4 ms·
> this Spectator article somehow managed to avoid even alluding to carbon. It was alluded to in this section (ctrl-f "emissions"): >> A wind farm requires far
by repsilat 7y ago
> this Spectator article somehow managed to avoid even alluding to carbon.
It was alluded to in this section (ctrl-f "emissions"):
>> A wind farm requires far more concrete and steel than an equivalent system based on gas. Environmental opposition to nuclear power has hindered the generating system that needs the least land, least fuel and least steel or concrete per megawatt. Burning wood instead of coal in power stations means the exploitation of more land, the eviction of more woodpeckers — and even higher emissions.
- mcguire 7y agoIs someone suggesting burning wood?
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoOne of the ways the UK has reduced emissions is by burning wood pellets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station
- mcguire 7y ago"Wood pellets are the most common type of pellet fuel and are generally made from compacted sawdust and related industrial wastes from the milling of lumber, manufacture of wood products and furniture, and construction. Other industrial waste sources include empty fruit bunches, palm kernel shells, coconut shells, and tree tops and branches discarded during logging operations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel?wprov=sfla1 Interesting. I wonder how much power is available from that.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoRight now 7.1% of our power generation is coming from biomass. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk I'm not convinced it's all waste product.
- rapnie 7y agoThis was from 2015: > Europe imported more than 4 million tons of wood pellets from US forests last year and wrote it all off as renewable energy. https://www.businessinsider.com/europe-imports-wood-biomass-from-us-for-power-2015-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/europe-imports-wood-biomass-...
- thu2111 7y agoI think this is partly why he believes wood burning can be worse than coal. Yes in theory growing trees and burning them is closed-loop ... if you assume the trees are grown right next to the power station and requires no energy input to grow or move them, which isn't the case. Coal is very energy dense. Imports and other automated machinery like wood-cutting machines, planes for seed planting all burn oil. If you import coal and import wood, you could end up burning a lot more fuel with the wood option. Now, that's kind of a tricky form of accounting because it would make wood burning worse from the perspective of the importing country only. But the carbon was still pulled out of the atmosphere in the exporting country. The real reason wood burning/planting doesn't make much sense for reducing emissions is just one of scale. You end up needing to plant billions of trees to balance even just airline travel, let alone everything else. There isn't enough space short of terraforming deserts and other very energy intensive activities that probably wouldn't balance.
- mcguire 7y agoThis is true, but where I live, leftover plant matter, typically from logging, is routinely just burned. Capturing that energy is a win up to the point it takes more to capture than it produces.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoWouldn't it be better to return that organic matter to the soil?
- scarmig 7y agoEmissions here can't refer to carbon, because burning wood doesn't inject any new carbon into the carbon cycle. So he's only referring to particulate matter. Which, sure, coal beats wood on. But my main concern is about carbon, not anything else.