A new analysis from energy think tank Ember suggests the UK’s flagship bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) proposal at Drax Power Station could cost taxpayers up to £30 billion (~$40 billion) in subsidies, surpassing the country’s entire planned budget for carbon capture and removal.
The finding raises fresh questions about the financial and climate value of continuing to support biomass-based power paired with unproven carbon removal technologies.
Drax already receives roughly £744 million ($983 million) per year in public subsidies for burning woody biomass, a support scheme set to continue through 2031, albeit with declining payments after 2027. Under the BECCS model proposed by the company, Drax would receive ongoing support for biomass combustion in addition to new subsidies tied to carbon removals.
Ember argues this approach exposes the UK to significant economic and climate risk, noting that BECCS removals remain highly uncertain because biomass regrowth and carbon reabsorption can take decades, and are far from guaranteed.
Concerns Grow Over Cost, Feedstock, and Climate Integrity
The analysis highlights longer-standing concerns over the emissions profile of Drax’s biomass operations. Previous studies show the plant has been the UK’s largest single emitter of CO2, due to the high carbon intensity of burning imported woody pellets.
The company has faced scrutiny over alleged sourcing of wood from primary forests in North America, and a shift to domestic biomass would be challenging given that over 99% of Drax’s feedstock is currently imported.
“Committing to funding BECCS at Drax would be an extremely risky business,” said Ember analyst Josie Murdoch. “The UK doesn’t have time or money to waste on carbon removals tech that may never deliver.”
Relevant: Drax Explores Energy Deals With Data Centers But Carbon Capture Investment Pared Back
Ember’s review of UK carbon removal projects found no technology has yet demonstrated durable, affordable carbon removal at commercial scale, despite the government’s reliance on BECCS in the 2030s to meet its Carbon Budget.
The report argues that redirecting a portion of the anticipated BECCS subsidy toward proven climate solutions this decade, including wind and solar buildout, heat pump deployment, EVs, and grid investment, would yield more certain emissions cuts.
“We know we need to cut emissions rapidly in the next decade,” Murdoch added. “Fortunately, we have effective and low-cost tools to do that.”
Read more: UK To Open Largest Biochar Carbon Removal Plant In Wiltshire
Meanwhile, Drax has issued a response to Ember’s report, countering its findings citing ‘inaccurate numbers’ as the basis for the controversial statement. According to Drax, Ember’s cost projections for BECCS at Drax are built on assumptions that don’t match the project’s actual scope or the government’s developing support framework.
Their model assumes four BECCS units running under a 25-year contract, even though Drax’s approved plans cover only two units and the government’s preferred contract length is 15 years. Ember also treats BECCS as if it would receive support only through a power CfD, overlooking the government’s dual-CfD design that factors in carbon-market revenues, significantly reducing the level of taxpayer funding required.
These misaligned assumptions lead Ember to overstate both annual subsidies and total project costs. Their analysis also omits the broader context: the system-wide costs the UK would face in meeting net zero without the carbon removals Drax’s BECCS units could provide.
Independent modelling shows that two BECCS units at Drax could lower whole-economy costs by billions, avoiding more expensive alternatives, the response says. Drax believes that once the final BECCS business model is published, a more accurate picture of the project’s value and cost-effectiveness will be clear.
