I understand all that. It is why hydrocarbons have nearly twice the calorific value of coal, weight for weight. If Drax was going to burn a hydrocarbon, then I can see why they could claim that the CO2 emitted would be less than simply proportional to the reduction in the amount of coal burnt. But cellulose is a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon, more specifically it's a polysaccharide, (C6H10O5)n
Drax claim it's still viable, even including processing and transport costs.
They'd need some pretty massive storage. Mind you, the 'domes' that they're constructing were rather large.
Elsewhere in this thread, DL suggested that the Drax biomass project returned to potential profitability because the cheap price of shale gas in the US had undermined the wood chip market, presumably dramatically reducing its price. I wonder if the Drax planners have considered the possibility of the same thing happening here!