Burning trees to power AI, really? – Inside track

This post is by Almuth Ernsting and Robert Palgrave of Biofuelwatch.

Earlier this year, while greenlighting further subsidies for Drax through to 2031, the UK government signalled that unabated biomass power (ie produced without carbon capture) is only a short term fix, saying, “… we recognise the strength of concerns about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution.” 

Drax is the UK’s biggest carbon emitter, releasing around 13 million tonnes of CO2 per year to produce less than five per cent of the UK’s electricity, while the rest of the electricity sector in 2024 emitted just 48 million tonnes. Biomass power is at least as carbon intensive as coal. ‘Strong concerns’ are entirely justified.

Drax is not being required to develop carbon capture
The government’s decision to allow Drax to continue subsidised operations into the next decade without carbon capture is (supposedly) because of energy security concerns. Without divulging the details of the advice it had received, it told parliament earlier this year that “the clear evidence is that Drax is important to delivering a secure, value for money power system in the period 2027 to 2031.”

The draft agreement for extended subsidies limits the amount Drax is allowed to generate under subsidy, but does not require the company to develop bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), even though BECCS has been promoted by the government as a key part of meeting upcoming carbon budgets. Drax was granted planning permission for BECCS in January 2024, but it now seems the company is pursuing other avenues.

Drax is part of a consortium, led by the York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority, bidding for government support to create an Artificial Intelligence Growth Zone (AIGZ) with a substantial new data centre at Drax’s Selby site, powered by biomass. This so-called ‘Clean Energy Hub’ would dedicate as much as half of Drax’s current generating capacity to powering the data centre. Once operational, biomass burning for the data centre would be additional to the amount subsidised to feed power into the grid.

It’s inconsistent with the desire to bring bills down
One obvious question arises: how is carving off up to half of Drax’s capacity to run a data centre consistent with the government’s view that significant amounts of biomass power are needed during the period 2027- 31 to keep the lights on and limit the effect of volatile gas prices on consumer bills? Are lower bills to be sacrificed to give AI a veneer of sustainability?

But the bigger question is: why perpetuate dirty polluting energy that was expected to end in 2031? Especially when the government made it very clear only months ago that unabated biomass power should not be considered a long term option, with the Climate Change Committee saying the same.

In their AIGZ bid, Drax says that the move into data centre operation could support the development of BECCS at its site. A not dissimilar suggestion was part of its lobbying for the subsidy extension and, so far, BECCS is little more than an aspiration.  There is zero evidence to support the claims that BECCS is a proven technology ready to deploy at gigawatt scale. It’s been estimated that a single BECCS plant could cost £43 billion over its lifetime.

Under the current subsidy scheme, Drax is required to meet – very weak – sustainability criteria for its fuel supply and to report annually to the regulator OFGEM. Serious questions have been raised about the effectiveness of these controls.  The government responded by strengthening them for the extended subsidy period 2027-31, in effect an admission that they have been unfit for purpose for the past decade.

The AI contract could allow ongoing environmental harm
It’s not clear whether similar arrangements intended to limit environmental damage would be extended to an AIGZ contract involving Drax, which would not be reliant on billpayer subsidies. This potentially means that Drax could burn pellets made from clearcutting of old growth and primary forests in Canada, which will no longer be allowed under the separate subsidies contract. Without new legislation, biomass sourcing for an AIGZ will be entirely unregulated.

Regardless of whether sustainability criteria would apply to a data centre contract, an AIGZ award to Drax and its partners would lock the UK into many more years of high carbon biomass energy, causing serious further harm to vital forest ecosystems in North America and beyond. It would also perpetuate the environmental injustice suffered by communities living next to pellet plants operated by, or otherwise supplying, Drax, many of them people of colour living with a high level of deprivation.

The government has repeatedly failed to ensure its regulation of biomass power is fit for purpose, while continuing to award billions in subsidies. Its promise to end unabated biomass power in 2031 will be meaningless if Drax is allowed to power a data centre, most likely for at least a decade, meaning even more forest destruction, more damage to communities around pellet manufacturing facilities and continued damaging levels of carbon emissions. The bid from the York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority must be rejected.