Drax depends on importing over 3 million tonnes of wood from nations like Canada, but with public discontent growing over the grave consequences on ecosystems, the UK Government is taking an unacceptable risk relying on continued supply from overseas—particularly since Drax was fined £25 million only last year for misleading regulators over the source of its wood—wrongly claiming it was sustainable.
A2.2 If the UK tried to grow enough energy crops domestically for its bioenergy plans, it would require farmland three quarters the size of Wales, with major adverse impacts on food security.
A2.3 Scientists already warn that worsening climate change is raising the risk of food shortages, backed up by a recent food industry whistleblower report. Against this backdrop, it poses a food security risk to permit any waste of land on energy crops—let alone an expansion.
🚫 Bottom line: Bioenergy wastes land we need for food and nature, threatening security.
A3. Serious scientific doubts over carbon capture’s workability at scale
A3.1 There is little Industrial scale experience of CCS, and the industry has a history of exaggerated claims and underperformance
A3.2 It is unclear whether there are sufficient potential storage sites, and there is no independent evidence that the CO₂ will remain safely locked away permanently.
A3.3 Independent scientists have warned repeatedly that carbon capture—developed by the fossil fuel industry—is unproven at scale, with no independent evidence to show it will work. If it fails, we will have squandered the opportunity to accelerate clean energy instead.
A3.4 Regulation for CCS is weak, still under development, reliant on self-reporting by operators with no robust enforcement. Such dependence on for-profit operators to reliably operate an CCS process around the clock for decades is highly risky . For a cautionary parallel, we can look to the water industry, which has failed abysmally in its duty not to dump raw sewage into our rivers.
🚫 Bottom line: Drax’s carbon capture is unproven and cannot be relied on.
A4. Serious health consequences
A4.1 The Government's Net Zero Strategy report warns of 'significant negative air quality impacts from biomass burning at both regional and local scales'. This potentially means a wide and adverse health impact across Northern England.
A4.2 Biomass plants emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) and other pollutants harmful to respiratory and cardiovascular health.
A4.3. The above impacts assume Drax adheres to legal limits, but Drax has previously been fined in the USA for emitting chemicals linked to cancer.
A4.4 Drax proposes to transport CO₂ to the North Sea by pipeline. If a pipeline fails, a CO₂ leak can be fatal. Such a leak has occurred in the USA, with fatalities narrowly averted.
🚫 Bottom line: Biomass burning spreads toxic pollution and harms health.
A5. Cost
A5.1 Last year, Drax received £869 million in subsidies from UK energy bill payers whilst making almost £1.1 billion in profits. If the Government continues to subsidise Drax after 2027, bill payers could now pay up to £628 million or even more per year for Drax.
A5.2 The Climate Change Committee recently advised that overall costs of developing BECCS, as currently planned to 2050, would be £129bn.
B The Alternatives
The extraordinarily high public cost of Drax means diverting funds away from genuine solutions to the climate crisis, such as insulating our leaking housing stock, and accelerating the rapid roll-out of clean, cheap renewable energy.
B1 Drax produces around 4% of the UK’s electricity. It can’t just be turned off, but subsidies should be ended to ensure its rapid phase out. This is a climate emergency. We cannot afford to waste public funds on false solutions. Drax reported £1.1 billion in profit in 2024 after receiving £869 million in subsidies.
B2 Government money should be used instead to accelerate the renewables rollout. There is a strong scientific consensus that a 100% renewable energy based power system is feasible now.
B3 One major study calculated that transitioning to 100% clean energy would save nations over 60% on their overall energy costs. This is partly because electric power is vastly more efficient than fossil fuel power which typically loses over half the energy as heat.
B4 Scientists are also clear that the faster we transition, the more we will save.
C. Conclusion
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is a false solution which will worsen climate change, harm the health of the nation and of nature, and threaten food shortages.
There is no scientific justification for Government to continue funding Drax, and precious resources ought to be redirected instead towards accelerating the clean energy roll-out.