..despite opening this on my desktop. I guess my browser window is taller than it is wide, but that doesn't make it a mobile browser.
https://rmx.news/poland/german-minister-threatens-to-use-leg...
I'm guessing you're referring to "Drax Power Station" in the UK that ranks #52?
Having no prior knowledge of "Drax Group" it seems to be this group:
> Drax Group PLC is a power generation business. The principal downstream enterprises are based in the UK and include Drax Power Limited, which runs a biomass and coal fueled power station, Drax power station, near Selby in North Yorkshire. The Group also runs an international biomass supply chain business.
22.10 MT from that power station doesn't seem to even come close to some of the oil and gas fields in the US. Maybe it's actually pretty green compared to what it could have been? I have no idea, so happy to be corrected.
Somewhat apples and pears comparison, Drax is burning wood pelets shipped from Canada to the UK (CO2 emissions). Oil/Gas Fields in the US emit Methane (CH4 emissions) which has 28x times more 'warming potential' than CO2 emissions.
But I agree that Oil/Gas methane leaks are a much bigger problem than what the media reports.
It may sound counterintuitive, but corporations like DRAX are exactly who need this funding, because without it, they would continue to not give a shit and just pay greenwashing lip service to these issues. If you give them the money specifically for that, then you are at least increasing the odds there is positive change from the places that need to change the most. (i.e the largest polluters).
Everything is about incentives. If you create this big prize of 100s of millions of dollars to receive, with the caveat that you have to show effort in going green, then you've created an incentive that wasn't there previously for the positive change you hope to see.
The reality companies like Drax should be insolvent and the staff retrained for another industry.
What I don't see is any medium long term plan to roll out Renewable storage or Nuclear supplementation.
So there is no serious EU Energy policy at the moment that allows us to get rid of hydrocarbons for energy production... in any timeline in the foreseable future.
The EU has a plan, and they stepped it up a little with RePowerEU in response to Putin's invasion giving them a bit more political leeway.
It won't please people who had their opinions on renewables mysteriously frozen 15 years ago, but for most people it's not bad. World leading in fact, but in a world that's generally not doing very well.
What's your issue with it?
Now, there are certainly other energy costs of harvesting, processing and transport that come into play and shipping from CA to UK might tilt the balance away from green more than locally grown trees would. It is still likely much less of a greenhouse peril than burning coal.
I would much rather see those funds allocated to actual renewable sources instead of wasting time/money with wood furnaces and arguing if they are sustainable/renewable.
i.e. it was always about the money...
[0] DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512
I doesn't indicate that at all. "Sustainable" from a business point of view and "Sustainable" from a carbon production point of view are two entirely different things.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348
Additionally, my mostly-ignorant intuitive sense is that the wood ecosystem in US + Canada is an important maintainer of local wealth and literally sucking all the fuel out of it to burn on another continent is harmful to Canadians' well-being.
Saved you a click.
Looking at Europe it is absolutely bewildering how DRAX stands out like a sore thumb. Absolutely criminal that that thing hasn't been shut down yet. Even more criminal that they get away with receiving 'green' funding.
Also we in the EU should make a particularly large effort in funding the replacement of Coal plants in Poland. Insane how much they disproportionately contribute to emissions.