‘In the period 2020 to 2025, wind and solar are likely to be the least costly ways to ensure U.K. reliability of supply while also achieving power sector decarbonization goals—not biomass.’
Under the Climate Change Act of 2008, the UK agreed to ambitious climate targets. It’s well documented that the UK also has an aging, uneconomical and heavily polluting power sector and plans to retire all coal plants by 2025. Therefore, it’s crucial that we support a new system, a replacement for coal that is A) cost effective and B) good for the environment.
The new study examines the full system costs of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, comparing them with biomass, for replacing coal.
The study concludes that in 2020, when fully accounting for the total economic costs of different energy sources—including the latest technology costs, the costs of ensuring reliability of supply, and the costs of carbon emissions, biomass is more expensive than wind and solar.
So, as a result, we, the researchers and writers of this new study want to make a plea to policy makers to:
• Curb biomass subsidies
• Strengthen sustainability requirements for biomass sourcing
• Require utilities to fully account for biomass emissions
• Place an overall cap on biomass for energy to reflect limited supplies of truly sustainable low-carbon source
READ the full report and fact sheets surrounding this issue here and make up your own mind – tweet us your thoughts @usewoodwisley: http://ow.ly/IzbS305tNAS