3 ms·

> Managed forests are renewable Fair let's accept that. The issue is that the amount of managed forest area in Europe versus the amount of bio-mass furnaces i

> Managed forests are renewable Fair let's accept that. The issue is that the amount of managed forest area in Europe versus the amount of bio-mass furnaces is completely out of sync. These furnaces spend a huge amount of mass just to heat-up and another huge chunk to sustain in order to break even. All of the managed forests in Europe put together are unable to sustain these wood burning furnaces and they are happily importing wood pelets from the US/Canada/Malaysia etc. (often with tax payer subsidies). None of this energy generation is carbon neutral and absolutely none of it is sustainable. It is the wrong model and an even worse implementation of energy policy. Europe does not have the surface area for this. If we need more non-intermitent energy sources we would be better off applying this money in France's mini nuclear reactors or in geo-thermal bore drilling for non-geothermal areas.

raverbashing 5y ago
Thanks for clarifying, makes sense and I agree with this. Though some burning furnaces operate also with trash/gas (the latter to start the fires usually). And it is better than coal, surely. But yeah I'd rather see the money on nuclear/geothermal/etc
nuerow 5y ago
> All of the managed forests in Europe put together are unable to sustain these wood burning furnaces and they are happily importing wood pelets from the US/Canada/Malaysia etc. (often with tax payer subsidies). > None of this energy generation is carbon neutral and absolutely none of it is sustainable. It is the wrong model and an even worse implementation of energy policy. It sounds you're making a couple of mistakes along the way: presuming the current state of biomass output is at a steadt-state, and following a miopic train of thought where you confuse a ramp-up stage with a steadt-state. Regarding the current biomass output being out of sync with production, the Guardian article that sparked this discussion states quite clearly that Estonia's problem was that it's licensing process failed, motivated by the need to grab the most EU subsidies they possibly can. Therefore this motivates spending as much cash building up infrastructure that's largely overprovisioned. This is a systemic problem with all kinds of EU subsidies, but that does not mean the potential biomass production level should be interpreted as a fixed variable and everything else should be solved with regards to it.

raverbashing 5y ago

Thanks for clarifying, makes sense and I agree with this. Though some burning furnaces operate also with trash/gas (the latter to start the fires usually). And it is better than coal, surely. But yeah I'd rather see the money on nuclear/geothermal/etc

nuerow 5y ago

> All of the managed forests in Europe put together are unable to sustain these wood burning furnaces and they are happily importing wood pelets from the US/Canada/Malaysia etc. (often with tax payer subsidies). > None of this energy generation is carbon neutral and absolutely none of it is sustainable. It is the wrong model and an even worse implementation of energy policy. It sounds you're making a couple of mistakes along the way: presuming the current state of biomass output is at a steadt-state, and following a miopic train of thought where you confuse a ramp-up stage with a steadt-state. Regarding the current biomass output being out of sync with production, the Guardian article that sparked this discussion states quite clearly that Estonia's problem was that it's licensing process failed, motivated by the need to grab the most EU subsidies they possibly can. Therefore this motivates spending as much cash building up infrastructure that's largely overprovisioned. This is a systemic problem with all kinds of EU subsidies, but that does not mean the potential biomass production level should be interpreted as a fixed variable and everything else should be solved with regards to it.