Wood pellets may not be the clean and green alternative to coal that many thought they were. In the United Kingdom, the Drax power station in North Yorkshire has made the switch from burning coal to burning wood pellets sourced from forests in the United States. This move was celebrated as a step towards a more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy source. However, recent research suggests that burning wood pellets may actually be worse for the environment than burning coal.
Kathleen Watts, a resident of Barlow in northern England, remembers the days when coal dust from the power station would cover her windows and snow. Now, with the switch to wood pellets, the air is cleaner, but the environmental impact may not be as positive as initially thought.
The UK government provides Drax with significant subsidies to burn wood pellets, claiming that it is a sustainable and environmentally friendly form of biomass. However, critics argue that burning wood pellets emits more carbon dioxide per kilowatt of electricity than burning coal. This is because wood has a lower density than coal, so more volume is needed to produce the same amount of energy, leading to increased emissions.
Studies have shown that the Drax power station is now the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions in the UK, emitting over 14 million tons in 2024. This level of emissions is higher than the combined emissions from the country’s largest gas plants and significantly higher than the emissions from the last coal plant in the UK.
Critics of the wood pellet industry argue that the entire supply chain, from harvesting trees in the US to transporting pellets across the Atlantic, is heavy on emissions. For every ton of pellets burned at Drax, approximately 500 pounds of CO2 are released from the production and transportation processes.
Despite these concerns, Drax continues to burn wood pellets as a fuel source, touting it as a sustainable alternative to coal. However, as more research sheds light on the environmental impact of burning wood pellets, there is growing skepticism among the public about the true sustainability of this energy source. As the UK strives to meet its climate goals, the debate over the environmental impact of burning wood pellets is likely to continue. Drax, a major player in the wood pellet industry, has recently come under scrutiny for its supply chain emissions and environmental impact. According to the company’s estimates, about half of Drax’s emissions are tied to production, while transportation via trucks, trains, and ships accounts for 44 percent. The switch from coal to pellets has created a new pollution problem in Louisiana and Mississippi, where most of the station’s fuel is produced. Drax’s pellet mills in these areas have repeatedly violated air quality rules and emit toxic chemicals linked to serious illnesses.
Residents of the communities near Drax’s mills have reported health issues due to the pollution. In response, Drax has stated that it is improving its pollution controls and is committed to high standards of safety and environmental compliance. The company has also pledged to be a good neighbor in the communities where it operates by funding environmental education programs and supporting land conservation efforts.
Much of the timber harvested by Drax comes from private lands in the Southern United States, but the company has also sourced wood from old-growth forests in western Canada. In 2024, Drax faced a penalty for misreporting data on its wood sourcing practices. Environmental groups have criticized Drax for accepting trees from British Columbia that were hundreds of years old, highlighting concerns about the sustainability of the company’s practices.
Despite these controversies, Drax maintains that it is committed to sustainability and environmental stewardship. The company uses leftover materials from lumber mills to produce pellets and supports forest thinning practices to improve habitat for wildlife. Drax believes that sourcing sustainable biomass and embedding sustainable practices into its operations will create lasting value.
The wood pellet industry’s value is dependent on an “accounting loophole” in international climate change policies that categorize wood pellet emissions under land use rather than energy use. This loophole was established in the 1990s to prevent double counting of emissions but has faced criticism from scientists for underestimating the environmental impact of wood pellet production and burning. As the wood pellet industry continues to grow, there is increasing pressure on companies like Drax to address their environmental footprint and ensure sustainable practices throughout their supply chain. You could buy your own house, have a good life, and retire comfortably. But then they closed it all down. They said it was dirty and polluting, but I think they just wanted to get rid of coal.”
Cunniff’s sentiment reflects a broader trend in the U.K. and Europe as a whole. The shift away from coal and toward wood burning has been hailed as a greener alternative, but it has come at a cost. While wood pellets are considered a renewable energy source, questions have been raised about their true environmental impact.
One major concern is the carbon neutrality of wood burning. Proponents argue that burning wood is carbon neutral because trees absorb CO2 as they grow, offsetting the emissions released when the wood is burned. However, critics point out that this equation is not as straightforward as it seems.
For one, the carbon debt incurred from cutting down trees and burning them can take decades, or even centuries, to be repaid by new tree growth. This means that in the short term, wood burning can actually contribute to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change.
Additionally, the process of producing wood pellets involves significant energy inputs, from logging and transporting the wood to processing it into pellets and shipping it to end users. These energy-intensive processes can further undermine the carbon neutrality of wood burning, especially if the wood is sourced from far away or clear-cut forests.
Despite these concerns, the U.K. and other European countries continue to rely on wood burning as a key component of their renewable energy portfolios. The allure of a quick and relatively cheap way to meet climate goals has outweighed the potential environmental risks associated with wood pellets.
As the world grapples with the urgent need to transition to cleaner energy sources, the debate over the true impacts of wood burning will only intensify. It is clear that a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to assessing the environmental costs and benefits of wood pellets is needed to ensure that the shift away from coal does not come at the expense of the planet’s health. The decline of the coal industry in the U.K. has left deep scars on Yorkshire, both economically and socially. Once a thriving hub of employment for many residents, the coal mines have now been replaced by the wood pellet industry, which, although providing some jobs and tax revenue, cannot fill the void left by coal.
Coal mining in the U.K. employed over 1.2 million people at its peak, with entire communities reliant on the industry for their livelihoods. The closure of deep-pit mines like the Selby Complex in 2004 resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and the dismantling of support systems such as social halls, sports clubs, and welfare programs that were funded by the industry.
In contrast, the wood pellet industry, dominated by Drax, employs significantly fewer people and has seen a decline in job numbers in recent years. The promise of economic prosperity and job creation has not materialized in the same way as coal mining once did. This trend is also reflected in the U.S., where Drax’s wood pellet mills in Louisiana and Mississippi employ far fewer people than the older pulp and paper mills that once thrived in the region.
While the wood pellet industry has brought some economic activity to Yorkshire, the region’s recent job growth has primarily come from online retail distribution centers. These facilities, often located on former coal fields, do not provide the same level of pay, stability, or job numbers that coal mining once did.
Despite the economic realities, some residents, like Tony Emmerson in the village of Drax, believe that coal should make a comeback. They argue that coal resources are abundant and readily available, unlike wood pellets which require cutting down trees and burning them for energy.
In the face of these challenges, some, like Cunniff, a former miner at the Kellingley Colliery, question the environmental impact of burning trees for energy. They argue that cutting down trees, which are essential for cleaning the atmosphere, is not a sustainable solution for powering the grid.
As the U.K. continues to transition away from coal towards renewable energy sources, the legacy of the coal industry in Yorkshire and other regions remains a complex and multifaceted issue. The transition to a greener future must consider the economic and social implications for communities that have long relied on coal for their survival.
Gary Calton / The Guardian
