Posted By Nick Guest
The last twelve months have been pretty hectic. Our sales and technical staff are currently very busy putting forward the case for high quality wood fuel to be used as a renewable energy which reduces the carbon footprint. And at present we are working hard to win FSC and ISO 140001 environmental accreditation.
And as the Government's deadlines for the reduction of carbon emissions and the use of renewable energy draw ever closer, we are sure it will get busier..No complaint there.
But in truth much of the progress seems a lot slower than it should be because "the system" is clogging up with far too many Quangos and consultants. In our experience , these two groups are forever being paid vast amounts of money to carry out research into the wood fuel market and supply chain. And this research seems to be being carried out time and time again. How do we know? Because we are constantly being asked the same old questions, and some time later a new report appears with the same old results.
I would love to know how much money, spent in this way, has been wasted over the last 5 years, and how many public buildings could now be using alternative energy if they had had the money instead.
Just last month , we were sent by a consultant a new survey commissioned by the Forestry commission. Call me old-fashioned, but did anyone think for a second that a good afternoon spent on Google, reading old reports or calling us or our competitors might have produced the answers they needed and saved a lot of cash at the same time.
There seems to be masses of organisations that have been set up with the sole aim of dishing out grants of behalf of Central Government, some very good grants are handed out and they have a positive effect on the industry but there are many many grants being handed out which would appear too many as being a waste of public money.
We also feel that encouraging good forest management is vital in supporting the supply chain in the biomass wood fuel industry, but it is by no means the whole picture. Woodland owners will always be happy to receive a grant, but the money would be infinitely better spent encouraging them to work with fuel providers, rather than setting up to be fuel suppliers. The future success of the wood fuel industry depends on companies putting in place the infrastructure to handle the demands of customers such as Hospitals, airports etc in the same way as they are used to with current energy supplies
The forestry Commission also has a important role in helping to promote the use of timber for biomass from it's own managed forests, its not just up to the private woodland owners.
Many of the regions are extremely progressive but much work still needs to be done to encourage a healthy biomass industry. For example: the Commission transports large volumes of chip wood over long distances around the UK, this seems senseless and surely it would be far better to encourage use of this within a 50 or 60 mile radius to reduce carbon footprints etc.
It is time for all the talking to stop, and for someone to take responsibility for creating a practical and workable national policy and seeing it through. A grant here, a grant there. It's not good enough, and it can be a obscene waste of money. Much of the expertise is in place and we could end up missing a massive opportunity if we don't sort it...