The debate article was published in Klimamonitor and was written by Annika Lund Gade (Green Transition Denmark), Gry Bossen (World Forests), Lasse Jesper Pedersen (Danmarks Naturfredningsforening), Tarjei Haaland (Greenpeace Denmark) and Thomas Meinert Larsen (Climate Movement in Denmark).

When the state-owned energy company Ørsted these days prepares to apply for billions of public support kroner as subsidies to establish CO₂-collection at the company's biomass-fired cogeneration plant, then it is a huge misfire that will actually work against our climate goals. 

The funding should initially be reserved for the CO₂-discharges which we have the most difficulty phasing out with known technological means. 

The fact is that although a number of Ørsted's cogeneration plants are powered by wood biomass, a form of energy which is CO₂-neutral when viewed over the trees' total lifetime, then the time lag between CO₂-emitted during combustion versus CO₂- taken up by the tree's growth so significantly that burning biomass is a net contributor to CO₂discharge. 

The exact amount of this net emission depends on the specific logging practice, but the emission with the current logging and burning practices in Denmark is estimated to be quite significant according to a research report from the University of Copenhagen. 

The Danish Energy Agency thus estimates in their latest report 'Global reporting 2022' that the net emissions per GJ of biomass from the consumption of wood pellets and wood chips for the production of electricity and heat are 121 kilos of CO, respectively₂/GJ one year after ignition and 68 kilos of CO₂/GJ after 10 years. 

Therefore, it must now be clear to everyone that CO₂- collection from biomass burning at cogeneration plants does NOT deliver negative emissions. In addition, the large amounts of burning of biomass mean that the forests are almost vacuumed for dead biomass, with major negative consequences for the local animal and plant life.

Transition technology

For these reasons, an increasing number of players consider biomass burning to be a transitional technology that should only be used until our electricity and heat supply can be covered 100 percent by renewable energy with zero emissions, including for example the use of renewable energy in combination with geothermal energy, heat pumps and various electricity and heat storage technologies. 

Note here that we are certainly not alone in our criticism. The Climate Minister himself has previously referred to biomass as a transition technology and recently the Climate Council, the Concito think tank and, for example, Professor Brian Vad Mathiesen have issued strong warnings against investing in CO₂-collection linked to unsustainably high biomass burning. 

There are many of us who pay tribute and frequently refer to Ørsted as a company that has in many ways taken the lead in the green transition. The positive story runs the greatest risk of being lost on the floor if we allow Ørsted to follow its announced strategy of continuing the current enormously high burning of imported wood biomass - a strategy which is obviously based on a completely unreasonable exploitation of the - unfortunately out of date - international calculation methods, which Ørsted knows very well, do not live up to today's scientific understanding. 

Importing and burning imported wood biomass may look good in relation to the national CO₂-accounting, but it is an unsustainable direction, and we should instead focus on climate measures that both on paper and in reality deliver real CO₂- reductions. 

Therefore, it is problematic if, in our eagerness to reduce CO₂-the emissions uncritically throw support kroner after the least obvious CO₂-sources.

Reserve CO₂-catch

To establish CO₂-collection and CCS are also very expensive, and in fact we do not know the costs yet. But on the other hand, we should know that the CO₂- collection (and possibly storage), which we should prioritize, it should be from CO₂-emissions, where today we have no or only very little knowledge of solutions that can eliminate the emission, such as with CO₂- emissions from biogas plants, CO₂- emissions from cement production and CO₂-discharge from the residual waste incineration which must be assumed to remain for a number of years, even after we sort out as much waste as possible for reuse and recycling. 

Common to these CO₂-sources also apply that production, and thus CO₂-the emission is fairly stable throughout the year, which improves the profitability of establishing CO₂-collection in contrast to biomass burning, which primarily takes place in the winter months, when the heat demand is highest. 

To establish CO₂- collection on biomass-based cogeneration plants will also provide a strong incentive to keep and extend the life of these energy plants to ensure a good economy for the expensive investments in CO₂- collection plant, and therefore not necessarily because biomass is needed to produce heat. It will of course be a perverse argument for maintaining a greenhouse gas-emitting activity.

So when the Danish Energy Agency must soon designate the projects that will receive public support for CCS/CCUS development, then you should clearly avoid giving support to CO₂- collection from biomass-based plants, including Ørsted's biomass-based cogeneration plant, which is actually facing a gradual phase-out.

Answer from Ørsted

In a response to this debate post, the Ørsted manager responsible for CO writes₂-catch, Jens Andersen Grymer, that their plans for CO₂-catch will not affect the lifespan of their biomass-fired cogeneration plants. 

"We are looking at establishing CO₂-capturing the cogeneration plants that have a long life again, and which are adapted to the future demand for electricity, heat and system services in an energy market that must be increasingly electrified.'

Read the full reply here..

Senders:
Annika Lund Gade, Advisor, Agriculture and Energy, Green Transition Denmark

Gry Bossen, Political coordinator, Verdens Skove

Lasse Jesper Pedersen, Climate and Energy Policy Senior Advisor, Danish Nature Conservation Association

Tarjei Haaland, Climate and energy advisor, Greenpeace Denmark

Thomas Meinert Larsen, Climate Policy Adviser, Climate Movement in Denmark