News1 min ago
The Biomass Con.....
28 Answers
http://
Anyone see the dispatches program? Burning wood pellets, it turns out is far worse than burning coal. But they are allowed to discount their emissions out of the stack because they plant new trees, BS! They ship this stuff round the world using fossil fuels! PMSL how can this be better? another obfuscated BS fest.
Anyone see the dispatches program? Burning wood pellets, it turns out is far worse than burning coal. But they are allowed to discount their emissions out of the stack because they plant new trees, BS! They ship this stuff round the world using fossil fuels! PMSL how can this be better? another obfuscated BS fest.
Answers
I’m not particularly fussed about “Climate Change” or “Global Warming” (or whatever name has been used to suit the latest figures) but I do hate being taken for an idiot. “Coal has a bigger carbon footprint than wooden
16:27 Mon 30th Apr 2018
-- answer removed --
What sort of a person I am (or that you believe I am) is not really relevant to this question. I simply stated that I am not particularly fussed about climate change so as not to be accused of pre-judging the issue.
The issue is about conning the public. There is no doubt (and I am not disputing it) that coal is dirty. It is hard to extract from the ground (though many countries, including the UK, have managed to do so quite readily). But burning wood is presented as a “Green” alternative when it very clearly is not. You also say this:
"Also, coal is not sustainable, so when we run out,…”
The implication (as far as this question goes) must therefore be that chopping down four or five thousand square miles of forest every year (and that is just to sustain Drax in its current form) somehow is. Have a read of the Chatham House report that I provided, have a look at the programme which 3Ts mentioned, have a general read up on the subject, then see whether you believe that burning wood from mature forests is a satisfactory alternative to burning coal.
The issue is about conning the public. There is no doubt (and I am not disputing it) that coal is dirty. It is hard to extract from the ground (though many countries, including the UK, have managed to do so quite readily). But burning wood is presented as a “Green” alternative when it very clearly is not. You also say this:
"Also, coal is not sustainable, so when we run out,…”
The implication (as far as this question goes) must therefore be that chopping down four or five thousand square miles of forest every year (and that is just to sustain Drax in its current form) somehow is. Have a read of the Chatham House report that I provided, have a look at the programme which 3Ts mentioned, have a general read up on the subject, then see whether you believe that burning wood from mature forests is a satisfactory alternative to burning coal.
It seems to me worth while mentioning that there is quite a difference between on the one hand burning waste wood in your domestic boiler, wood which otherwise would go to landfill and generate methane, another greenhouse gas with its own half-life characteristics, and on the other importing biomass (including pellets) for large scale electricity generation.
Taking up the former will often be part of reducing the need for electricity (for heating, any household's largest energy usage component) - electricity use is hugely inefficient by nature since well under 40% of the thermal energy ends up as usable electricity for the generation of thermal output in the home and the remainder manifests itself as unproductive carbon emissions. It is generally accepted that in the case of households any type of independence from fossil fuel based heating is positive/beneficial regarding the environment - that applies to solar, wind, biomass, etc. Second best is district heating which carries with it economies of scale at local level.
Transporting biomass fuel in large quantities over long distances is a different proposition but where/when large numbers of households "go green" (including biomass) the sum total is very significant and benefits the aim of protecting the environment.
Another consideration is the "holistic view". If fossil fuels are left where they are and whatever fuel is used is basically only what is grown, then we are effectively recycling our carbon because everything that is grown captures carbon from the atmosphere (e.g. planting trees for burning involves pulling carbon from the atmosphere, no matter how quickly or slowly). Conversely, extracting fossil fuel from the ground and burning it amounts to increasing overall the carbon cycle load in the atmosphere, re-injecting what was (otherwise permanently) captured tens of millennia ago. Perform the injection of much of the fossil carbon in a century or so to the point of reversing tens of thousands of years worth of capture and you are indulging in an experiment the likes of which probably has never been contemplated, you are binging on recklessness since nobody knows where this will lead, although some are raising the alarm but being ridiculed for it.
Taking up the former will often be part of reducing the need for electricity (for heating, any household's largest energy usage component) - electricity use is hugely inefficient by nature since well under 40% of the thermal energy ends up as usable electricity for the generation of thermal output in the home and the remainder manifests itself as unproductive carbon emissions. It is generally accepted that in the case of households any type of independence from fossil fuel based heating is positive/beneficial regarding the environment - that applies to solar, wind, biomass, etc. Second best is district heating which carries with it economies of scale at local level.
Transporting biomass fuel in large quantities over long distances is a different proposition but where/when large numbers of households "go green" (including biomass) the sum total is very significant and benefits the aim of protecting the environment.
Another consideration is the "holistic view". If fossil fuels are left where they are and whatever fuel is used is basically only what is grown, then we are effectively recycling our carbon because everything that is grown captures carbon from the atmosphere (e.g. planting trees for burning involves pulling carbon from the atmosphere, no matter how quickly or slowly). Conversely, extracting fossil fuel from the ground and burning it amounts to increasing overall the carbon cycle load in the atmosphere, re-injecting what was (otherwise permanently) captured tens of millennia ago. Perform the injection of much of the fossil carbon in a century or so to the point of reversing tens of thousands of years worth of capture and you are indulging in an experiment the likes of which probably has never been contemplated, you are binging on recklessness since nobody knows where this will lead, although some are raising the alarm but being ridiculed for it.
So didn't the vegetation that went on to form fossil fuel capture any carbon, then?
What about a dead tree that falls over? Is it OK to burn that? What if it gets buried under some rotting vegetation for a few years? Or a hundred years? Or a thousand years? Or does it only count as "biomass" if it is chopped down whilst still alive (and hence still "capturing" carbon)?
What about a dead tree that falls over? Is it OK to burn that? What if it gets buried under some rotting vegetation for a few years? Or a hundred years? Or a thousand years? Or does it only count as "biomass" if it is chopped down whilst still alive (and hence still "capturing" carbon)?
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Politics2 mins ago
Merci Beaucoup Pour Rien Le Francais
News4 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Crosswords23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.