4 ms·

A large chunk of the Danish “green/renewable” energy comes from biomass plants when the wind isn’t blowing. So this is a debate we’re currently having, and it’s

by moksly 6y ago

A large chunk of the Danish “green/renewable” energy comes from biomass plants when the wind isn’t blowing. So this is a debate we’re currently having, and it’s basically looking more and more like a legislative hack. Biomass plants burn biomass instead of fossil fuels. We’re currently burning a lot of wood by-products from the Estonian lumber (timber?) industry. I’m not big on the science, and I hope someone can put it better, but the arguing, as I understand it, goes something like: “the trees have absorbed CO2, so burning them is CO2 neutral”, but it’s not like burning wood stuff doesn’t release CO2.

steve_adams_86 6y ago
Right, you’d need to be positive that biomass is replacing what’s burned in order to call it neutral. On some drawn out time scales this is practically guaranteed, but in the short term it’s very easy to burn far too much without ensuring replacement occurs at a scale and speed that is sustainable. I suppose you could use byproducts of selective logging where replanting is occurring and actively managed and maintained. Where I’m living there are forests that are quite well managed for lumber such that what’s removed will likely be replaced by the time logging occurs again. Using a similar practice for biomass plants could conceivably be called carbon neutral. I have a feeling it wouldn’t generate nearly enough biomass conveniently or efficiently enough. I don’t know though. It must take incredible amounts of mass to generate useful amounts of energy.
abhiyerra 6y ago
I guess the main difference would be: 1. burning fossil fuel. Pulling carbon from within the earth and putting the CO2 in the air. 2. biomass burning. Burning Carbon that is above ground and putting in the air. I think 1+2=bad, 2 by itself I don’t think is bad basically what the Native Americans used to do to maintain forests before Europeans. However, we don’t live in a world where we are just doing #2.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- moksly 6y ago
  That’s not really how it goes though. We’re using it to make our numbers pretty so we meet the EU and Paris agreements, but it doesn’t actually make us a renewable country, and once the goals are met, political focus will go elsewhere. It could be worse, sure, but that’s not an excuse for not doing better.
tuatoru 6y ago
“the trees have absorbed CO2, so burning them is CO2 neutral” is correct as far as it goes, but it completely ignores externalities and second-order effects. If you burn biofuels you encourage people to clear-fell forests to grow biofuels, as happens in Indonesia and Brazil. If you promote burning biofuels, you divert attention from cleaner alternatives (Solar PV, wind). If you make a big deal about biofuels, you create the impression that nothing really has to change.

by moksly 6y ago

steve_adams_86 6y ago

Right, you’d need to be positive that biomass is replacing what’s burned in order to call it neutral. On some drawn out time scales this is practically guaranteed, but in the short term it’s very easy to burn far too much without ensuring replacement occurs at a scale and speed that is sustainable. I suppose you could use byproducts of selective logging where replanting is occurring and actively managed and maintained. Where I’m living there are forests that are quite well managed for lumber such that what’s removed will likely be replaced by the time logging occurs again. Using a similar practice for biomass plants could conceivably be called carbon neutral. I have a feeling it wouldn’t generate nearly enough biomass conveniently or efficiently enough. I don’t know though. It must take incredible amounts of mass to generate useful amounts of energy.

abhiyerra 6y ago

I guess the main difference would be: 1. burning fossil fuel. Pulling carbon from within the earth and putting the CO2 in the air. 2. biomass burning. Burning Carbon that is above ground and putting in the air. I think 1+2=bad, 2 by itself I don’t think is bad basically what the Native Americans used to do to maintain forests before Europeans. However, we don’t live in a world where we are just doing #2.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
moksly 6y ago
That’s not really how it goes though. We’re using it to make our numbers pretty so we meet the EU and Paris agreements, but it doesn’t actually make us a renewable country, and once the goals are met, political focus will go elsewhere. It could be worse, sure, but that’s not an excuse for not doing better.

tuatoru 6y ago

“the trees have absorbed CO2, so burning them is CO2 neutral” is correct as far as it goes, but it completely ignores externalities and second-order effects. If you burn biofuels you encourage people to clear-fell forests to grow biofuels, as happens in Indonesia and Brazil. If you promote burning biofuels, you divert attention from cleaner alternatives (Solar PV, wind). If you make a big deal about biofuels, you create the impression that nothing really has to change.