|
|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45672 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011 Posts: 15972
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 17 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
The carbon cycle is one that is very difficult to get your head round and the think tank has failed in this too. If you thin a plantation the remaining trees grow faster as they have more room and light, so take in more energy. If you clear fell and replant, then the new trees won't take in as much energy as you burn, but will do over their life time. If you coppice, which is the traditional way of obtaining fuel wood for both charcoal (main fuel for industry) and logs, the new growth from the coppice will take in a lot of carbon quickly and definitely over the lifetime of the coppice.
I agree that shipping from clear cut areas half way around the world is not going to do anything for the carbon sink, nor is the energy needed to chip huge trees. On the other hand, the smaller wood that might be discarded can be used. Another problem with this is the risk of importing pests and diseases, which is something the Forestry Commission are worried about. If you are alternatively bringing coal, oil or gas from a similar distance, there is a marginal increase in energy as the woodchip has slightly less calorific value.
It is a good idea to use waste first rather than woodchip from newly felled trees, but there isn't enough to go round, which is why we import timber/gas/oil into the UK anyway as we can't grow enough for our energy needs. We have a small island and a large population, so we can't be self sufficient in anything including food and energy. |
|
|
|
|
jema Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 28235 Location: escaped from Swindon
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 17 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
Clearly it's not a great solution for everyone and everywhere, and clearly accounting needs to be done appropriately.
But some of these ideas are being put forward with a disturbing lack of context.
Though I believe that wood can be used sustainably, and in a manner that is actually carbon neutral, minus cutting and transport emissions, let's go with the idea that new growth isn't taking up 100% of the carbon that harvested wood is emitting when burnt.
What are we comparing that with?
Versus solar power, yup, that's a problem, we're emitting atmospheric carbon where we otherwise only need to do enough to make the panels and components.
Versus literally any fossil fuel? Give me the wood biomass please. That's comparing ancient carbon that would otherwise be stuck under the earth with geologically "recent" carbon that would otherwise be cycling in the forest.
Biomass is fiddling with above ground carbon pools, and needs to be done in a way that doesn't start depleting soil carbon stocks, etc, but anything fossil fueled is dumping ancient carbon into the system where it hasn't been for millions of years with no easy way to get it back out again.
Seriously, which would you prefer?
Also, I'm not saying that Europe should be importing wood chips. What the hell is wrong with you? (not *you* you, but *Europe as a whole* you) Can those economics even work? |
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011 Posts: 15972
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 17 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
Interesting articles Slim. I read the abstracts for both, but think I will look at the whole thing later. Some parts of Europe do not have the room to grow the trees they need for biomass; Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium being examples. Others, such as France and Germany might, and have a tradition of log burning that we don't. Britain has plenty of coal, and the only way we can be self sufficient in energy is actually to use that.
Treacodactyl, yes they were right to highlight those points, but if woodland is regrown, either by new planting or coppicing, over time, all or most of the gas emitted will be reused. I don't recall any work being done on the rain of twigs, leaves and other odd stuff that comes off trees all the time to see how much a tree sheds and is converted to humus over a year, but I am sure someone somewhere has done the work.
A lot does come down to economics and security of supply. The only way to achieve security of supply and the amount needed is to import, but of course that does cut out the extra processing and the transport by road, which is more expensive, of locally produced material. I would love to be able to sell the brash for energy production, but the small amount we produce wouldn't even be an hours burning for a power station. |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 17 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
Treacodactyl wrote: |
Mistress Rose wrote: |
but if woodland is regrown, either by new planting or coppicing, over time, all or most of the gas emitted will be reused. |
It's a big if, and reading the link I posted it seems unlikely it will all be replanted. But that is still missing a big point and that is we need to reduce carbon emissions now not 50+ years when the trees that may have been replanted are at the age when they're absorbing a decent amount of CO2 that's been pumped out by burning their parents. |
Agreed, however, what is the alternative to burning that recent carbon?
There is the most ideal solution, and the least ideal solution, and reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
What should the next power plant be? Which power plant should be the first to be shuttered?
I say, the next power plants should be solar/wind if possible, clean modern nuclear next priority, and that the first ones to be shuttered next are coal, then oil and gas in that order.
biomass may not be perfect, but again, what is the comparison being drawn against? |
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011 Posts: 15972
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|