3 ms·

This is a good discussion of the accounting of biofuels, with a guy called Tim Searchinger (there is a transcript if you don't want to listen): https://infopro

by iguy 6y ago

This is a good discussion of the accounting of biofuels, with a guy called Tim Searchinger (there is a transcript if you don't want to listen): https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2019/11/manifold-podcast-23-tim-searchinger.html https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2019/11/manifold-podcast-23-ti... One takeaway is that you should think of farming trees as fuel as a competitor for land use. If it displaces growing food crops, then they will be grown elsewhere, possibly in newly cleared rainforest. Even if none of your wood comes from there. Edit -- I may have mis-remembered slightly... the food competition story would more obviously apply to corn ethanol, which could otherwise be turned into beef.

VBprogrammer 6y ago
That doesn't pass a smell test to me. Land which is used for forestry is usually not suitable for growing crops. Usually because it's on too great a slope and on poor quality soils.
- fred_is_fred 6y ago
  This is especially true in the US where the article says they are sourcing from. US forest cover has been increasing for years as marginal farm land is reclaimed by trees - intentionally or otherwise - http://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm http://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- neilwilson 6y ago
  Nut trees can grow there. And so can sheep and goats. Quite a lot of pine is grown in areas that would support broad lead if you gave it time.
tomp 6y ago
> If it displaces growing food crops But does it? Not all food is suitable for growing crops; even less industrial farming crops, which requires tons of (fossil-fueled) fertilizer, so almost no soil is appropriate. But still, I imagine you need certain flatness to even begin thinking about machine farming. Forests on the other hand can grow on all kinds of land, same with free range animals, and presumably doesn't require so much fertilizer. Therefore, why not both?
- iguy 6y ago
  Yea, as I edited when I remembered, the strong trade-off on land area is biomass fuels like corn alcohol. If you can grow that you can certainly grow animal feed. Some tree-farming is indeed on steep ground, but I couldn't guess what proportion actually. (Big old trees are more likely to be on steep ground, as the ones in the valleys were cut long long ago, but those are much more valuable.)
- the8472 6y ago
  My understanding is that forest left to mature, i.e. not harvested, stores more carbon than intensely managed ones.
  - tomp 6y ago
    Not really, unless the resulting carbon somehow gets stored underground (e.g. trees become coal). Even carbon from soil eventually gets released (by bacteria) or reused (by other plants). Really, the only question is the biomass of trees. 1MT trees left to grow for 100 years == 2MT of trees harvested every 50 years.
    - the8472 6y ago
      You're only looking at the deltas of carbon in/out. I am referring to the absolute amount of carbon stored per area. Older forests -> higher soil carbon and larger trees
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >But does it? It uses land that otherwise would be used for something else, like food, or natural habitat. Biofuels are a disaster because we are not just dealing with climate change, but environmental collapse. If only there was an power source that was energy-dense, carbon-free with minimal land-use ... If only there was such a thing....

by iguy 6y ago

VBprogrammer 6y ago

That doesn't pass a smell test to me. Land which is used for forestry is usually not suitable for growing crops. Usually because it's on too great a slope and on poor quality soils.

fred_is_fred 6y ago
This is especially true in the US where the article says they are sourcing from. US forest cover has been increasing for years as marginal farm land is reclaimed by trees - intentionally or otherwise - http://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm http://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
neilwilson 6y ago
Nut trees can grow there. And so can sheep and goats. Quite a lot of pine is grown in areas that would support broad lead if you gave it time.

tomp 6y ago

> If it displaces growing food crops But does it? Not all food is suitable for growing crops; even less industrial farming crops, which requires tons of (fossil-fueled) fertilizer, so almost no soil is appropriate. But still, I imagine you need certain flatness to even begin thinking about machine farming. Forests on the other hand can grow on all kinds of land, same with free range animals, and presumably doesn't require so much fertilizer. Therefore, why not both?

iguy 6y ago
Yea, as I edited when I remembered, the strong trade-off on land area is biomass fuels like corn alcohol. If you can grow that you can certainly grow animal feed. Some tree-farming is indeed on steep ground, but I couldn't guess what proportion actually. (Big old trees are more likely to be on steep ground, as the ones in the valleys were cut long long ago, but those are much more valuable.)
the8472 6y ago
My understanding is that forest left to mature, i.e. not harvested, stores more carbon than intensely managed ones.
- tomp 6y ago
  Not really, unless the resulting carbon somehow gets stored underground (e.g. trees become coal). Even carbon from soil eventually gets released (by bacteria) or reused (by other plants). Really, the only question is the biomass of trees. 1MT trees left to grow for 100 years == 2MT of trees harvested every 50 years.
  - the8472 6y ago
    You're only looking at the deltas of carbon in/out. I am referring to the absolute amount of carbon stored per area. Older forests -> higher soil carbon and larger trees
macspoofing 6y ago
>But does it? It uses land that otherwise would be used for something else, like food, or natural habitat. Biofuels are a disaster because we are not just dealing with climate change, but environmental collapse. If only there was an power source that was energy-dense, carbon-free with minimal land-use ... If only there was such a thing....