5 ms·
It's better than nothing, but the real change comes from suppliers producing renewable energy and most importantly carbon-free energy. Renewable energy can be
by frenchman99 7y ago
It's better than nothing, but the real change comes from suppliers producing renewable energy and most importantly carbon-free energy.
Renewable energy can be bad for the environment too, it's not magic. If we found a way to make renewable oil, it wouldn't be environment friendly.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoRenewable oil would be carbon neutral, I suppose. At the moment the 'renewable mix' includes biomass, which is similar. Interestingly, I recently saw a British supplier advertising not only renewable but vegan electricity... Because standard renewable includes animal waste biomass. Is this going too far?
- ljf 7y agoI saw that too - I wouldn't say it is going too far - if people want to pay for it and it doesn't harm others - then why not? Since energy generation is a 'free market' in the UK - why shouldn't there be more niche suppliers?
- NullPrefix 7y agoBiodiesel is a renewable
- imeron 7y agoIn my country they consider heating with wood "renewable energy". This is essentially cheating on the subject.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoWood from managed forests is renewable energy, and arguably carbon neutral as well.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y agoIt's renewable, but where does that burnt carbon go?
- mytailorisrich 7y agoIt goes back to where the tree extracted it from: atmosphere. That's why it is usually considered carbon neutral.
- ljf 7y agoTrue - but the management, production and transport of the wood pellets that go on to be burnt, produces more co2. Plus burning stuff isn't that great a way to make power, especially wood - if you have ever tried to heat a house with wood verses a coal fire you'll understand. Right now the wood pellets are just a way to skirt the rules - I doubt they'll be part of the mix for long, as solar/wind drops in price, along with cheap and reliable storage.
- abraae 7y agoIt's absorbed by new trees, planted to replace the ones cut down.
- pdpi 7y agoIt's not cheating, it's conflating renewability with pollution generation. Forestry is a well-understood topic that has made wood one of the most widely-used renewable resources in the world. Burning wood still produces large amounts of carbon dioxide/monoxide.
- Nyandalized 7y agoThe wood has absorbed the equal amount of carbon from the air, which has reverted the previous burning. As long as we won't take down all the trees, it shouldn't be accounted as net negative.
- stefan_ 7y agoOf course the other pollutants created from burning wood in population centers kill us when inhaled, so we've traded a minor source of CO2, which might kill us through some correlated highly delayed uncertain mechanism in an uncertain future, for something that is actively toxic and cancerous. Burning wood for heating is the diesel car story all over again. The tradeoff makes zero sense.
- Nyandalized 7y agoBurning anything can be "actively" toxic and cancerous. You can argue about the process of anything, but that shifts the conversation away from the energy source. Wood doesen't have to be burned in X place, and it _could_ be gathered and processed using clean procedures, but they're outside of the scope of wood being carbon neutral.
- nickserv 7y agoThe fossil fuels burned during the planting, harvesting and transport of the wood also needs to be taken account. In that case, unless the entire chain uses renewable energy, it can't be considered carbon neutral.
- Nyandalized 7y ago