3 ms·

I'm not sure you can make a reasonable argument that burning wood is carbon neutral, unless you want to open the door to saying that any CO2 emission is carbon

I'm not sure you can make a reasonable argument that burning wood is carbon neutral, unless you want to open the door to saying that any CO2 emission is carbon neutral because the carbon can be reclaimed when it is converted into plant matter. It is kind of an absurd argument, unfalsifiable because it also applies to kerogen-based fuels like petroleum and natural gas, both of which begin their long life cycles as organic matter. Burning wood to generate energy puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than burning fossil fuels to create the same amount of energy, because wood has a lower energy density. Under ideal conditions, most of that CO2 can eventually be reclaimed, if the forest is allowed to regrow. That takes decades, however, during which atmospheric CO2 is higher than it would be otherwise. This creates harms from climate change, including some that are irreversible, like ice-sheet melt and permafrost thaw. But emissions from burning wood are only partially reclaimed by forest regrowth, because: - harvesting trees results in release of CO2 from soils, which continues for decades; - burning natural hardwood forest and replacing with fast-growing forest plantations (a common practice), permanently elevates atmospheric CO2 because plantations don’t store as much carbon as natural forests; - cutting and processing wood uses energy, which generally results in CO2 emissions. https://whrc.org/burning-wood-for-energy-is-not-carbon-neutral/ https://whrc.org/burning-wood-for-energy-is-not-carbon-neutr...

clomond 6y ago
(note, not defending Biomass) While Biomass should not be treated as 'renewable', the key difference between burning biomass versus coal is that the inherent carbon in biomass could be treated as a cycling of carbon that already exists in the carbon cycle (assuming where it is harvested is then replanted with trees, which many of them are) - versus the burning of coal (or any other fossil fuel) which takes 'stored carbon in the ground' that has NOT been part of the carbon cycle for millions of years and increases the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere & the overall 'natural carbon cycle'. So - 'in the fullness of time' (decades) it is 'carbon neutral'. But the tragedy in Biomass is not just the destruction of forests as you mention (sometimes old growth) or the loss of an active carbon sink - the carbon dioxide is still released and will be sitting around when we least need it to - it will still warm the planet. Hopefully, the EU and other countries will abandon the Biomass retrofits and jump ahead to accelerated Solar, Wind and Energy Storage deployments.
sgt101 6y ago
>- harvesting trees results in release of CO2 from soils, which continues for decades; I coppice, no tree dies, the soil is not disrupted. >- burning natural hardwood forest and replacing with fast-growing forest plantations (a common practice), permanently elevates atmospheric CO2 because plantations don’t store as much carbon as natural forests; There are plenty of fast growing woods - willow, beech, hazel >- cutting and processing wood uses energy, which generally results in CO2 emissions. Meaculpa - I use a chainsaw, but there is a future in which I can use an electric saw and and axe (I use an axe alot now anyway)

clomond 6y ago

(note, not defending Biomass) While Biomass should not be treated as 'renewable', the key difference between burning biomass versus coal is that the inherent carbon in biomass could be treated as a cycling of carbon that already exists in the carbon cycle (assuming where it is harvested is then replanted with trees, which many of them are) - versus the burning of coal (or any other fossil fuel) which takes 'stored carbon in the ground' that has NOT been part of the carbon cycle for millions of years and increases the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere & the overall 'natural carbon cycle'. So - 'in the fullness of time' (decades) it is 'carbon neutral'. But the tragedy in Biomass is not just the destruction of forests as you mention (sometimes old growth) or the loss of an active carbon sink - the carbon dioxide is still released and will be sitting around when we least need it to - it will still warm the planet. Hopefully, the EU and other countries will abandon the Biomass retrofits and jump ahead to accelerated Solar, Wind and Energy Storage deployments.

sgt101 6y ago

>- harvesting trees results in release of CO2 from soils, which continues for decades; I coppice, no tree dies, the soil is not disrupted. >- burning natural hardwood forest and replacing with fast-growing forest plantations (a common practice), permanently elevates atmospheric CO2 because plantations don’t store as much carbon as natural forests; There are plenty of fast growing woods - willow, beech, hazel >- cutting and processing wood uses energy, which generally results in CO2 emissions. Meaculpa - I use a chainsaw, but there is a future in which I can use an electric saw and and axe (I use an axe alot now anyway)