DRAX – a name that will go down in the annals of ‘net zero’ hypocrisy
Deliberately polluting the atmosphere with higher CO2 emissions than burning coal -whilst making money out of chopping down forests
A year ago, I posted this:
“Drax Power Station has a total capacity of 2.6 GW for biomass and previously had a 1.29 GW capacity for coal that was retired in 2021. Currently, it provides about 6% of the United Kingdom’s electricity supply.”
Now we have this:
Drax hails good performance as it supports UK energy at a critical time
“We are excited about the potential opportunities to invest further to help the country meet its growing energy needs.
In February Drax confirmed a major restructuring which will lead to 350 redundancies as part of plans to build “a strong, resilient business for the future”.
Uh huh. ‘invest further’ whilst making 350 people redundant, right.
“It said a good performance across the group means its 2026 full year adjusted Ebitda is expected to be in line with estimates of £665m - subject to continued good operational performance. Drax produces over 5% of the UK’s electricity and around 10% of its renewable power, going up to 18% at times of peak demand and on certain days over 50%.
Renewable power?
Chopping down entire forests, urning the wood into pellets, shipping the pellets to the UK and burning them at Drax instead of burning coal.
What’s ‘renewable’ about that? Are hey replanting all the trees cut down?
Let’s explore a little deeper.
From Brave AI:
“, Drax Power Station has consumed approximately 7.6 million tonnes of wood pellets in 2024 to generate electricity.
This volume represents a slight decrease from the 7 million tonnes cited in earlier reports (which required 14 million tonnes of green wood for processing), but remains consistent with the scale of consumption required to produce roughly 12.7–15 TWh of renewable power annually.
Current scientific assessments indicate that burning wood pellets for energy emits significantly more carbon dioxide than burning coal on a per-unit-of-energy basis, primarily because wood has a lower energy density and higher moisture content.
Higher Intensity: Wood burning releases approximately 18% more CO2 per terajoule (TJ) of energy than bituminous coal, the most common type of coal used for power generation.
Drax Case Study: The Drax power station in the UK, which converted from coal to wood pellets, reported direct stack emissions of 955 gCO2e per kWh from burning wood, which is higher than the 898 gCO2e per kWh emitted when it burned coal in 2018.
Mass Emissions: A 50-megawatt electric power plant burning wood pellets emits roughly 43,730 tons of carbon dioxide annually, compared to 39,200 tons for the same plant burning coal, due to the need to burn more biomass to generate equivalent power.
Key details regarding the volume and sourcing since 2024 include:
Log Volume: A November 2025 report by Stand.earth states that Drax’s Canadian subsidiaries received at least 3,039 truckloads of whole logs from forests containing old-growth trees in British Columbia during 2024 and likely into 2025.
Sourcing Controversy: Experts and investigations allege these logs included 250-year-old trees from old-growth forests, contradicting Drax’s claim that it only uses sustainable “waste” or sawmill residues.
Annual Consumption Context: While a 2024 report from the Institute of Economic Affairs notes that UK biomass plants burn the equivalent of 27 million trees per year, this figure covers all UK biomass plants and historical data, not specifically Drax’s felled tree count since 2024.
Lack of Tree Count: The sources provide data on tonnage (e.g., Drax imported 8.2 million tonnes of biomass in 2022) and truckloads, but do not convert these figures into a specific number of trees felled since 2024.
Percentage of Supply Chain: Shipping across the Atlantic Ocean contributes roughly 30–32% of the total supply chain emissions (which include harvesting, pelletizing, and inland transport).
Total Supply Chain Intensity: The total embodied supply chain emissions are estimated at 9.7 to 26 grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule (gCO2e/MJ) of energy, depending on the specific calculation method and year.
Shipping Share: Within that total, marine transportation is the second-largest contributor after pelletizing (which accounts for ~50-51%).
Recent Reductions: Drax has implemented new shipping contracts, such as the 2026 agreement with Ultrabulk, which mandates yearly reductions in carbon emissions for each shipment and utilizes vessels powered by biofuels to achieve significant CO2 savings compared to conventional marine fuels.
All this environmental destruction of nature comes with a cos – h UK government pays hundreds of millions of pounds to intentionally destroy native American forests.
£999 million in public subsidies was paid to Drax in 2025, a record high that cost each UK household approximately £13 per year. Since 2012, Drax has received a total of £8.72 billion through the Renewables Obligation (RO) and Contract for Difference (CfD) schemes.
· 2025 Breakdown: The record payment consisted of £728 million from the RO scheme and £271 million from CfD payments.
· Historical Context: Subsidies rose by 15% in 2025 compared to the previous year, continuing a trend of increasing support despite Drax being the UK’s largest carbon emitter.
· Future Reductions: Payments are scheduled to drop significantly from 2027, falling to approximately £460 million per year as the current high-subsidy period for unabated biomass burning ends.
· Long-term Cost: By 2027, total subsidies received since 2012 are projected to exceed £11 billion, with critics arguing these costs are unjustified given the lack of guaranteed carbon emission reductions.
That’s not the end of the additional CO2 from burning wood pellets.
Consider this:
27 million trees chopped down per annum would have absorbed 675,000 metric tons of co2 – instead these were burnt and
“In 2024, Drax Power Station emitted 13.3 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, marking a 16% increase from the previous year.
You cannot fix stupid -and corrupt!
Please take a (paid or unpaid) subscription or forward this article to those you think might be interested.
You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here:
There are of course other considerations for coal..like Churchill's catastrophic placement of coal plants IN LONDON leading to the predicted killer smog event. Scrubbers would have helped some but good siting also.