Carbon emissions are carbon emissions irrespective of the source

not if the source is carbon neutral/negative. Trees grown on a tree farm and converted to wood pellets where the tree farm is replanted to regrow trees for harvesting is not really a net contributor to increase CO2. The CO2 is pulled from the air by the trees and reemitted during burning and then reabsorbed by another generation of trees.

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 mean the fact that Drax is not solvent without UK government funds and the fact they have to import wood pellets from Canada/US should give you a pretty good idea that none of this is sustainable or carbon neutral.

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.

If those funds can get the company to close coal production and use wood pellets instead that is certainly a big step forward.

Because combustion and processing efficiencies for wood are less than coal, the immediate impact of substituting wood for coal is an increase in atmospheric CO2 relative to coal. The payback time for this carbon debt ranges from 44–104 years after clearcut, depending on forest type—assuming the land remains forest. Surprisingly, replanting hardwood forests with fast-growing pine plantations raises the CO2 impact of wood because the equilibrium carbon density of plantations is lower than natural forests. Further, projected growth in wood harvest for bioenergy would increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century because new carbon debt continuously exceeds NPP. Assuming biofuels are carbon neutral may worsen irreversible impacts of climate change before benefits accrue. [0]

i.e. it was always about the money...

[0] DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512

> I mean the fact that Drax is not solvent without UK government funds and the fact they have to import wood pellets from Canada/US should give you a pretty good idea that none of this is sustainable or carbon neutral.

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.

There appears to be mounting evidence that Drax is sourcing wood from primary / old-growth forest to burn.

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.