- Last updated April 2013 -
This briefing is intended to provide detailed information about the effects of biomass combustion in the UK. If anything is not clear or your need information on something else we haven’t discussed, please drop us an email at email@example.com.
Biomass refers to any organic matter which contains energy. Biomass is defined by the EU as ‘the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from biological origin from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste’ (Renewable Energy Directive, Article 2(e). This FAQ briefing focusses entirely on wood, which accounts for the vast majority of biomass burned for energy.
According to Ofgem data for the period of 2011/2012:
+ Around 3.7 million tonnes of woodchips and pellets were burnt during those 12 months. Note that 1 tonne of pellets translates into 2 tonnes of greenwood.
+ All imported wood for bioenergy is currently being burnt in coal power stations, including the converted Tilbury B. The much smaller dedicated biomass power stations continue to run on domestic feedstock, including roundwood, i.e. wood from whole trees. Please note that companies use quite different descriptions and only in some cases is it clear whether whole trees or residues were used.
+ By far the largest proportion of imported wood pellets for UK power stations came from Canada (1.72 million tonnes of pellets). This was followed by just over 376,000 tonnes of pellets from the US and much smaller quantities from Portugal, New Zealand, South Africa and Latvia.
+ With 1.22 million tonnes of biomass in total (including non-wood feedstock), Drax continued to burn more biomass than any other company. However, the figures for Tilbury (both for bioliquids and wood) are frighteningly high considering that they cover a period of less than 3 months.
Please see our map of biomass power stations here. Demand for biomass is skyrocketing, with over 40 new power stations 18 MW or over proposed across the UK. From Biofuelwatch’s monitoring of the different proposed power stations across the country, we’ve counted that demand could increase to up to 90 million green tonnes of wood per year in the United Kingdom. We currently have less than 10 million tonnes of wood available in the UK (and that’s for use across all industries). Tilbury B, which is currently a coal-fired power station with some biomass capacity, is expected to soon become the world’s largest biomass power station, with a capacity of 870MW, which alone will require around 16.8 million tonnes of wood each year. Most of this wood is to come from forests in the Southern US and British Columbia.
Southern US forests are rich in biodiversity, and are home to 130 species of trees, 595 species of birds, 246 species of mammals (including black bears and bobcats) 197 species of reptiles and 170 species of amphibians. But they are coming under increasing pressures from US-based industries such as the paper industry – and now, from the Europe and the UK’s own demand for biomass.
In British Columbia, too, biodiverse and carbon rich forests are being clear-cut and ever more wood is being removed from forests due to the growing demand for bioenergy. Now, the state government is trying to push through legislation which would hand over large areas of publicly owned forests to logging companies .
On the current scale that we are demanding biomass, yes – and as demand rises, it will soon destroy forests on a far a greater scale than today. According to Ofgem data, in 2011/12, 3.7 million tonnes of woodchips and pellets (equivalent to about 7.4 million tonnes of green wood) were co-fired with coal and the great majority of that was imported, with Drax being the key player. The UK Government by its own admission estimates it will have to import at least 80% of the biomass burned in the UK by 2020. Demand for biomass is skyrocketing, with 42 power new power stations proposed across the UK. From Biofuelwatch’s monitoring of the different proposed power stations across the country, we’ve counted that demand is set to increase to up to 90 million tonnes of wood per year in the United Kingdom. We currently have less than 10 million tonnes of wood available in the UK (and that’s for use across all industries).
The UK’s new demand for biomass will encourage an increase in logging of wildlife-rich forests abroad as well as new monoculture tree plantations, many of them at the expense of forests and the people who depend on them.
Many developers say they will only burn waste wood, which includes post-construction wood (such as wood panels etc) and forest residues (such as branches and logging debris) from UK sources which could not otherwise be used. There are a number of flaws in such arguments:
- Firstly, there is clear evidence that whole logs and trees are being chopped down to be processed into wood pellets to serve emerging biomass markets in the EU and the UK. US Forest protection campaign organisation the Dogwood Alliance produced a 2012 report, “The Use of Whole Trees in Wood Pellet Manufacturing” which exposes this. The report shows, amongst other things, that US company Georgia Biomass, currently operates the world’s largest wood pellet manufacturing facility, in Georgia. It has capacity to produce 750,000 tons of wood pellets/year for export to Europe, and expects that “a good portion of the plant’s output may be heading to RWE’s existing coal-fired plant in Tilbury, United Kingdom.” There is also similar evidence coming from Canada: Greenpeace Canada’s 2011 report, “Fuelling a Biomess” shows evidence that “Canadian provinces are diving into a “biomess” by opening the door to large scale clearcuts, salvage logging and highly damaging extraction practices that could double the forest industry’s footprint on already damaged forest ecosystems. Whole trees and large areas of forest are being cut to provide wood that is burnt for energy.”
- Secondly, even if this were not the case, it is not environmentally friendly to strip a forest of forest residues such as branches or forest litter, as it upsets the carbon balance and health of the forests. Such practices lead to lower carbon storage in soils and removing residues or forest debris from a forest reduces its ability to buffer acidity from acid rain and could lead in many cases to a decrease in productivity.
- Thirdly, if we are talking about post-construction waste wood such as pallets and panels, according to WRAP, there were only 4.1 million tonnes of such wood post-construction wood in the UK waste stream in 2010. With demand for 90 million tonnes of wood each year, there is simply no way that all developers can source the majority of their wood from UK “waste” arisings.
- Such wood is also not necessarily “waste” in the sense that it could not be put to good alternative use. In fact, the panelboard sector (i.e. sectors which produce products like MDF and chipboard) consumed 1.1 million tonnes of so-called “waste” wood in 2010 . So the biomass industry is in direct competition with an industry which seeks to reuse the waste rather than simply burn it. The Wood Panel Industries Federation as such has a corporate lobby to defend its industry through the Stop Burning our Trees Campaign (http://www.stopburningourtrees.org/).
Yes. Biomass Power Stations emit harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, and is considered to be as bad as using burning oil and worse than burning gas according to Environmental Protection UK.These are some of the effects of the pollutants released by biomass combustion on human health:
- Oxides of nitrogen (NOx): can affect lung metabolism, structure, function, inflammation and host defence against pulmonary infections
- Carbon monoxide (CO): inhibits the blood’s ability to carry oxygen to vital organs such as the heart and brain.
- Particulates: PM exposure affects the respiratory and cardiovascular systems in children and adults and extends to a number of large, susceptible groups within the general population. There are no safe levels for small particulates PM2.5, meaning that the slightest emissions of PM2.5 from the power station would harm health.
- Sulphur Dioxide: Can result in breathing problems for asthmatic children, and shortness of breath.
- Heavy Metals and Dioxins and Furans: Toxic and carcinogenic to human health. There is nothing in to stop RES from burning chemically treated and thus even more toxic wood, too. However, even ‘clean’ untreated wood can contain high concentrations of heavy metals and burning it can release dioxins and furans.
According to a 2010 report by the UK’s House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, up to 50,000 people a year may already be dying prematurely each year due to exposure to polluted air. The previous UK Government commissioned data which showed that the air quality damage in terms of an increase in particulate emissions from biomass could result in the loss of up to 1,175,000 life years in 2020, costing the Government £557 million – just from small particulates.
Pollution of this sort also has a strong impact on the natural environment.
 House of Commons: Environmental Audit Committee Report, ‘Air Quality’ (March 2010), available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvaud/229/229i.pdf
 UK Parliament Website, ‘Memorandum’, available athttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvaud/memo/airquality/uc0102.htm
YES, it produces carbon dioxide. Per unit of energy produced, smokestack CO2 emissions from biomass power stations are on average 50% higher than those from coal power stations. This is because wood is less energy dense than coal.
The Government’s own analysis reveals that burning biomass can be worse for greenhouse gas emissions than the fossil fuels they are seeking to replace. This was exposed in a 2012 report from Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the RSPB entitled “Dirtier than Coal.”
Developers like to say that burning biomass is carbon neutral, because the wood burned absorbed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it was growing. But the reality is that because biomass contains carbon, naturally, when it is combusted, it releases all of that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This carbon debt is only paid back if and when a tree or crop is fully grown to replace what was chopped and if soils and other vegetation destroyed or harmed during logging re-absorb all the carbon they had lost. This may take decades and even centuries. What’s more, there is no obligation on developers to replant what they have harvested, and when forests and other natural ecosystems are too damaged to recover or, yet worse, turned into monoculture tree plantations, the carbon emitted in the process will never be re-absorbed. Currently, biomass is also considered to be ‘carbon neutral’ by the UK Government. The result of this is that developers produce figures which show carbon emissions savings, which are completely overlooking the actual carbon that is release into the atmosphere. The European Environment Agency Scientific Committee recently warned the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral is a ‘serious accounting error’ and that using biomass can result in increased carbon emissions and thereby accelerate global warming, and recommended that governments must rectify this situation as soon as possible.
Aside from the carbon emitted when biomass burns, importing biomass from across the world produces emissions from transporting and processing the fuel as well. And healthy forests play a major role in regulating the rainfall cycle, storm tracks and the nitrogen cycle, too, all of which are vitally important for a stable climate.
 European Environment Agency Scientific Committee, ‘Opinion of the EEA Scientific Committee on Greenhouse Gas Accounting in Relation to Bioenergy’ (September 2011), available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/governance/scientific-committee/sc-opinions/opinions-on-scientific-issues/sc-opinion-on-greenhouse-gas
For in depth information on this, please read our September 2012 report, “Sustainable Biomass: A Modern Myth”. There are certain wood certification schemes, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) which are supposed to ensure that wood is sourced sustainably. But promises to source certified cannot ensure that power stations are green because:
- It is very difficult to monitor whether developers stick with such claims, and developers can switch suppliers at any time. For example, another company planning biomass power stations in Tyne, MGT Power, stated in their planning application that they would burn mainly wood from North America and, once they got permission announced an agreement to buy all or most of the wood from eucalyptus plantations in Brazil, from a company implicated in the destruction of rainforests and savannah and in serious land conflicts.
- The FSC itself has come under a lot of criticism for failing to adequately ensure compliance with any of its criteria. It has for example certified wood from illegal logging, from tree plantations where large numbers of baboons are being shot by the company in question, from a plantation in Brazil found by a court to have been illegally set up at the expense of native forests and communities’ land rights, from the destruction of old-growth forests and from plantations linked to serious human rights abuses. In short, FSC, like all other wood certification, is effectively meaningless.
- Even if forest certification could guarantee compliance with basic standards – which is highly improbable, it would still be meaningless because it cannot deal with the issue of ‘sustainability of scale’. The biggest problem with biomass on such a massive scale is that it is placing more demand for wood than the planet can supply, so ‘certified’ wood can never address this issue.
 For more details, see FSC Watch, at http://www.fsc-watch.org/
European Environment Agency Scientific Committee: (agency of the European Union devoted to the monitoring of the European environment) In 2011 it published a report which stated that the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral is a ‘serious accounting error’ and that using biomass can result in increased carbon emissions and thereby accelerate global warming, and recommended that governments must rectify this situation as soon as possible.
UK Committee on Climate Change: (independent body which advises the UK Government on tackling and preparing for climate change) It initially was sceptical about the use of biomass. In its Climate Change Review of March 2011, it noted:
- there are limits on the amount of sustainable biomass available
- there are uncertainties about the lifecycle emissions associated with biomass production
- there are alternatives available meaning we don’t have to go down the biomass route It reported again to the Government by providing a UK Bioenergy Strategy Review later in December 2012.
Disappointingly, it recommended a massive bioenergy increase from 2% (current) to 10% by 2050. However, it found that:
- Life cycle emissions from bioenergy were not properly taken into account.
- Bioenergy use would only be appropriate if Carbon Capture and Storage technologies were available, which is currently not the case
- Without Carbon Capture and Storage, there is no appropriate role for bioenergy in electricity generation.
The full report can be found here
- Is a bit conservative and is sitting on the fence. It takes the view that GHG emissions are generally, but not always less than fossil fuels. But it does note that biomass is currently very inefficient and that transporting fuels over long distances can reduce emissions savings up to 50%.
 Environment Agency, ‘Biomass: Carbon sink or carbon sinner?’ (April 2009), available at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Biomass__carbon_sink_or_carbon_sinner_summary_report.pdf
Developers stand to gain lots of money, so they claim it is green, clean, and provides jobs. Note that developers British Sugar, Drax. E.ON, Future Biogas, Estover Energy and RES Group launched a campaign in 2011 to try to get the UK Government to provide even more support to biomass. This call was endorsed by the Renewable Energy Association, the body which represents renewable energy producers in the UK and has resulted in the Government promising to continue to offer financial support for biomass.
On the other hand, UK timber industries such as the Wood Panel Industries Federation and the Confederation of Forest Industries have strongly warned against the steeply increased demand for biomass from the UK, because it will push up timber prices, make UK industries that depend on wood unviable, thus destroying far more jobs than created through bioenergy (and ensuring that virtually all other wood and paper are sourced from abroad in future.
 CONFOR and Wood Panel Industries Federation, ‘Wood fibre availability and demand in Britain 2007 to 2025’ (May 2010), available at http://www.confor.org.uk/Upload/Documents/37_WoodFibreAvailabilityDemandReportfinal.pdf
In July 2012 the UK Government announced, as part of its review on financial supports for Renewable Energy that it would continue to offer generous subsidies to Bioenergy. The subsidies will artificially stimulate the market to new staggering heights, with Bioenergy expected to play a key role in the Government’s ability to hit its 2020 Renewable targets. This is rather ironic given that the Bioenergy Strategy also acknowledges that Bioenergy can produce more Greenhouse Gas Emissions than coal for a period of over 50 years (for more information on this, see Friends of the Earth et al’s report, “Dirtier than Coal”. The Government insists that bioenergy coming into the UK will be “sustainable” according to new sustainability standards which will come into force in 2013. However, the sustainability standards do not take into account crucial greenhouse gas accounting issues including factoring in the Carbon Debt associated with bioenergy, or emissions from indirect land use change. They are ill-equipped to ensure that human rights violations e.g. land grabs are not implicated with companies’ sourcing of biomass. What’s more, there is no independent auditing of companies’ claims to be sourcing only “sustainable” materials. Finally, the overarching problem is that a reliance on sustainability standards is merely serving to legitimise the unabated expansion of an industry which is by its nature less sustainable the larger it becomes.
Electricity from biomass is extremely inefficient. Even DECC notes that biomass power stations today are only 25% efficient, with 75% of the energy potential of the fuel wasted. At best, 30% efficiency is reached. Note that under EU law, the UK is meant to be promoting biomass technologies which provide at least 70% efficiency rates.
 DECC Consultation, ‘Heat and Energy Saving Strategy’ Chapter 7: Combined Heat and Power and Surplus Heat paragraph 7.2, available at http://hes.decc.gov.uk/consultation/download/index-32178.pdf
 EU Directive 2009/28/EC (‘Renewable Energy Directive’), Article 13(6), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF
The energy produced from a biomass power station is heat, which is then converted into electricity. As mentioned above, currently biomass is very inefficient. If the heat can be captured and used to warm homes and buildings, then this makes a more efficient use of the biomass. A lot of companies rely on vague promises that they can supply heat to promote themselves as really green. However, whilst it is true that making use of heat as well as electricity is a better than using it as electricity only:
- It is worth questioning how much heat they intend to supply. If it is a small fraction of the overall megawattage capacity of the plant, then it won’t necessarily make the plant that much more efficient. The Government offers extra subsidies for power stations which achieve anything over 35% efficient, and classifies them as “Good Quality Combined Heat and Power.” This is a complete misnomer: power stations can achieve 35% efficiency by delivering nominal and in some cases no heat to external customers. 35% efficient is actually even less efficient than many modern day fossil fuelled power stations.
- Although theoretically CHP could be more efficient than electricity, all the other environmental concerns remain. That developers might supply heat will not undo the fact that they will source its wood from across the world, cause massive transport emissions, increased carbon emissions from combustion, pollution, and will impact on the local natural environment.
- Often promises to supply heat are in fact unsubstantiated and no more than PR stunts. They rely on there being in place district local heating networks, which are currently underdeveloped across the UK and which require a lot of investment. Given the cuts, there is little chance of local authorities being able to pay for heat distribution.
But there are sustainability criteria now for biomass. Will these ensure that the biomass is ‘sustainable’?
- Proposed sustainability criteria do not adequately address adverse human rights effects that are associated with sourcing biomass, such as land grabbing and human rights abuses by companies establishing monoculture plantations, which has been well documented in the case of tree plantations in the Global South. – The sustainability criteria require that biomass installations provide 60% greenhouse gas emissions savings as compared with fossil fuels, but this figure is based on flawed, outdated maths which presumes that biomass is carbon neutral. The presumptions behind the figures have been shown by the European Environment Agency Scientific Committee to be wrong, so this emissions savings figure is a false target.
- The sustainability criteria require that biomass does not come from primary forests, but they do not take into account any indirect land use change impacts that biomass might have; i.e. the fact that biomass suppliers may displace other users of land into such forests and other high value land ecosystems with high biodiversity. So, say, for example, a developer sources wood from an existing tree plantation than a forest. This new demand will then force or displace other users of wood who previously used wood from the plantation to cut down more forests or convert more biodiverse grasslands or people’s farmland for new tree plantations. This phenomenon, called indirect land use change, is a massive source of controversy in the EU and the UK. Scientists and governments have acknowledged that time and again that if we take into account emissions from indirect land use change, bioenergy can have devastating carbon emissions and human rights impacts.
- The sustainability criteria do not address the fact that demand for biomass needs to be matched by adequate supplies, and that demand on the scale that we are seeing now leads to deforestation. So in sum, if your idea of ‘sustainability’ is unverified reporting within a system which allows for flawed accounting for carbon emissions, a complete disregard of human rights concerns, and a system which encourages unsustainable demand, then yes, please refer to the UK’s sustainability criteria for biomass.
There are several other campaigns in the UK at the moment. One which achieved success was the Coed Bach campaign, which campaigned to oppose the building of a 50MW biomass power station at Coedbach Washery Site, and a 50MW power station at King’s Dock in Wales.
There is a very strong movement against a 200MW power station in Leith, Edinburgh, which has successfully delayed the process, led by the No Leith Biomass Campaign, and the developer Forth Energy withdrew its application in early February 2012.
There are also campaigns in Trafford, near Manchester, against a 20MW power station, led by the Breathe Clean Air Group.
There was a successful campaign against a 80MW Biomass power station in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, which was proposed by company Centrica, led by Furness Opposes Biomass. The developer withdrew its application in September 2012. For more links of UK Campaign groups, see our Links page.
If you would like to become a member of an emailing list on biomass resources, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org with ‘Biomass Action Network emailing list’ in the subject header.
Around ten years ago, new thinkers really thought that biomass and biofuels could be the energy for the future. The idea of ‘renewability’ was that you can harvest trees and regrow them. This myth has long been disproven. In reality, large-scale industrial biomass burning is a particularly polluting form of energy harmful to forests, people and the climate.
However, according to the law, under the EU renewable energy directive, biomass is an eligible source of renewable energy which can be subsidised and promoted on an unprecedented scale.
Biomass therefore is also classified as renewable energy in the UK, and currently accounts for 82.5% of the UK’s so called ‘renewable energy’. In reality, biomass allows energy companies to attract vast subsidies for dirty energy falsely classed as ‘renewable’, rather than having to invest in genuinely renewable energy such as sustainable wind and solar power.
 DECC Report, ‘Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2011: Chapter 7: Renewable sources of energy’, available at http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/dukes/2309-dukes-2011-chapter-7-renewable-sources.pdf, page 190
The United Kingdom government has a target to provide 15% renewable energy by 2020, and is bound by EU law to do so. The Government expects that the 2020 target will require 108 terawatt hours per year (TWh/y) of large-scale renewable electricity generation in 2020, with the rest (126 TWh/y) coming from small-scale renewable electricity, renewable heat and transport. Large-scale bioenergy (biomass and bioliquids) falls under the category of “renewable energy” which is somewhat ironic given that their use on a large scale will inevitably mean more monoculture plantations overseas, human rights abuses, the burning of whole trees, and increased CO2 emissions.
The United Kingdom government has a target to provide 15% renewable energy by 2020, and is bound by EU law to do so. One of the ways to make sure that it provides renewable energy is to offer financial incentives to electricity suppliers. It has done this through the Renewable Obligation Order. Under the order, suppliers are obliged to supply a percentage of their electricity from renewables, which increases year on year. A penalty is imposed on suppliers who do not meet the targets. Correspondingly, Ofgem issues Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to electricity generators in relation to the amount of eligible renewable electricity they generate. So, in essence, this operates to the effect that suppliers can buy and sell their way out of the renewables requirement. For each megawatt of renewable electricity provided, suppliers gain a number of ‘Renewable Obligation Certificates’ (‘ROCs’). The number of ROCs per megawatt varies, depending on which renewable technology is used (see table below). ROCs have a market value which is around £39.14 at the moment according to a tracking service which can be accessed here. The ROC scheme is financed not by the public purse, but through levy on our fuel bills – we are effectively paying more money on our fuel bills to subsidise the scheme. Whilst this might make sense in the case of genuine renewable energy technologies like wind and solar and tidal – in the case of biomass and bioliquids – it’s pretty shocking. Effectively, the ROC trading scheme operates to heavily subsidise energy companies. For biomass, what it means is that we are paying more expensive electricity bills to finance more carbon emissions, more deforestation, land grabs, and increased global food prices.The RO will close to new generation on 31 March 2017 – but for any planning applications which open before then, they will receive full support under the RO until 2037.
It’s pretty basic maths – you’ll need to know the following:
- The MW capacity of the power station (e.g. 70MW)
- How many hours each year the power station is expected to operate (this could be in the Environmental Statement, but if not then we use a standard 8000 hours per year)
- How many ROCs per MWh the power station will pick up (this depends on the sort of biomass power station – is it a coal conversion, electricity only, or “CHP”? e.g. if it is CHP, it will get 2 ROCs/MWh. For more info, See “What subsidy levels are available for different renewable energy technologies?”)
- What the current value of a Renewable Obligation Certificate is: for 2012, it has been averaging at £38.14. We use http://www.e-roc.co.uk to keep track of the value of ROCs. Then multiply these all together to work out how much money one power station will make.
E.g. if we are talking about a 70MW CHP biomass power station:
70 (MW capacity) * 8000 (hours it will operate in a year) * 2 (ROCs per MWh generated) * 38.14
= £42,716,800 in one year – in subsidies alone.
Not all renewable energy technologies gain the same number of ROCs per unit of energy generated – the setting of ROCs for different technologies (called ROCs “banding”) is a matter of debate and controversy and the Government was consulting on it last year – although it appears to have listened to . Biofuelwatch has long been calling for the end of all ROCs for biomass and bioliquids because ROCs artificially stimulate the demand for bioenergy on an unlimited scale. The reason why we are seeing so many biomass power station applications proposed now is down to the ROCs scheme.
The Government will introduce changes to the Renewables Obligation in 2013 which will see biomass and bioliquids continue to be heavily subsidised. The subsidies available to different renewables are as follows:
Table: ROC ‘Banding’: How many ROCs are available per unit of electricity generated: Data extracted from “Government response to the consultation on proposals for the levels of banded support under the Renewables Obligation for the period 2013-17 and the renewables Obligation Order 2012.”
|Advanced gasification & Advanced pyrolysis||2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17|
|Anaerobic digestion||2 in 2013.14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17|
|Biomass conversion with CHP||1.5 in 2013/14 and 2014/15|
|Co-firing of biomass (enhanced)||Mid-range co-firing (50 – less than 85%): 0.6;High-range co-firing (85-less than 100%): 0.7 in 2013/14; 0.9 from 2014/15|
|Co-firing of biomass (standard)||Solid and gaseous biomass (less than 50% biomass cofired in a unit): 0.3 (proposed) in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 0.5 from 2015/16; Bioliquids (less than 100% biomass cofired in a unit): 0.3 (proposed) in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 0.5 from 2015/16.|
|Co-firing of biomass with CHP (enhanced)||0.5 ROC uplift in addition to prevailing ROC support available to new accreditations until 31 March 2015|
|Co-firing of biomass with CHP (standard)||0.5 ROC uplift in addition to prevailing ROC support available to new accreditations until 31 March 2015|
|Co-firing of energy crops (standard)||0.5 ROC uplift in addition to prevailing ROC support for co-firing of biomass (standard). No uplift available for mid-range or high-range co-firing.|
|Co-firing of energy crops with CHP (standard)||0.5 ROC uplift in addition to prevailing ROC support for co-firing of energy crops (standard).Band not available for mid-range or high-range co-firing.|
|Dedicated energy crops||2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17|
|Dedicated energy crops with CHP||2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17|
|Dedicated biomass||1.5 until 31 March 2016; 1.4 from 1 April 2016|
|Dedicated biomass with CHP||2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15|
|Energy from waste with CHP||
|Geothermal||2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17|
|Landfill gas||0 for open landfill sites; 0.2 for closed sites; 0.1 for new Waste Heat to Power band at open and closed sites.|
|Microgeneration||2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17|
|Offshore wind||2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17|
|Solar PV||Banding proposals subject to re-consultation. Closure of band to new projects at or below 5 MW, from 1 April 2013, subject to consultation.|
|Standard gasification & Standard pyrolysis||2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17|
|Tidal||2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17|
|Wave & Tidal Stream||5 up to a 30 MW project cap. 2 ROCS above the cap|