Actually it would appear to be yes – on the local news this evening was the announcement that Drax power station is to stop burning coal next year & move over entirely to "biomass".
I think this particular form of ‘generation’ is simply a means of Drax taking advantage of government rules which paid subsidies for non-fossil generation. It is, in my opinion, simply a company taking advantage of a loop-hole in the regulations – blame the rule makers for the loop-hole.
At the same time, where would we be if that generation was disallowed? One to two GW that would have been fossil generated. Burning coal would generate about eight times the amount of CO2 apportioned to this fuel (only because the full emissions from the biomass are not recorded in the form the government use) and thus shows up in reports as a reduction in CO2 emissions. Nothing more than that.
It was why there was the ‘rush for gas’ three decades ago. Yes, far more efficient than simply raising steam to drive turbines but also it reduced our carbon use at a stroke – which was what was required. Back then, we used the same amount of electricity but the carbon foot-print was slashed.
Other forms of sustainable/non-carbon generation were subsidised, but most are now being installed without any support, but the historical subsidised installations were garanteed that subsidy for their lifetime. It was the only way to get them built cheaply, at the time. Think hinkley point strike price as a prime example.
Simply a scam, in my opinion. But lets remember that subsidies are paid to all manner of industries such as agriculture, coal mining (in the day), public transport and a whole lot of others. Tax payers are stumping up for all these subsidies, apparently for the overall good of the country. It is a form of spreading taxes more equitably among the population, say some.
But others might point out that they pay for the likes of public transport but do not get any benefit from it (remote rural communities with no public transport services). Subsidies are directed to resources for the main populaion, not out-lying minorities (where the returns on the investment would make it unsustainable).
Roundabouts and swings at the final analysis, I suppose.