Off Topic And Now for Something Completely Different

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Plum said:
Bizarre. Has anyone done the calculations I wonder? And I don't mean the P&L!
Click to expand...

I can't recall the precise figures so these could be wrong, but from some reports Drax burns something like 5 times the number of trees the UK grows in a year, and receives over eight times the amount of subsidy that tree planting gets to produce less than 1% of the UK electricity demand.

It's also still the single largest emitter of CO2 in the UK, yet still counts as a renewable resource, although I think this is (or has been) challenged.

Drax sponsored COP 26.
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber, Des Head and Ron Burguvdy
DMD said:
I can't recall the precise figures so these could be wrong, but from some reports Drax burns something like 5 times the number of trees the UK grows in a year, and receives over eight times the amount of subsidy that tree planting gets to produce less than 1% of the UK electricity demand.

It's also still the single largest emitter of CO2 in the UK, yet still counts as a renewable resource, although I think this is (or has been) challenged.

Drax sponsored COP 26.
Click to expand...

It's classed as renewable because the carbon has been sequestered by tree growth in the last 20 or 30 years (as opposed to millions of years of growth compressed into coal) but the sheer amount they burn still absolutely takes the piss. Not to mention how much carbon is emitted in the harvesting and transportation. Drax wants levelling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back