Debate presented in the Alting on 18 May 2020 by Kåre Press-Kristensen and Annika Lund Gade, senior advisor and project worker from the Green Transition Denmark

It has drawn criticism from both Danish Energy and Danish Industry, and the Green Transition Denmark recommends phasing out biomass.

We thereby align ourselves with the rapidly growing number of Danish and international climate experts who warn against biomass's contribution to global warming and recommend phasing out. We also recommend the gradual phasing in of taxes on biomass to promote green alternatives.

Our post was primarily a praise for Aalborg's investment in geothermal energy, while reading the criticism of the post gives the impression that we want the burning of biomass stopped tomorrow.

That is not our position. We also do not believe that burning all biomass is wrong. We are therefore surprised that Dansk Energi and Dansk Industri have interpreted our submission in that way.

Biomass must be phased out towards 2040

As we have repeatedly announced, we believe that biomass should basically be phased out towards 2040, taking into account the finances of the individual plants. It is neither naive, irresponsible nor unvarnished. The opposite attitude, on the other hand, will be.

A phasing out over the next 20 years gives time for the existing works to be depreciated, continued development of better heat pumps and geothermal energy, energy renovation of the housing stock, further energy efficiency in business, much more solar and wind energy and more foreign cables with much greater capacity.

Combined with strategic heat storage – also private – and thereby the possibility of decoupling selected units at peak load, our electricity and heat production can be covered both without fossil fuels and wood, so that we avoid the associated climate burden. Just think of the development in the last 20 years. And it will only get stronger in the next 20 years.

We agree with Danish Industry that not all biomass is "bad". But wood in particular is problematic. And wood makes up by far the majority of the biomass. When wood is burned, CO is released₂ immediately into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. Exactly like CO₂ from coal. Even burning thinning wood is not CO₂- neutral. 

Had the thinning tree been left in the forest instead, it would both contribute to valuable biodiversity and act as CO₂-stock in the coming years, when we are particularly busy to avoid additional CO₂ in the atmosphere.

The climate is driven by the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. And CO₂-concentration increases. Both when we burn fossil energy sources and biomass. Some will then emphasize that over a 100- or 200-year time horizon, wood from forests can be CO₂-neutral, if the forest is replanted.

More agriculture must be converted to forest

But according to the UN climate panel, we must act here and now to avoid dangerous irreversible global warming. Therefore, it is especially our emissions over the next 10-20 years that will determine the climate of the future.

In that time perspective, burning wood-based biomass cannot be considered as CO₂-neutral. The green transition is the transition to a smoke-free society without CO₂-accumulation in the atmosphere.

Heating our buildings should be based on geothermal, solar heat and electricity from CO₂-neutral renewable energy sources such as wind, sun, hydropower. Therefore, systematic burning of wood is not part of the green transition.

Over the next 20 years, we will continue to have more and better opportunities to manage without wood-based biomass in the electricity and heat supply. We will use them to phase out the biomass. 

Wood from forestry operations should be used for building materials and products with a long life and thereby serve as CO₂- warehouse. In addition, we must have converted much more agricultural land into natural forests without forestry, where the purpose is increased biodiversity, CO₂-absorption/storage, groundwater protection and recreational purposes.

Some biomass with short CO₂-life cycle such as straw and algae must be used in products, while others such as manure and sewage sludge must be biogasified and used for soil improvement.

That some waste and biomass with short CO₂-life cycle can be used to cover peak loads in areas without alternatives, we do not rule it out, but we believe that this too must be severely limited in 20 years.

Introduce taxes on the burning of biomass

In order to accelerate the green transition, we must have taxes on the burning of biomass for electricity and heat production, so that climate-friendly alternatives are promoted. Taxes must ensure that the power plants do not go back to fossil fuels, but gradually convert to CO₂-neutral energy sources.

We also believe that a ban on fossil fuels in electricity and heat production could be a solution. It is important that, in parallel, much higher taxes are introduced on the burning of biomass in private wood-burning stoves, boilers and straw stoves, as private burning both burdens the climate and is at the same time one of our biggest sources of health-damaging air pollution.

We are against taxes on biomass alone for collective works. The sooner we decide to gradually phase out wood-based biomass and begin the green transition to CO₂-neutral energy sources, the more smooth and cheap the changeover will be.