The citizens' representation in Copenhagen has decided to let HOFOR use DKK 50 million. DKK for a CCS plant at Amagerværket to ensure Copenhagen becomes a climate-positive municipality in 2035. HOFOR must use the money to participate in the upcoming CCS tender, where the government according to a broad political settlement plans to spend up to DKK 27 billion. NOK to capture and store CO2. The CCS plant must capture CO2 from the Amager plant's chimney, and this CO2 must later be permanently stored underground.  

Green Transition Denmark believes that it is a waste of taxpayers' and heat consumers' money to build a CCS plant at the wood-fired Amagerværk. 

 "Heat pumps powered by electricity from the sun and wind provide a more climate-friendly and probably also cheaper heat supply in the long term. And a CCS plant at Amagerværket will be climate-positive in 30 years at the earliest," says senior consultant at the Green Transition Denmark, Erik Tang.  

"Unfortunately, HOFOR and the Citizens' Representative Office still believe that wood-based heat supply is climate-neutral, and that storing CO2 emitted from this immediately pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. Both parts are costly misunderstandings – which are unfortunately shared by the Ministry of Climate Change.”  

There are two simple explanations for that:  

Burning wood converts its carbon content into CO2, which is released into the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change just like CO2 from fossil fuels. According to The UN Climate Panel and the government's own report, Global Reporting, take several years before the natural decay of waste wood has emitted the same amount of CO2. If trunk wood is felled for the purpose, it takes even longer before new trees have absorbed the same amount of CO2 that is emitted by burning. In the long meantime, burning the wood has increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere and accelerated global warming.   

Similarly, HOFOR and the Ministry of Climate Change etc. overlook that CO2 storage from a wood-fired plant inevitably leads to less wood and CO2 stores in the forests. Calculations by the Green Transition Denmark and others show that, at best, it takes 30 years or more before a CCS project based on wood delivers a larger net storage than if the wood had remained in the forest. The climate does not have time to wait for that – and Copenhagen's goal of being climate positive in 2035 will have long since been missed.  

As responsible for the climate accounting, the Ministry of Climate Change should be wiser: Wood stocks in the forests are included in the so-called LULUCF accounting for carbon storage in soil and forests, which is transferred directly to the Climate Accounting. As mentioned, burning wood for energy reduces wood and carbon stocks in the forests. This leads to poorer LULUCF and climate accounts, which are solely the responsibility of the state.  

"CO2 capture on wood-based cogeneration is similar to Ebberød Bank," says Erik Tang, referring to the Danish film of the same title.  

"The state first gives state aid to make electricity from burning wood in the cogeneration plants, and then you give state aid to the energy companies' CO2 emissions from burning Danish wood. And then you will give even more for storing CO2 if it is based on Danish wood. Ebberød Bank was probably a better business!”  

Approx. 2/3 of the Danish consumption of wood for energy certainly comes from other countries, and according to the rules, the CO2 loss of the forests must be accounted for in the country of origin of the wood. It adorns the Danish state's climate accounting. But the climate doesn't care - the damage is independent of the CO2's country of origin.   

Green Transition Denmark recognizes that there is a broad political majority behind the CCS initiative.  

"If the politicians absolutely want CO2 capture now, it will be much better for the climate if you drop the CO2 capture at the wood-fired Amagerværk and instead move a few hundred meters to the waste-fired incinerator ARC or another waste incinerator. Here, a CCS plant will capture both fossil CO2 from plastic and biogenic CO2 from food and paper waste. Overall, it will provide a significantly greater climate benefit, because the waste will so far be burned and CO2 emitted in all circumstances," says Erik Tang.  

He states, however, that overall it will be best for the climate and resource consumption if we sort and recycle the waste instead. This is being worked on, and it will eventually make CCS on waste incineration redundant, he estimates.  

Ideally, the Green Transition Denmark saw that the government and settlement parties take a pause for thought before spending additional funding on CCS. It is still an expensive and immature technology that also requires a lot of energy. The time should be used to study the rules for LULUCF and climate accounting. And the CCS funds can be advantageously used to replace climate-damaging wood energy with sun, wind and heat pumps, which will provide a far greater climate effect for less money.