Trade in pellets from the Baltic States to the UK
Source: based on
Eurostat (CN8, monthly, code 44013100)
Remarks: the discrepancies might be attributable to re-exports (pellets from other countries exported through Estonia and Latvia)
Estonia's exports of pellets, wood fuel, chips and wood residues
Source: based on
Eurostat (CN8, monthly, codes 440131, 44011*, 44012*, other
4401*)
Remarks:
Ørsted's Asnæs CHP station started burning chips
during 2020
Latvia's exports of pellets, wood fuel, chips and wood residues
Source: based on
Eurostat (CN8, monthly,
codes 440131,
44011*, 44012*, other 4401*)
Denmark's exports of pellets, wood fuel, chips and wood residues
Source: based on
Eurostat (CN8, monthly,
codes 440131,
44011*, 44012*, other 4401*)
Remarks: the great majority of the pellets reported as exports
by Denmark are not reported are probably re-exports, not least
because the leading destination countries for those pellets report
negligble quantities of pellets as imports from Denmark.
Wood pellets
One of the EU's leading suppliers of wood pellets has recently been
declared bankrupt and there are allegations that its interests in
pellet manufacturing in the USA were fraudulent.[
-]
The group's bankruptcy jeopardised proposals to convert the Langerloo
power station (in Belgium) to use biomass fuel (which has now ceased
burning coal[
-]
until that power station was acquired by Graanul Invest (based in
Estonia), which claims
to be the biggest producer of wood pellets in Europe.[
-]
There is little public information about the ownership and financing
of the group. The group indicates that its pellets derive from the
by-products of saw mills in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.[
-]
The discrepancy between the weight of pellets exported to the UK
from Latvia and the weight of pellets imported by the UK from Latvia
is sufficiently large and persistent to warrant explanation by Drax and the SBP (which,
being largely controlled by Drax and major
electricity generating companies, has a clear conflict of interest as
a scheme which certifies its owners supplies of pellets). The
discrepancy also warrants liason between the customs services of
Latvia and the UK, and their compatriots in Competent Authorities under the EU's "Timber Regulation" (given
that fraud might be a leading explanation). None of the Baltic States
imports substantial quantities of wood pellets from Russia
and/or Belarus.
One of the power stations which have been awarded large subsidies
from the UK government[
Slide
6] has yet to be built. Its main contractor[-][
-]
is currently subject to bankruptcy proceedings[
-]
This will presumably delay
[-]
not only the project's financial close[
-][
-],
but also the commencement of construction (now expected Q2 2017
[-]).
The contractor's bankruptcy would have jeopardises the proposed
construction of a 215MW power station in Belgium, but a replacement
contractor has been appointed.[
-][
-].
The sole supplier of wood pellets to that power station[
search
term MGT] would seem to be linked to an enterprise against which a
formal complaint has been made to the USA's Securities and Exchange
Commission[
-].
That complaint alleges misrepresentation of evidence provided to
investors.
According to a
statement by its
developer, greenhouse gas emissions of the Teesside power station are capped at
a level roughly five times less than those of a coal-fired power
station of the same capacity. This is so unlikely that investors
and officials should question why that statement has been made.
Given that the power station's fuel, wood (in the form of pellets
and/or chips) emits at least as much CO
2
on combustion as coal per unit of calorific value, such a cap on its
emissions would implicitly cap the power station's output, in turn
capping the power station's potential revenue to roughly five times
less than if it were coal-fired.
The developer also states that
the power station will save a substantial quantity of CO
2
during its life,[
-]
as does its financial adivser
[footnote
ii].
However, power stations do not sequester CO
2
and sustaining cheap electricity supplies tends to promote consumption
(- typically and for the time being, of products having a
signigificant greenhouse gas footprint). Further, as is the
convention amongst those who promote the generation of electricity
from biomass, that purported saving assumes that biomass burned in
power stations does not emit CO
2.
The requirement that its wood fuel will derive from sources which
are sustainably managed will severely constrain the supply of that
fuel. Very little woodland in south eastern USA is certified as
being sustainably managed. Given that the structure of woodland
ownership is highly fragmented and given that owners are subject to
minimal regulation - particularly in relation to sustaining the nature
of that land - there is little assurance that certified woodland will
remain eligible (and there is a risk that if that woodland is not
already a plantation, it will be cleared in order to become one,
fundamentally changing the nature of that land).
Suggested
reading:
"Burning
wood from Southern US forests to generate electricity in Europe"
(letter from US Scientists to the EC 08 2013)
"Forest
Bionergy for Europe - What science can tell us" EFI (2014)
"Review
of literature on biogenic carbon and life cycle assessment of forest
bioenergy" Forest research (05 2014)
"State
of play on the sustainability of solid and gaseous biomass used for
electricity, heating and cooling in the EU" EC (2014)
"Carbon
Emissions and Climate Change Disclosure by the Wood Pellet Industry –
A Report to the SEC on Enviva Partners LP" Partnership for Policy
Integrity and Dogwood Alliance (03 2016)
"Woody
Biomass for Power and Heat: Impacts on the Global Climate" D Brack
for Chatham House (02 2017)
