5 ms·

Your points do not dispute doomberg's argument. The reality is that EU wood pellet consumption has been increasing. Germany and France are leading the growth. I

Your points do not dispute doomberg's argument. The reality is that EU wood pellet consumption has been increasing. Germany and France are leading the growth. It is generally accepted that wood burning produces more co2 than coal and natural gas. We have cleaner alternatives. Corruption and poor decision making is hurting progress. Interesting report from the USDA. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/european-union-eu-wood-pellet-annual https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/european-union-eu-wood-pellet-...

WA 4y ago
> Your points do not dispute doomberg's argument.[...] It is generally accepted that wood burning produces more co2 than coal and natural gas. How about this number? Coal consumption in the EU in the last 30 years: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/de/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220502-2 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/de/web/products-eurostat-news/... Still more than 10x the number of burnt wood. Should we replace all coal by wood? Heck no, that'd be insane, but Doomberg framed this whole thing in a sensationalist way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what the whole thread is about: - UK burned wood a hundred years ago, which was totally inefficient. - Then they discovered coal, which is more energy efficient. - Now the EU is back to burning wood, even though it is less efficient than coal and they call this green, which is dumb. (Ignoring many aspects of the whole thing) - The EU is stupid and they should go full nuclear instead. I'm simply pointing out that Doomberg's chain of arguments lack actual numbers and neglect a few things (stove efficiency, different goals, etc.), even though the gist of it at least somewhat true.
- _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
  > The EU is stupid and they should go full nuclear instead. Policies differ between EU countries. Finland just brought a reactor online. France is planning to build 14 reactors in the next decade. On the other hand Germany is going to shut down 3 reactors.
  - forty 4y ago
    The last reactors France built all (including the one in Finland) have had more than 10 years delay compared to what was planned, so I doubt we are going to build 14 in the next decade :)
    - zeristor 4y ago
      They could well do, if they’re working out how to optimise it, and the workers get the hang of it. As I understand it a large problem has been with poor quality welds being caught too late in the process. Quality isn’t an easy thing to change, but I trust they can remedy for future builds.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      The last reactors France has built were also the first of their kind built in the country. The reactors built during the Messmer plan were mostly of 4 distinct types built repeatedly. The main to away from analysis of nuclear plant cost history is that plants become cheaper when the knowledge from previous builds is taken to subsequent builds. Problems that are encountered in earlier builds are avoided, lowering cost. Plants built during the nuclear boom in the 1960s and early 70s often had inflation -adjusted costs of 1-2 billion USD per GW of capacity. And that's with no intermittency and a capacity factor of over 90%.
  - danielam 4y ago
    Also Poland [0]. [0] https://pl.usembassy.gov/civil_nuclear_cooperation/ https://pl.usembassy.gov/civil_nuclear_cooperation/
treis 4y ago
>It is generally accepted that wood burning produces more co2 than coal and natural gas That doesn't seem possible unless we are discounting the carbon captured while the tree grew.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  I think they mean on a per unit basis, not total from all burnt wood vs. all burnt coal/lng
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The factoid that gets thrown about is carbon emitted per energy released. Coal does better than wood on this super specific stat, but it's fossil CO2 we just dug out the ground, whereas wood from a managed forest used for other purposes is carbon negative if the alterantive is leaving it to rot to methane, because it's extracting CO2 from the air and then the managed forest is growing more trees that do the same, because we use wood for things. There's complications and details, but overall if everyone is doing what they should its okay and most of the hype is fossil fuel propaganda. Windmills upset the worms etc.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  > That doesn't seem possible unless we are discounting the carbon captured while the tree grew. Half of it The other half lies still safely under the surface. When a tree is chomped we take only half of the tree. This amount should be taken in mind in the model.
bornfreddy 4y ago
> It is generally accepted that wood burning produces more co2 than coal and natural gas. It's not that simple. Coal (/oil/gas) burning releases CO2 that was previously safely stored in the ground and didn't affect the Earth atmosphere. Burning wood only (granted, prematurely) releases CO2 that is already in circulation. The main ecological problem with burning wood is deforestation and impact of harvesting on the animals and plants. If wood comes from renewable forests (there are lots of countries that properly manage their forests) then the environmental impact is much lower than with coal/oil/gas. That said, importing the wood from half the world away sucks.
- wsc981 4y ago
  Trees also store CO2. Actually, burning trees means less CO2 will be extracted from the air. More CO2 in the world means plants and trees can grow quicker. If one believe CO2 is an issue (personally I don’t buy it), then burning trees is not a great way to fix the issue.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    Once trees die they will release all that CO2 back into the atmosphere anyway. And trees will naturally die. Then another tree will grow in its place over time. It's not a permanent storage of CO2 unless we cut it down and bury it or build something long-lasting with it.
    - victorbstan 4y ago
      I don't think that's true, how does "all the CO2" get released back into the atmosphere? During the decomposition of wood there are a lot of bacteria, fungi, worms, etc. that feed on the carcass of a dead tree. It doesn't just "evaporate" into the atmosphere...
      - smallnamespace 4y ago
        The bacteria, fungi etc. emit CO2 as part of their metabolic process, just like you and I do.
samarthr1 4y ago
Unfortunately the irony of European countries asking India to stop burning coal for power is lost on the leaders of the same countries which are now burning wood...
- erddfre3423 4y ago

WA 4y ago

> Your points do not dispute doomberg's argument.[...] It is generally accepted that wood burning produces more co2 than coal and natural gas. How about this number? Coal consumption in the EU in the last 30 years: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/de/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220502-2 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/de/web/products-eurostat-news/... Still more than 10x the number of burnt wood. Should we replace all coal by wood? Heck no, that'd be insane, but Doomberg framed this whole thing in a sensationalist way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what the whole thread is about: - UK burned wood a hundred years ago, which was totally inefficient. - Then they discovered coal, which is more energy efficient. - Now the EU is back to burning wood, even though it is less efficient than coal and they call this green, which is dumb. (Ignoring many aspects of the whole thing) - The EU is stupid and they should go full nuclear instead. I'm simply pointing out that Doomberg's chain of arguments lack actual numbers and neglect a few things (stove efficiency, different goals, etc.), even though the gist of it at least somewhat true.

_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
> The EU is stupid and they should go full nuclear instead. Policies differ between EU countries. Finland just brought a reactor online. France is planning to build 14 reactors in the next decade. On the other hand Germany is going to shut down 3 reactors.
- forty 4y ago
  The last reactors France built all (including the one in Finland) have had more than 10 years delay compared to what was planned, so I doubt we are going to build 14 in the next decade :)
  - zeristor 4y ago
    They could well do, if they’re working out how to optimise it, and the workers get the hang of it. As I understand it a large problem has been with poor quality welds being caught too late in the process. Quality isn’t an easy thing to change, but I trust they can remedy for future builds.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    The last reactors France has built were also the first of their kind built in the country. The reactors built during the Messmer plan were mostly of 4 distinct types built repeatedly. The main to away from analysis of nuclear plant cost history is that plants become cheaper when the knowledge from previous builds is taken to subsequent builds. Problems that are encountered in earlier builds are avoided, lowering cost. Plants built during the nuclear boom in the 1960s and early 70s often had inflation -adjusted costs of 1-2 billion USD per GW of capacity. And that's with no intermittency and a capacity factor of over 90%.
- danielam 4y ago
  Also Poland [0]. [0] https://pl.usembassy.gov/civil_nuclear_cooperation/ https://pl.usembassy.gov/civil_nuclear_cooperation/

treis 4y ago

>It is generally accepted that wood burning produces more co2 than coal and natural gas That doesn't seem possible unless we are discounting the carbon captured while the tree grew.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I think they mean on a per unit basis, not total from all burnt wood vs. all burnt coal/lng
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The factoid that gets thrown about is carbon emitted per energy released. Coal does better than wood on this super specific stat, but it's fossil CO2 we just dug out the ground, whereas wood from a managed forest used for other purposes is carbon negative if the alterantive is leaving it to rot to methane, because it's extracting CO2 from the air and then the managed forest is growing more trees that do the same, because we use wood for things. There's complications and details, but overall if everyone is doing what they should its okay and most of the hype is fossil fuel propaganda. Windmills upset the worms etc.
pvaldes 4y ago
> That doesn't seem possible unless we are discounting the carbon captured while the tree grew. Half of it The other half lies still safely under the surface. When a tree is chomped we take only half of the tree. This amount should be taken in mind in the model.

bornfreddy 4y ago

> It is generally accepted that wood burning produces more co2 than coal and natural gas. It's not that simple. Coal (/oil/gas) burning releases CO2 that was previously safely stored in the ground and didn't affect the Earth atmosphere. Burning wood only (granted, prematurely) releases CO2 that is already in circulation. The main ecological problem with burning wood is deforestation and impact of harvesting on the animals and plants. If wood comes from renewable forests (there are lots of countries that properly manage their forests) then the environmental impact is much lower than with coal/oil/gas. That said, importing the wood from half the world away sucks.

wsc981 4y ago
Trees also store CO2. Actually, burning trees means less CO2 will be extracted from the air. More CO2 in the world means plants and trees can grow quicker. If one believe CO2 is an issue (personally I don’t buy it), then burning trees is not a great way to fix the issue.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  Once trees die they will release all that CO2 back into the atmosphere anyway. And trees will naturally die. Then another tree will grow in its place over time. It's not a permanent storage of CO2 unless we cut it down and bury it or build something long-lasting with it.
  - victorbstan 4y ago
    I don't think that's true, how does "all the CO2" get released back into the atmosphere? During the decomposition of wood there are a lot of bacteria, fungi, worms, etc. that feed on the carcass of a dead tree. It doesn't just "evaporate" into the atmosphere...
    - smallnamespace 4y ago
      The bacteria, fungi etc. emit CO2 as part of their metabolic process, just like you and I do.

samarthr1 4y ago

Unfortunately the irony of European countries asking India to stop burning coal for power is lost on the leaders of the same countries which are now burning wood...

erddfre3423 4y ago