4 ms·

The article says that they only burned waste from logging process. This might be unclear, because the article is written in a (probably purposefully) confusing

by xyzzyz 4y ago

The article says that they only burned waste from logging process. This might be unclear, because the article is written in a (probably purposefully) confusing way, but they very much did not cut and ground up massive old growth timber for pellets. Setting aside the issue of logging an old growth forest, in any logging operation you’ll always end up with some material that’s not practically usable for various reasons. Using it as fuel sounds to me like rather effective use of resources.

iso1631 4y ago
"Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest" Maybe a "whole log" is waste, sounds odd to me though - surely someone wants to use whole logs for more than burning?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  That depends entirely on the size and shape of the log. Lumber mills don't want thin and twisted logs. It seems safe to assume they aren't burning valuable logs just to be cartoon villains.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    > It seems safe to assume they aren't burning valuable logs just to be cartoon villains. Perhaps are they chopping down more wood than would be normally chopped because they are being paid above market rates for it and thus is becomes profitable to do so
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      If they're burning trees that could have been valuable lumber instead, then they're burning money for no reason. Probably they aren't doing that.
  - DrPhish 4y ago
    The economics of sawmilling are absolutely brutal, and everything is done for profit maximization on every tree harvested. Sometimes perverse incentives will drive things like eg the price of 7' studs surges so all the 14' 2x4 or 2x6s are cut in two, or in an extreme example if the price of chips surges enough then maybe perfectly good lumber would be chipped instead of sold as lumber (this happened briefly in the 80s if I recall correctly) To go over how from seedling to end product every single part of the usable tree is used to maximum economic advantage would take more time than I have available, but suffice it to say that in Canadian lumber, plywood, osb and paper there is as close to zero waste as is humanly possible. Also, as a footnote, there is a lot more thought given to future harvests, environmental concerns (carbon capture, riparian areas etc) and social license (work with first nations, community involvement, worker safety) than the average person would believe.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  If you scroll down, way past when most people give up reading, you’ll find that apparently 11% of the logs from that area is unusable for production lumber, ie. are a waste.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    First "Drax said it did not use the logs from the two sites Panorama identified." Then "Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets" Which time were they lying? Then there was the bit where Drax said it transferred the logging licences to other companies, despite the evidence showing they didn't
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      I don’t even know what Drax said, exactly, because the journalists won’t bother to quote it, so I’m not going to opine on whether they lied.
kennywinker 4y ago
Sounds to me like subsidizing old growth logging. More of those trees would have stayed in the ground if someone wasn’t buying 11% of the logs they cut to burn.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  Wood pellet is around 4 times cheaper than construction lumber per pound. That means that these 11% of the logs capture less than 5% of the revenue of the entire operation.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    Assuming elastic demand, that’s 5% less logs cut. Why is the UK funding 5% of an old growth logging in BC as “sustainable energy”?
tialaramex 4y ago
> The article says that they only burned waste from logging process. This might be unclear, because the article is written in a (probably purposefully) confusing way, but they very much did not cut and ground up massive old growth timber for pellets. The article tells you what Drax claims, and then it explains the reality their investigators found, repeatedly contrasting what Drax says, then what they proved, then what Drax said about that, back and forth showing what desperate liars they are. > Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest Drax tried insisting those weren't Drax trucks, it told the BBC third parties do the logging. This wasn't true, it's a matter of public record. So then Drax said ah, OK, well we do turn some logs into pellets, but only if there's a problem with them. Reporters showed it's whole forests. Drax said, ah, well those forests were the wrong sort of woood. whole forests are waste according to Drax > Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets. The company said they were species the timber industry did not want, and they would often be burned anyway to reduce wildfire risks.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  > Reporters showed it's whole forests. They did not. Again, the article doesn’t say that, though, as I said, it’s written in (likely deliberately) confusing way, so it’s not very surprising that you came out believing that after reading it.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    Reporters filmed a logging truck, full of logs, going from these forests to Drax's pellet plant. That's all the plant does, it makes pellets for fuelling the vast power station. There's no sign of other magical trucks, maybe taking logs to be milled for IKEA or for sale in US hardware stores, and unsurprisingly Drax doesn't try to pretend such trucks exist. Drax has the license, Drax does the logging, Drax is the exclusive consumer of these logs, all the logs are "waste". According to the Canadian government 89% of the logs going into that plant were of a grade that a conventional timber mill would process for commercial use. Except no need, these logs are all "waste" turned into pellets to be burned for "green" credits. It isn't just the UK government who were hoodwinked. The pellet plant itself is the same scam. It originally told the Canadian government it would convert waste from nearby mills into pellets. "At least 95%" of the pellets would be from sawmill waste, free money for the Canadian economy. Except oops, turns out that wasn't quite true. Almost immediately they needed to import waste from further afield, and then they found a much cheaper option, instead of paying to haul waste from other mills just buy whole trees. Soon the majority of the "waste" for the pellet plant was perfectly good logs.

by xyzzyz 4y ago

iso1631 4y ago

"Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest" Maybe a "whole log" is waste, sounds odd to me though - surely someone wants to use whole logs for more than burning?

MichaelCollins 4y ago
That depends entirely on the size and shape of the log. Lumber mills don't want thin and twisted logs. It seems safe to assume they aren't burning valuable logs just to be cartoon villains.
- iso1631 4y ago
  > It seems safe to assume they aren't burning valuable logs just to be cartoon villains. Perhaps are they chopping down more wood than would be normally chopped because they are being paid above market rates for it and thus is becomes profitable to do so
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    If they're burning trees that could have been valuable lumber instead, then they're burning money for no reason. Probably they aren't doing that.
- DrPhish 4y ago
  The economics of sawmilling are absolutely brutal, and everything is done for profit maximization on every tree harvested. Sometimes perverse incentives will drive things like eg the price of 7' studs surges so all the 14' 2x4 or 2x6s are cut in two, or in an extreme example if the price of chips surges enough then maybe perfectly good lumber would be chipped instead of sold as lumber (this happened briefly in the 80s if I recall correctly) To go over how from seedling to end product every single part of the usable tree is used to maximum economic advantage would take more time than I have available, but suffice it to say that in Canadian lumber, plywood, osb and paper there is as close to zero waste as is humanly possible. Also, as a footnote, there is a lot more thought given to future harvests, environmental concerns (carbon capture, riparian areas etc) and social license (work with first nations, community involvement, worker safety) than the average person would believe.
xyzzyz 4y ago
If you scroll down, way past when most people give up reading, you’ll find that apparently 11% of the logs from that area is unusable for production lumber, ie. are a waste.
- iso1631 4y ago
  First "Drax said it did not use the logs from the two sites Panorama identified." Then "Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets" Which time were they lying? Then there was the bit where Drax said it transferred the logging licences to other companies, despite the evidence showing they didn't
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    I don’t even know what Drax said, exactly, because the journalists won’t bother to quote it, so I’m not going to opine on whether they lied.

kennywinker 4y ago

Sounds to me like subsidizing old growth logging. More of those trees would have stayed in the ground if someone wasn’t buying 11% of the logs they cut to burn.

xyzzyz 4y ago
Wood pellet is around 4 times cheaper than construction lumber per pound. That means that these 11% of the logs capture less than 5% of the revenue of the entire operation.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Assuming elastic demand, that’s 5% less logs cut. Why is the UK funding 5% of an old growth logging in BC as “sustainable energy”?

tialaramex 4y ago

> The article says that they only burned waste from logging process. This might be unclear, because the article is written in a (probably purposefully) confusing way, but they very much did not cut and ground up massive old growth timber for pellets. The article tells you what Drax claims, and then it explains the reality their investigators found, repeatedly contrasting what Drax says, then what they proved, then what Drax said about that, back and forth showing what desperate liars they are. > Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest Drax tried insisting those weren't Drax trucks, it told the BBC third parties do the logging. This wasn't true, it's a matter of public record. So then Drax said ah, OK, well we do turn some logs into pellets, but only if there's a problem with them. Reporters showed it's whole forests. Drax said, ah, well those forests were the wrong sort of woood. whole forests are waste according to Drax > Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets. The company said they were species the timber industry did not want, and they would often be burned anyway to reduce wildfire risks.

xyzzyz 4y ago
> Reporters showed it's whole forests. They did not. Again, the article doesn’t say that, though, as I said, it’s written in (likely deliberately) confusing way, so it’s not very surprising that you came out believing that after reading it.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  Reporters filmed a logging truck, full of logs, going from these forests to Drax's pellet plant. That's all the plant does, it makes pellets for fuelling the vast power station. There's no sign of other magical trucks, maybe taking logs to be milled for IKEA or for sale in US hardware stores, and unsurprisingly Drax doesn't try to pretend such trucks exist. Drax has the license, Drax does the logging, Drax is the exclusive consumer of these logs, all the logs are "waste". According to the Canadian government 89% of the logs going into that plant were of a grade that a conventional timber mill would process for commercial use. Except no need, these logs are all "waste" turned into pellets to be burned for "green" credits. It isn't just the UK government who were hoodwinked. The pellet plant itself is the same scam. It originally told the Canadian government it would convert waste from nearby mills into pellets. "At least 95%" of the pellets would be from sawmill waste, free money for the Canadian economy. Except oops, turns out that wasn't quite true. Almost immediately they needed to import waste from further afield, and then they found a much cheaper option, instead of paying to haul waste from other mills just buy whole trees. Soon the majority of the "waste" for the pellet plant was perfectly good logs.