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.