5 ms·

The only reason this "biomass" is so popular is an artificial reason. It's just a means for electricity companies to continue using coal and basically not doing

The only reason this "biomass" is so popular is an artificial reason. It's just a means for electricity companies to continue using coal and basically not doing anything, while selling their power as 'green'. All they need to do is throw a few wood chips in the mix.. This practice should really be banned. Or at least not be allowed to be labeled as green power. But if they did that the governments look really bad because they won't even come close to meeting their Paris accord goals. So big business is burning the forests for no other reason than a green label .. While not improving anything for the environment.

amelius 5y ago
What angers me most about this is not the burning of forests (which is bad), but how politicians could allow this to happen in the first place.
- jsilence 5y ago
  You can reduce your electricity demand and then buy the remaining electricity from 'true green' providers. Don't have to wait for the politicians.
  - oblio 5y ago
    That's nice, but the unfortunate thing is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc It's a Kurzgesagt video about why individual action is far from enough, and why we need systemic action. Do your part, but also pressure politicians, because that's where the main pain point is.
    - jsilence 5y ago
      Well yes, do both, do your thing and pressure politicians. still no need to wait for the politicians. I just loath people putting the blame on politicians, China, capitalism or some sort of world cabal just to have a rationale to continue their own unsustainable style of living.
  - NineStarPoint 5y ago
    Shifting to only buying green electricity only actually works if so many people and businesses move to the green energy providers that there becomes more supply of carbon-based energy than there is demand. All that a marginal level of people making the request does is shift what production goes where, and not the overall level of demand for electricity in the grid. And since very few businesses are willing to make this type of change, and businesses consume a greater portion of electricity than direct consumer use, personally switching to “true green” has very little effect on the situation unless it becomes a mass cultural movement to do so. Which doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it, it can only become a movement if enough people put their money where their mouth is and make the switch. But the current situation appears such that, without politicians intervening, there will not be enough entities willing to make such a switch to have an effect on the overall grid. (And therefore without politician intervention, our only real hope is non-carbon based energy becoming so cost effective that it displaces almost all carbon based energy use)
- stevespang 5y ago
  As always, politicians are taking bribe money, in this case from clear cutting companies. Police should set up sting operations, put them in prison, but police are also getting paid.
pier25 5y ago
How can it be considered green? Doesn't burning wood produce emissions too?
- yCombLinks 5y ago
  Not net emissions. 1 ton of carbon was removed from the atmosphere in the tree growth, and that same ton is emitted on burning. Digging up coal that 1 ton of carbon has been sequestered under ground for millions of years, but is now in the atmosphere.
  - yourusername 5y ago
    No net emissions if you burn the tree close to were it grew. In the Netherlands we get our biomass from Scandinavia and Canada with boats and call that green energy. Ignoring the fuel for the boats and trucks to move the biomass to the power plant.
- uuidgen 5y ago
  Good furnace produce little particulate emission so its almost on par with burning gas. Biomass - so mostly wood, wicker or straw has all its carbon content coming from the air - they capture CO2 as they grow, when you burn them you release exactly the same amount of CO2, hence they're carbon-neutral.
  - realreality 5y ago
    They’re only carbon neutral if you replant what you’ve cut down.
    - throwaway485239 5y ago
      You don't really have to replant -- coppice and pollard are out of fashion, but maybe they can come back. Sprout Lands by William Bryant Logan is a fascinating read.
    - uuidgen 5y ago
nuerow 5y ago
> The only reason this "biomass" is so popular is an artificial reason. It's just a means for electricity companies to continue using coal and basically not doing anything, while selling their power as 'green'. All they need to do is throw a few wood chips in the mix.. I'm not sure that's the core of the problem, as biomass plants are specialized plants. I believe the problem reflected in the Guardian article is, again, unintended consequences from policies driven by subsidies. The EU puts up policies whose goals it tries to meet by throwing money in the form of subsidies to the private sector. However, the private sector (fostered by irresponsible governments from member-states) tries to meet their goals of getting money in the form of exploiting subsidies. Therefore, once the EU puts in place policies that gives away a pile of euros to those that meet the letter of the law (i.e., build a biomass power plant) what we get is a bunch of unsustainable projects that barely meet the letter of the law (i.e., biomass power plants that can't even secure their own supply of biomass). Taken from the Guardian's article: > Siim Kuresoo of the non-profit Estonian Fund for Nature (ELF) doesn’t just blame the Estonian government. He says there is a direct connection between the subsidised growth in the biomass industry encouraged by EU renewable energy policies and the acceleration of unsustainable Baltic tree-felling.
piokoch 5y ago
Exactly, burning biomass (there are huge corn fields in Poland that end up as biomass in Germany, economy of this is crazy and has zero positive effect on the environment). The most ridiculous part is that Germany is questioning "greenes" of nuclear energy plants, because they invested in solar and wind power plants plus gas flowing from Russia through Nord Stream 2. I hope France will successfully oppose this madness. How burning gas or trees is more CO2 emission friendly than nuclear power plant is beyond my understanding, but something tells me that environment is far from being a main point of this awkward exercise that Europe is doing now.
- Loic 5y ago
  "has zero positive effect on the environment" and a lot of negative effects: pesticides, fertilizers in water, monoculture bad for the animals, etc. Growing seasonal plants with sole purpose being biomass energy (burnt or whatever) should be banned. Using the leftover is something else, but the amounts are too small.
- jandrese 5y ago
  If that biomass is offsetting coal/oil/gas then there is still a net positive of not adding more fossil carbon to the atmosphere. The first step in slowing down or stopping climate change is to stop releasing fossil carbon. Eventually we need to figure out how to sequester the excess carbon, but that's still sadly in the future. It's going to be hugely expensive but still less expensive than losing every coastal city to flooding. Unfortunately the latter is probably going to have to happen before we make progress on the former.
  - ephbit 5y ago
    Sequestering/fixing carbon can be done by constructing buildings from wood instead of concrete. Imagine wooden buildings with wall thicknesses of 30 cm or more.
robocat 5y ago
I noticed 7% of Germany’s electricity production comes from biomass: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris... It seemed like a lot to me.

amelius 5y ago

What angers me most about this is not the burning of forests (which is bad), but how politicians could allow this to happen in the first place.

jsilence 5y ago
You can reduce your electricity demand and then buy the remaining electricity from 'true green' providers. Don't have to wait for the politicians.
- oblio 5y ago
  That's nice, but the unfortunate thing is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc It's a Kurzgesagt video about why individual action is far from enough, and why we need systemic action. Do your part, but also pressure politicians, because that's where the main pain point is.
  - jsilence 5y ago
    Well yes, do both, do your thing and pressure politicians. still no need to wait for the politicians. I just loath people putting the blame on politicians, China, capitalism or some sort of world cabal just to have a rationale to continue their own unsustainable style of living.
- NineStarPoint 5y ago
  Shifting to only buying green electricity only actually works if so many people and businesses move to the green energy providers that there becomes more supply of carbon-based energy than there is demand. All that a marginal level of people making the request does is shift what production goes where, and not the overall level of demand for electricity in the grid. And since very few businesses are willing to make this type of change, and businesses consume a greater portion of electricity than direct consumer use, personally switching to “true green” has very little effect on the situation unless it becomes a mass cultural movement to do so. Which doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it, it can only become a movement if enough people put their money where their mouth is and make the switch. But the current situation appears such that, without politicians intervening, there will not be enough entities willing to make such a switch to have an effect on the overall grid. (And therefore without politician intervention, our only real hope is non-carbon based energy becoming so cost effective that it displaces almost all carbon based energy use)
stevespang 5y ago
As always, politicians are taking bribe money, in this case from clear cutting companies. Police should set up sting operations, put them in prison, but police are also getting paid.

pier25 5y ago

How can it be considered green? Doesn't burning wood produce emissions too?

yCombLinks 5y ago
Not net emissions. 1 ton of carbon was removed from the atmosphere in the tree growth, and that same ton is emitted on burning. Digging up coal that 1 ton of carbon has been sequestered under ground for millions of years, but is now in the atmosphere.
- yourusername 5y ago
  No net emissions if you burn the tree close to were it grew. In the Netherlands we get our biomass from Scandinavia and Canada with boats and call that green energy. Ignoring the fuel for the boats and trucks to move the biomass to the power plant.
uuidgen 5y ago
Good furnace produce little particulate emission so its almost on par with burning gas. Biomass - so mostly wood, wicker or straw has all its carbon content coming from the air - they capture CO2 as they grow, when you burn them you release exactly the same amount of CO2, hence they're carbon-neutral.
- realreality 5y ago
  They’re only carbon neutral if you replant what you’ve cut down.
  - throwaway485239 5y ago
    You don't really have to replant -- coppice and pollard are out of fashion, but maybe they can come back. Sprout Lands by William Bryant Logan is a fascinating read.
  - uuidgen 5y ago

nuerow 5y ago

> The only reason this "biomass" is so popular is an artificial reason. It's just a means for electricity companies to continue using coal and basically not doing anything, while selling their power as 'green'. All they need to do is throw a few wood chips in the mix.. I'm not sure that's the core of the problem, as biomass plants are specialized plants. I believe the problem reflected in the Guardian article is, again, unintended consequences from policies driven by subsidies. The EU puts up policies whose goals it tries to meet by throwing money in the form of subsidies to the private sector. However, the private sector (fostered by irresponsible governments from member-states) tries to meet their goals of getting money in the form of exploiting subsidies. Therefore, once the EU puts in place policies that gives away a pile of euros to those that meet the letter of the law (i.e., build a biomass power plant) what we get is a bunch of unsustainable projects that barely meet the letter of the law (i.e., biomass power plants that can't even secure their own supply of biomass). Taken from the Guardian's article: > Siim Kuresoo of the non-profit Estonian Fund for Nature (ELF) doesn’t just blame the Estonian government. He says there is a direct connection between the subsidised growth in the biomass industry encouraged by EU renewable energy policies and the acceleration of unsustainable Baltic tree-felling.

piokoch 5y ago

Exactly, burning biomass (there are huge corn fields in Poland that end up as biomass in Germany, economy of this is crazy and has zero positive effect on the environment). The most ridiculous part is that Germany is questioning "greenes" of nuclear energy plants, because they invested in solar and wind power plants plus gas flowing from Russia through Nord Stream 2. I hope France will successfully oppose this madness. How burning gas or trees is more CO2 emission friendly than nuclear power plant is beyond my understanding, but something tells me that environment is far from being a main point of this awkward exercise that Europe is doing now.

Loic 5y ago
"has zero positive effect on the environment" and a lot of negative effects: pesticides, fertilizers in water, monoculture bad for the animals, etc. Growing seasonal plants with sole purpose being biomass energy (burnt or whatever) should be banned. Using the leftover is something else, but the amounts are too small.
jandrese 5y ago
If that biomass is offsetting coal/oil/gas then there is still a net positive of not adding more fossil carbon to the atmosphere. The first step in slowing down or stopping climate change is to stop releasing fossil carbon. Eventually we need to figure out how to sequester the excess carbon, but that's still sadly in the future. It's going to be hugely expensive but still less expensive than losing every coastal city to flooding. Unfortunately the latter is probably going to have to happen before we make progress on the former.
- ephbit 5y ago
  Sequestering/fixing carbon can be done by constructing buildings from wood instead of concrete. Imagine wooden buildings with wall thicknesses of 30 cm or more.

robocat 5y ago

I noticed 7% of Germany’s electricity production comes from biomass: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris... It seemed like a lot to me.