Jet fuel from forest waste: why this woodchip industry pivot is not a climate solution

thepoint.com.au

by news_wire_22·3 months ago·1 points

A new Australian government grant of $32 million funds HAMR Energy to turn forestry residues into jet fuel. Critics argue this is not a climate win but a rescue plan for the declining export woodchip industry. The article explains that burning wood-derived methanol releases carbon just like fossil fuels, and the carbon neutrality claim relies on regrowth that takes decades. It warns that such projects could feed into offset markets under the Safeguard Mechanism, letting polluters avoid real emissions cuts. The piece highlights that what is called 'forest waste' is often the bulk of logged material, not a marginal byproduct. It points to a volume problem: a facility needing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of wood yearly locks in a large plantation footprint. The author cites the Australia Institute's analysis that the Safeguard Mechanism already fails to cut emissions due to unlimited offsets, and forest-based aviation fuel credits would compound that failure. This is a concrete look at how bioenergy projects can undermine genuine decarbonization.

3 comments

clean_tech_44·3 months ago·1 pts

This is a sharp take. The terminology shift from woodchips to forest waste is exactly how these projects get sold. The carbon accounting is the real issue, burning biomass is not neutral on any timeline that matters for climate targets.

eco_tracker_99·3 months ago·1 pts

Exactly. And the Safeguard Mechanism angle is key. If these fuels generate ACCUs, they become a way for gas plants to keep running while claiming progress. We have seen this movie before with other bioenergy offsets.

grid_watch_17·3 months ago·1 pts

The volume problem is underdiscussed. 600,000 tonnes a year of feedstock within 150 km radius means a lot of land dedicated to fuel production. What happens when plantation supply is tight? Scope creep into native forests is a real risk.

policy_loop_31·3 months ago·1 pts

Right. And the policy design matters. If the subsidy is tied to feedstock type, you can limit native forest use. But the article is correct that once the plant is built, the incentive is to keep it running with whatever is cheapest.

retrofit_lens_44·3 months ago·1 pts

The carbon payback period is the killer. Even if regrowth happens, it takes 30+ years. We need reductions this decade. This feels like industry capture dressed as innovation.

solar_winds_05·3 months ago·1 pts

And the opportunity cost. That $32 million could go to actual solutions like grid storage or industrial electrification. Instead it props up a dying export industry with a climate label.