4 ms·

No discussion of Biomass, there are straw burning plants, and native wood burners, but I imagine Drax converting from Coal to wood chips from the USA is an egre

No discussion of Biomass, there are straw burning plants, and native wood burners, but I imagine Drax converting from Coal to wood chips from the USA is an egregious case of greenwashing. Strange seeing a source of income in Farming Simulator 2019 being to cut silage to turn into biogas, I'm assuming to make electricity. How realistic is this?

foepys 6y ago
Very realistic. There are some biomass plants in Germany generating either electricity directly or gas to use in other places. They apparently aren't any more ecological than natural gas because the process generates large amounts of methane of which some is being released into the atmosphere due to the machines not being able to be 100% sealed. Also the land needed for the biomass to grow is enormous.
- emteycz 6y ago
  > They apparently aren't any more ecological than natural gas because the process generates large amounts of methane I thought the problem with fossil fuels is that we're taking the carbon out of the ground instead of the air.
  - ant6n 6y ago
    If you turn CO2 in the air into methane in the air then you still have a problem, since methane is 40x as potent as a greenhouse gas.
    - gambiting 6y ago
      Yes but on the other hand CO2 stays in the atmosphere hundreds(thousands?) Of years while methane breaks down in just few years, no?
      - phaemon 6y ago
        No, because it breaks down into CO2. Methane is 21x more potent than CO2 over a 100 year period, and 72x over a 20 year period. So, if you're concerned about what's happening now, that's the figure you need to consider.
    - _Microft 6y ago
      You do not want to turn carbondioxide into methane to vent it into the air. You want the methane because it is a good fuel (natural gas consists mainly of methane).
      - ant6n 6y ago
        The point is that even a small amount of accidentally released methane will destroy your co2 balance
  - _Microft 6y ago
    Yes, that's a huge part of the problem. Burning things is less of a problem (carbondioxide-wise!) as long as you emit no extra carbon extracted from fossil sources.
corty 6y ago
Frequently done in Germany. Many farms have built "green humps", that is biogas vats with a green dome-shaped gas collection cover. Those can be fed with manure and any kind of decomposable biomatter, higher nutritional value is of course better. Since green electricity yields high guaranteed prices and gras or maize can be very cheap in some years, those humps are often fed maize and gras. This is most technical description I could find, other articles frequently focus on the negative effects of resulting monocultures: https://www.vde.com/de/etg/arbeitsgebiete/informationen/biomassekraftwerke https://www.vde.com/de/etg/arbeitsgebiete/informationen/biom...
- specialist 6y ago
  Neat. We need to capture methane, which is a much more potent green house gas than CO2. Which is not an endorsement of incinerators. I don't know all the whatifs, but I'm hoping incinerators will be replaced, phased out.
  - Reason077 6y ago
    As far as burning stuff goes, burning biogenic methane is about as good as it gets environmentally. It's a closed loop in carbon terms, and you're reducing GHG emissions by preventing unburnt methane being released into the atmosphere.
    - jpollock 6y ago
      Don't forget the fertilizer used on the grass, it's typically made from natural gas.
x87678r 6y ago
I realize shipping woodchips across the Atlantic isn't eco friendly, but how is burning wood and straw greenwashing?
- reportingsjr 6y ago
  Because poor land use, like monoculture tree plantations, is likely equally as bad as atmospheric CO2 increase for the health of the earth. Additionally, biogas is at best carbon neutral/slightly positive rather than carbon negative. Since you're still producing CO2 burning stuff, but it does get mostly reabsorbed by plants every cycle.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Holy shit. It’s better, but not perfect, so it’s greenwashing?
    - reportingsjr 6y ago
      It's not really better at all, considering we have much, much better alternatives already available. The land use issue is massive.
      - x87678r 6y ago
        > much, much better alternatives already available Such as? Wind/Solar/Hydro/Batteries all have their weak points.
        reportingsjr 6y ago
        Absolutely agree, there is no perfect solution out there. However, wind and solar definitely have less of the land use issues that biofuels have. The farms for biofuels are typically mono cultures, which is going to involve pesticide use and commonly fertilization. Both of which have some significant downstream effects that the world is trying to deal with right now (see the deadzones in many river estuaries, possible insect decline, etc). Hydro is looked at less and less as a green energy solution because of the significant damage done to river/ocean systems (elwha river restoration, possible klamath river undamming). I don't think there will be any more large dams added to rivers that aren't already dammed in North America. I'm also not a huge fan of utility scale solar. I understand that it is currently moving the needle significantly since the infrastructure costs are cheaper than residential solar, but there are so many added benefits of residential solar (reduced urban heat islands, no additional land used) that I see it as the main way forwards. I think that the solar power split that we'll eventually end up with is something like 40% residential solar, 60% utility as panels get more efficient.
iso1210 6y ago
Biomass is listed in the article, it's about 6% now UK Biomass in the last year is about 2GW average, Gas about 12.8GW, Coal 0.7GW
refurb 6y ago
Would wood chips (recently sequester CO2) be far better than coal (CO2 sequesters tens of thousands of years ago)?? The former will have little impact on environmental CO2 versus the later.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_Microft 6y ago
The short(er)-term carbon cycle has a certain amount of carbon in circulation but using fossil sources increases this amount directly (by burning coal, oil, natural gas) or indirectly (plastics made from fossil carbon sources that is eventually burned). Growing trees sequesters carbon and burning wood chips releases it again. This does not change the total amount in circulation and is much less of a problem.
- Reason077 6y ago
  The problem is that those wood chips don't just ship themselves across the Atlantic. There is a significant carbon footprint associated with logging, processing, and transporting all that biomass before you even get to burning it. There is also, potentially, an opportunity cost in burning forests that could otherwise be acting as long term carbon stores (either leaving the trees intact, or harvesting their timber for something where the carbon will be stored longer term, such as construction/housing).
tsjq 6y ago
That's been my grudge too : burning woodchips and categorising as green.

foepys 6y ago

Very realistic. There are some biomass plants in Germany generating either electricity directly or gas to use in other places. They apparently aren't any more ecological than natural gas because the process generates large amounts of methane of which some is being released into the atmosphere due to the machines not being able to be 100% sealed. Also the land needed for the biomass to grow is enormous.

emteycz 6y ago
> They apparently aren't any more ecological than natural gas because the process generates large amounts of methane I thought the problem with fossil fuels is that we're taking the carbon out of the ground instead of the air.
- ant6n 6y ago
  If you turn CO2 in the air into methane in the air then you still have a problem, since methane is 40x as potent as a greenhouse gas.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Yes but on the other hand CO2 stays in the atmosphere hundreds(thousands?) Of years while methane breaks down in just few years, no?
    - phaemon 6y ago
      No, because it breaks down into CO2. Methane is 21x more potent than CO2 over a 100 year period, and 72x over a 20 year period. So, if you're concerned about what's happening now, that's the figure you need to consider.
  - _Microft 6y ago
    You do not want to turn carbondioxide into methane to vent it into the air. You want the methane because it is a good fuel (natural gas consists mainly of methane).
    - ant6n 6y ago
      The point is that even a small amount of accidentally released methane will destroy your co2 balance
- _Microft 6y ago
  Yes, that's a huge part of the problem. Burning things is less of a problem (carbondioxide-wise!) as long as you emit no extra carbon extracted from fossil sources.

corty 6y ago

Frequently done in Germany. Many farms have built "green humps", that is biogas vats with a green dome-shaped gas collection cover. Those can be fed with manure and any kind of decomposable biomatter, higher nutritional value is of course better. Since green electricity yields high guaranteed prices and gras or maize can be very cheap in some years, those humps are often fed maize and gras. This is most technical description I could find, other articles frequently focus on the negative effects of resulting monocultures: https://www.vde.com/de/etg/arbeitsgebiete/informationen/biomassekraftwerke https://www.vde.com/de/etg/arbeitsgebiete/informationen/biom...

specialist 6y ago
Neat. We need to capture methane, which is a much more potent green house gas than CO2. Which is not an endorsement of incinerators. I don't know all the whatifs, but I'm hoping incinerators will be replaced, phased out.
- Reason077 6y ago
  As far as burning stuff goes, burning biogenic methane is about as good as it gets environmentally. It's a closed loop in carbon terms, and you're reducing GHG emissions by preventing unburnt methane being released into the atmosphere.
  - jpollock 6y ago
    Don't forget the fertilizer used on the grass, it's typically made from natural gas.

x87678r 6y ago

I realize shipping woodchips across the Atlantic isn't eco friendly, but how is burning wood and straw greenwashing?

reportingsjr 6y ago
Because poor land use, like monoculture tree plantations, is likely equally as bad as atmospheric CO2 increase for the health of the earth. Additionally, biogas is at best carbon neutral/slightly positive rather than carbon negative. Since you're still producing CO2 burning stuff, but it does get mostly reabsorbed by plants every cycle.
- refurb 6y ago
  Holy shit. It’s better, but not perfect, so it’s greenwashing?
  - reportingsjr 6y ago
    It's not really better at all, considering we have much, much better alternatives already available. The land use issue is massive.
    - x87678r 6y ago
      > much, much better alternatives already available Such as? Wind/Solar/Hydro/Batteries all have their weak points.
      - reportingsjr 6y ago
        Absolutely agree, there is no perfect solution out there. However, wind and solar definitely have less of the land use issues that biofuels have. The farms for biofuels are typically mono cultures, which is going to involve pesticide use and commonly fertilization. Both of which have some significant downstream effects that the world is trying to deal with right now (see the deadzones in many river estuaries, possible insect decline, etc). Hydro is looked at less and less as a green energy solution because of the significant damage done to river/ocean systems (elwha river restoration, possible klamath river undamming). I don't think there will be any more large dams added to rivers that aren't already dammed in North America. I'm also not a huge fan of utility scale solar. I understand that it is currently moving the needle significantly since the infrastructure costs are cheaper than residential solar, but there are so many added benefits of residential solar (reduced urban heat islands, no additional land used) that I see it as the main way forwards. I think that the solar power split that we'll eventually end up with is something like 40% residential solar, 60% utility as panels get more efficient.

iso1210 6y ago

Biomass is listed in the article, it's about 6% now UK Biomass in the last year is about 2GW average, Gas about 12.8GW, Coal 0.7GW

refurb 6y ago

Would wood chips (recently sequester CO2) be far better than coal (CO2 sequesters tens of thousands of years ago)?? The former will have little impact on environmental CO2 versus the later.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

_Microft 6y ago

The short(er)-term carbon cycle has a certain amount of carbon in circulation but using fossil sources increases this amount directly (by burning coal, oil, natural gas) or indirectly (plastics made from fossil carbon sources that is eventually burned). Growing trees sequesters carbon and burning wood chips releases it again. This does not change the total amount in circulation and is much less of a problem.

Reason077 6y ago
The problem is that those wood chips don't just ship themselves across the Atlantic. There is a significant carbon footprint associated with logging, processing, and transporting all that biomass before you even get to burning it. There is also, potentially, an opportunity cost in burning forests that could otherwise be acting as long term carbon stores (either leaving the trees intact, or harvesting their timber for something where the carbon will be stored longer term, such as construction/housing).

tsjq 6y ago

That's been my grudge too : burning woodchips and categorising as green.