About
This report assesses the possible growth in biomass burning across Europe as a result of a fleet of planned coal-to-biomass power plant conversions. We map every project and estimate the scale of the threat to global forests.
Executive summary
Unsustainable and expensive
Analysis by Ember finds that company plans to burn biomass in EU coal power stations are unsustainable and expensive.
Conclusion
Next steps for policymakers
In this chapter:
- Governments should focus policy support on renewable energy sources which deliver near immediate carbon and cost savings vs. fossil fuels – such as wind and solar – rather than on biomass, which delivers questionable carbon savings, perhaps not realised for many decades (if at all), at a cost much higher than that of fossil fuels.
- The true effect of biomass burning on the climate must be understood. Governments must assess the net effects of switching from coal to biomass with an integrated approach: carbon flows along the complete life cycle (including combustion emissions) in the bioenergy scenario should be compared with carbon flows in the absence of increased harvesting for bioenergy (a reference or counterfactual scenario). Such analyses should include reduction in the carbon stock and foregone sequestration from biomass harvested.
- As recommended by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), a coal-to-biomass project should not be regarded as a renewable energy source unless the operators can demonstrate that the project will lead to a net reduction in atmospheric carbon levels within a decade. Projects that fail to meet this threshold should be subject to a carbon price and not be eligible for any subsidies.
