4 ms·

I feel like this might go the other direction once the lockdowns end and once people realize a huge chunk of their "green" energy labeled as biomass is actually

I feel like this might go the other direction once the lockdowns end and once people realize a huge chunk of their "green" energy labeled as biomass is actually just burning down trees. Even if you use the fast growing forests used for paper in places like Oregon, there is still petroleum used in planting, cutting and fertilizing biofuel forests. In many ways, it's even worse for the environment than just burning the oil directly. Baring some massive breakthrough in fusion, society as a whole needs to consume less energy, purchase less stuff and make durable goods that last a lot longer (a cellphone should last 8 years, not 3). Mass consumption is going to kill our environment a lot faster than energy consumption or CO2 emissions. CO2 pales in comparison to the ecological devastation in Chinese factory cities, the large amount of plastic particulates/trash in our oceans and completely unsustainable economic doctrine of infinite growth.

supernova87a 6y ago
The end of your comment makes some sense. The beginning is a puzzle. Who's using biomass? It's <1.5% of energy generation in the US -- you're pretty special and living in an unusual place if you get any substantial energy from that source.
- afandian 6y ago
  Up to 5% of car fuel in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Transport_Fuel_Obligation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Transport_Fuel_Oblig...
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  Biomass is over 40% of Europe's "renewable" energy. Edit: see this for numbers: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/ren...
  - irrational 6y ago
    So, yes, "you're pretty special and living in an unusual place"
    - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
      It's over 10% of renewables in the US. So not that unusual.
      - irrational 6y ago
        I was referring to Europe. Right now Europe looks like a paradise compared to the US.
gerbal 6y ago
> In many ways, it's even worse for the environment than just burning the oil directly. This seems like a testable claim. Is there research about this subject that could confirm or debunk this claim?
- 762236 6y ago
  It can be tested in the other direction too: is there research that can confirm or debunk the opposite claim?
  - _michaelll 6y ago
    to confirm one is to debunk the other of course.
- vkou 6y ago
  Only napkin math. The typical sources of climate change denial don't see biomass as a threat (Because it is tiny, growing slowly, and augments fossil fuels, not replaces them), so they don't fund any research to attack it. The proponents of it probably know that its numbers don't look great, so they don't push for research that thoroughly audits it. It's also difficult to thoroughly audit the carbon costs of a complex supply chain that has to move tens and hundreds of millions tonnes of lumber - when the costs greatly vary based on how the lumber was sourced.
babypuncher 6y ago
Biomass only makes up a small fraction of the energy economy. Wind and solar have much more promising futures.
eloff 6y ago
Biofuel is a small industry. But the big difference is it's carbon neutral because the carbon released into the atmosphere came from the atmosphere. Oil is releasing carbon from prehistoric atmospheres.
- andi999 6y ago
  Actually it is tax neutral, not carbon neutral. The kicker here is (i cant find the source anymore) at least in Germany agriculture is energy intensive. It seems one energy unit of crop need one energie unit of (tax excempted) fossil fuel (for the machineries). So basically you are pumping fuel into a black box, and out comes bioful (which has tax breaks as well, if I remember correctly) It is a left picket right pocket game.
  - eloff 6y ago
    That's true, one must also account for the carbon footprint of the inputs. Of course oil extraction and refining also has a carbon footprint. It's a problem that could be solved over time if using green energy for the agriculture.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> CO2 pales in comparison to the ecological devastation in Chinese factory cities, the large amount of plastic particulates/trash in our oceans and completely unsustainable economic doctrine of infinite growth. No... not remotely. While these things you mention are a big threat, and truly terrible disasters themselves, they pale in comparison to the planet changing disaster that is Climate Change.
marcosdumay 6y ago
> a huge chunk of their "green" energy labeled as biomass is actually just burning down trees. Nearly all it comes from some variety of grass. Be it corn, sugar cane or some foraging grass. Trees are way too inefficient to be practical.

supernova87a 6y ago

The end of your comment makes some sense. The beginning is a puzzle. Who's using biomass? It's <1.5% of energy generation in the US -- you're pretty special and living in an unusual place if you get any substantial energy from that source.

afandian 6y ago
Up to 5% of car fuel in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Transport_Fuel_Obligation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Transport_Fuel_Oblig...
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
Biomass is over 40% of Europe's "renewable" energy. Edit: see this for numbers: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/ren...
- irrational 6y ago
  So, yes, "you're pretty special and living in an unusual place"
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    It's over 10% of renewables in the US. So not that unusual.
    - irrational 6y ago
      I was referring to Europe. Right now Europe looks like a paradise compared to the US.

gerbal 6y ago

> In many ways, it's even worse for the environment than just burning the oil directly. This seems like a testable claim. Is there research about this subject that could confirm or debunk this claim?

762236 6y ago
It can be tested in the other direction too: is there research that can confirm or debunk the opposite claim?
- _michaelll 6y ago
  to confirm one is to debunk the other of course.
vkou 6y ago
Only napkin math. The typical sources of climate change denial don't see biomass as a threat (Because it is tiny, growing slowly, and augments fossil fuels, not replaces them), so they don't fund any research to attack it. The proponents of it probably know that its numbers don't look great, so they don't push for research that thoroughly audits it. It's also difficult to thoroughly audit the carbon costs of a complex supply chain that has to move tens and hundreds of millions tonnes of lumber - when the costs greatly vary based on how the lumber was sourced.

babypuncher 6y ago

Biomass only makes up a small fraction of the energy economy. Wind and solar have much more promising futures.

eloff 6y ago

Biofuel is a small industry. But the big difference is it's carbon neutral because the carbon released into the atmosphere came from the atmosphere. Oil is releasing carbon from prehistoric atmospheres.

andi999 6y ago
Actually it is tax neutral, not carbon neutral. The kicker here is (i cant find the source anymore) at least in Germany agriculture is energy intensive. It seems one energy unit of crop need one energie unit of (tax excempted) fossil fuel (for the machineries). So basically you are pumping fuel into a black box, and out comes bioful (which has tax breaks as well, if I remember correctly) It is a left picket right pocket game.
- eloff 6y ago
  That's true, one must also account for the carbon footprint of the inputs. Of course oil extraction and refining also has a carbon footprint. It's a problem that could be solved over time if using green energy for the agriculture.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> CO2 pales in comparison to the ecological devastation in Chinese factory cities, the large amount of plastic particulates/trash in our oceans and completely unsustainable economic doctrine of infinite growth. No... not remotely. While these things you mention are a big threat, and truly terrible disasters themselves, they pale in comparison to the planet changing disaster that is Climate Change.

marcosdumay 6y ago

> a huge chunk of their "green" energy labeled as biomass is actually just burning down trees. Nearly all it comes from some variety of grass. Be it corn, sugar cane or some foraging grass. Trees are way too inefficient to be practical.