4 ms·

The UK built lots of plant biomass, and generates more electricity from it than solar. The capacity factor of these has dropped to 62%, indicating that they are

The UK built lots of plant biomass, and generates more electricity from it than solar. The capacity factor of these has dropped to 62%, indicating that they are load following with biomass. Unfortunately, even though biomass is renewable and counts as such in poorly designed energy policies, it uses combustion and causes significant air pollution (worse than gas) as well as high carbon concentration in the atmosphere, which causes global warming (on par with gas). Worse still, biomass used lots of land and competes with food production. Gas is arguably better for the environment than biomass. So yeah you're right. I should change the statement to say either gas or biomass or some other destructive combustion rises with renewables.

Reason077 6y ago
Yes, biomass (supplying 7.0% of UK demand in the past 12 months) is a bit bigger than solar (4.5%). But both are relatively minor compared to wind generation at 23.8%. Wind has also overtaken nuclear (18.3%) to become the 2nd largest electricity source behind gas (34.0%). However, there is now a ban on subsidies for new UK biomass plants or conversions. So it is very unlikely that biomass will grow significantly in the coming years. Solar and wind, however, are still growing fast - and many of these projects are being built unsubsidised! Even projects that do receive contract for difference (CfD) subsidies, such as offshore wind farms, are receiving far lower strike prices compared to nuclear. Also, solar generation is concentrated during the day, closely matching the peak grid demand period. So despite being smaller in total generation compared to biomass, it's significance to the grid is disproportionately higher. Biomass generation typically acts as a baseload spread out over 24 hours - generating, and receiving subsidies, even in the middle of the night when it's not really needed. Your criticisms of biomass are valid, except that biomass for UK power plants consists mostly of wood pellets. Forests do not really compete with food production unless you are advocating forest clearance for food production! Unlike fossil fuels, biomass also does not cause "high carbon concentration in the atmosphere", except insofar as fossil fuels are consumed in the production and transport of that biomass.

Reason077 6y ago

Yes, biomass (supplying 7.0% of UK demand in the past 12 months) is a bit bigger than solar (4.5%). But both are relatively minor compared to wind generation at 23.8%. Wind has also overtaken nuclear (18.3%) to become the 2nd largest electricity source behind gas (34.0%). However, there is now a ban on subsidies for new UK biomass plants or conversions. So it is very unlikely that biomass will grow significantly in the coming years. Solar and wind, however, are still growing fast - and many of these projects are being built unsubsidised! Even projects that do receive contract for difference (CfD) subsidies, such as offshore wind farms, are receiving far lower strike prices compared to nuclear. Also, solar generation is concentrated during the day, closely matching the peak grid demand period. So despite being smaller in total generation compared to biomass, it's significance to the grid is disproportionately higher. Biomass generation typically acts as a baseload spread out over 24 hours - generating, and receiving subsidies, even in the middle of the night when it's not really needed. Your criticisms of biomass are valid, except that biomass for UK power plants consists mostly of wood pellets. Forests do not really compete with food production unless you are advocating forest clearance for food production! Unlike fossil fuels, biomass also does not cause "high carbon concentration in the atmosphere", except insofar as fossil fuels are consumed in the production and transport of that biomass.