{"id":6984,"date":"2020-12-03T10:33:55","date_gmt":"2020-12-03T09:33:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reclaimfinance.org\/site\/?p=6984"},"modified":"2023-03-03T14:40:51","modified_gmt":"2023-03-03T13:40:51","slug":"funding-coal-conversion-to-biomass-is-it-a-green-idea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reclaimfinance.org\/site\/en\/2020\/12\/03\/funding-coal-conversion-to-biomass-is-it-a-green-idea\/","title":{"rendered":"Funding coal conversion to biomass, is it a \u201cgreen\u201d idea?"},"content":{"rendered":"

With the growing urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, utilities around the world have increased their commitments to transition away from coal pow<\/span>er p<\/span>lants. However,<\/span><\/span> these efforts often mean converting existing coal facilities either to natural gas or to biomass. Solid biomass can emit between <\/span><\/span>3% and 50%<\/a><\/u><\/span> more CO2 per unit of energy produced than generating it from coal. In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, the negative impacts on land and ecosystems from producing the required wood, combined with the health consequences due to air pollution resulting from incineration, make bio<\/span>mass a bad choice for investing in a healthy planet. Supporting companies to switch from coal to biomass might consequently impede, rather than reinforce, financial institutions\u2019 transition towards a +1.5\u00b0C target.<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Questionable GHG emissions savings<\/span><\/b> <\/b><\/p>\n

Despite supporters arguing <\/span><\/b>that <\/span><\/b>biomass for energy <\/span><\/b>generation <\/span><\/b>is carbon neutral, <\/span><\/b><\/b><\/b><\/b><\/b><\/b><\/b>growing <\/span><\/b>evidence<\/span><\/b><\/a><\/b><\/b><\/b><\/b><\/b><\/b><\/u> shows that <\/span><\/b>biomass <\/span><\/b>emissions are greater per unit of energy <\/span><\/b>generated<\/span><\/b> than burning coal<\/span><\/b>. <\/span>A<\/span>mong others,<\/span> s<\/span>cientist<\/span>s<\/span> , think tanks<\/span> and <\/span> NGOs<\/span>,<\/span> agree that <\/span>replacing coal with biomass is <\/span>not a<\/span> solution <\/span>to <\/span>face the current climate emergency.<\/span> A 2018<\/span> letter<\/a><\/u><\/span> by <\/span>a group of 772 scientist addressed to the<\/span><\/b> Members of the European Parliament <\/span><\/b>concluded that <\/span><\/b>\u201cOverall, replacing fossil fuels with wood will likely result in 2-3x more carbon in the atmosphere in 2050 per gigajoule of final energy.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/b> <\/i>In addition, <\/span>the <\/span>European Academies’ Science Advisory Council<\/a><\/u><\/span> warns <\/span>of the mismatch between science and policy in <\/span>relation to <\/span>forest bioenergy<\/span>.<\/span> They<\/span> argue <\/span>that <\/span>since<\/span> atmospheric CO<\/span>2<\/span> levels are ra<\/span>ised <\/span>before<\/span> regrowth <\/span>of trees<\/span> can reabsorb the excess emissions<\/span>, <\/span>replacing coal <\/span>with <\/span>biomass <\/span>is incompatible with the urgen<\/span>t need<\/span> to decrease our <\/span>absolute carbon emissions<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

A<\/span><\/b> driver of forest destruction <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

The <\/span><\/b>negative impacts<\/span><\/b> of biomass<\/span><\/b> go beyond<\/span><\/b> <\/b>GHG <\/span><\/b>emissions<\/span><\/b>;<\/span><\/b> it causes deforestation and ecosystems loss<\/span><\/b>.<\/span><\/b> <\/b>While <\/span>the<\/span> industry claims biomass <\/span>for energy production <\/span>comes<\/span> from wood residues, residues <\/span>alone<\/span> would not <\/span>be <\/span>sufficient<\/span> to meet demand for energy <\/span>generation<\/span>. <\/span>T<\/span>he removal of whole logs, limbs, and stumps<\/span> to comply with current <\/span>demand<\/span> is already happening<\/span> with <\/span>w<\/span>ood pellet production <\/span>having <\/span>more than quadrupled in the last ten year<\/span>s<\/span><\/a><\/u>.<\/span> Solid biomass and charcoal already account for around 36% of primary energy supply in O<\/span>ECD<\/span> countries<\/span>. <\/span>P<\/span>roduction and consumption of wo<\/span>o<\/span>d pellets <\/span>is<\/span> the highest in Europe<\/span><\/a> (49% of global production)<\/span>, with <\/span>North America<\/span> being one of <\/span>its<\/span> main suppliers<\/span>, and <\/span>demand likely to increase<\/span>.<\/span> Proposed EU coal-to-biomass projects could increase biomass consumption by <\/span><\/b>607 petajoules (PJ) p\/a<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/b>,<\/span><\/b> <\/b>meaning that <\/span><\/b>biomass burnt in current and former coal power plants could triple <\/span><\/b>in comparison with<\/span><\/b> current levels<\/span><\/b>.<\/span> <\/b><\/b><\/b>M<\/span><\/b>ajor growth <\/span><\/b>in demand <\/span><\/b>is<\/span><\/b> also<\/span><\/b> expected in Asia<\/span><\/b><\/a><\/b><\/b><\/b><\/u>,<\/span> encouraged<\/span> in some cases by government <\/span>subsidies<\/span> (<\/span>for instance in S<\/span>outh Korea and Japan). <\/span>If <\/span><\/b>th<\/span><\/b>ese<\/span><\/b> <\/b>trend<\/span><\/b>s<\/span><\/b> <\/b>continue<\/span><\/b> as expected<\/span><\/b>, it would entail<\/span><\/b> <\/b>the destruction of <\/span><\/b>biodiversity and <\/span><\/b>ecosystems<\/span><\/b>, resulting <\/span><\/b>simultaneously <\/span><\/b>in <\/span><\/b>the elimination of <\/span><\/b>natural emission sinks<\/span><\/b> <\/b>. <\/span><\/p>\n

A threat to <\/span><\/b>a<\/span><\/b>ir quality and human health<\/span><\/b> <\/b><\/p>\n

In addition to CO<\/span>2<\/span> emissions, <\/span>the<\/span> c<\/span>ombustion of biomass<\/span> to generate electricity<\/span> releases <\/span>damaging emissions<\/span> that cause<\/span> air pollution, <\/span>like <\/span>any other fossil fue<\/span>l. Biomass is specially recognized for <\/span>emitting<\/span> pollutants<\/span> such as <\/span>particulate matter,<\/span> polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, <\/span>nitrogen oxides <\/span>and <\/span>carbon monoxide<\/span><\/a><\/u>. <\/span> All of them<\/span><\/b> are<\/span><\/b> <\/b>associated with <\/span><\/b>severe <\/span><\/b>respiratory, skin and eye issues<\/span><\/b>, among others health issues,<\/span><\/b> for the population living nearby<\/span><\/b>.<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Implications<\/span><\/b> for FIs<\/span> <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Financial <\/span><\/b>a<\/span><\/b>ctors are not immune to biomass<\/span><\/b>\u2019<\/span><\/b> negative consequences<\/span><\/b>.<\/span><\/b> <\/b>S<\/span><\/b>upporting<\/span><\/b> biomass <\/span><\/b>entails <\/span><\/b><\/b><\/b>r<\/span><\/b>eputational, financial and regulatory risks<\/span><\/b><\/a>:<\/u><\/p>\n