4 ms·

> CO2-wise: It's neutral. That's part of what he's rallying against. It's not because it requires a large energy input to produce wood or wood pellets suitable

> CO2-wise: It's neutral. That's part of what he's rallying against. It's not because it requires a large energy input to produce wood or wood pellets suitable for burning.

whatshisface 4y ago
That calculation works just as well for solar panels and wind farms in an oil-based global economy, but it's just as fallacious. When there's only one solar panel in the world, each solar farm requires X barrels of oil / CFT of gas, but as you get more and more renewable energy in the mix that number goes down to zero. (Unless, of course, the pellets take more energy to produce than they produce themselves after burning and conversion... but that just makes them inefficient under any energy market mix, not CO2-producing under any mix.)
- cinntaile 4y ago
  That's how you do LCAs, nothing fallacious about it. Solar or wind isn't CO2 neutral either.
- dfee 4y ago
  Sorry, this didn’t make any sense to me. The reasoning about non-neutrality is that a tree has captured some carbon (its growth), then we burn it and release that carbon back into the atmosphere (1:1 equality). However, anything on top of that (production of pellets, transportation, retailing) takes significant carbon, too. Solar panels don’t take carbon from the air, and we don’t burn solar panels. We do manufacture, transport and retail them, though. So yeah, solar capture is non-neutral. The merits of one are independent of the other. Neither of which are carbon neutral. Last point, some might argue that solar panels reduce the carbon needed to combust; it’s hard to see that as carbon neutrality, that’s a broken argument. But, I’m not sure who’s making that point.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    The difference is that solar panels are only moved and retailed at the point of sale, but after installation there isn’t anything because it’s where it’s supposed to be and it only gets installed once. Wood is the fuel, so to power a wood stove you need to constantly be moving it to its ultimate destination.
tpmx 4y ago
It takes a lot of physical work to stack logs, sure. I figure it's my annual gym exercise when I get the delivery from my neighbour. I really should upgrade to a motorized/automated burner that can eat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_briquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_briquette though. There is a plant that makes those about 30 km away.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  I doubt your neighbour has a machine that requires no energy input to go from tree to logs.
  - tpmx 4y ago
    I think you problably never witnessed the brutal effiency of modern logging machines. It's quite a sight to behold. These are very expensive machines, so they are typically not owned by the people owning and maintaining the forests. Yes, it's not zero, but when comparing the extra co2 cost these machines add compared to the fossil fuel alternatives, it might as well be. In a few years they'll probably start to be battery powered, charged via clean nuclear and water power.
    - landemva 4y ago
      > These are very expensive machines Both to purchase and maintain. Some operators depreciate ~usd70/hour. > they'll probably start to be battery powered Expensive machines are typically worked hard (long hours) when they are working. They need to keep working to make them pay. They typically work in forests not near the iTesla charging point by Starbucks. When working, fellers are ferocious. The cabs are basically bulletproof.
      - tpmx 4y ago
        Agreed. I wrote "will start to". There'll be pressure for that. And perhaps in 10 years with new battery tech and more remote charging infrastructure they'll actually be mostly fossil-free.
raphaelj 4y ago
Considering wood is at most as expensive as petrol per kWh (at least here in Belgium, heating fuel is not heavily taxed), I have a hard time understanding that it takes more fossil fuel energy to manufacture pellets than burning the fossil fuel directly.
fsloth 4y ago
His example is wood shipped from US to EU. This is bogus in many cases as wood for pellets is sourced and processed locally, hence energy input is much lower.
dzhiurgis 4y ago
If you burn it at utility scale, like in most eastern european towns, then you can add co2 scrubbers effectively making it carbon negative.

> CO2-wise: It's neutral. That's part of what he's rallying against. It's not because it requires a large energy input to produce wood or wood pellets suitable for burning.

whatshisface 4y ago

That calculation works just as well for solar panels and wind farms in an oil-based global economy, but it's just as fallacious. When there's only one solar panel in the world, each solar farm requires X barrels of oil / CFT of gas, but as you get more and more renewable energy in the mix that number goes down to zero. (Unless, of course, the pellets take more energy to produce than they produce themselves after burning and conversion... but that just makes them inefficient under any energy market mix, not CO2-producing under any mix.)

cinntaile 4y ago
That's how you do LCAs, nothing fallacious about it. Solar or wind isn't CO2 neutral either.
dfee 4y ago
Sorry, this didn’t make any sense to me. The reasoning about non-neutrality is that a tree has captured some carbon (its growth), then we burn it and release that carbon back into the atmosphere (1:1 equality). However, anything on top of that (production of pellets, transportation, retailing) takes significant carbon, too. Solar panels don’t take carbon from the air, and we don’t burn solar panels. We do manufacture, transport and retail them, though. So yeah, solar capture is non-neutral. The merits of one are independent of the other. Neither of which are carbon neutral. Last point, some might argue that solar panels reduce the carbon needed to combust; it’s hard to see that as carbon neutrality, that’s a broken argument. But, I’m not sure who’s making that point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  The difference is that solar panels are only moved and retailed at the point of sale, but after installation there isn’t anything because it’s where it’s supposed to be and it only gets installed once. Wood is the fuel, so to power a wood stove you need to constantly be moving it to its ultimate destination.

tpmx 4y ago

It takes a lot of physical work to stack logs, sure. I figure it's my annual gym exercise when I get the delivery from my neighbour. I really should upgrade to a motorized/automated burner that can eat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_briquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_briquette though. There is a plant that makes those about 30 km away.

cinntaile 4y ago
I doubt your neighbour has a machine that requires no energy input to go from tree to logs.
- tpmx 4y ago
  I think you problably never witnessed the brutal effiency of modern logging machines. It's quite a sight to behold. These are very expensive machines, so they are typically not owned by the people owning and maintaining the forests. Yes, it's not zero, but when comparing the extra co2 cost these machines add compared to the fossil fuel alternatives, it might as well be. In a few years they'll probably start to be battery powered, charged via clean nuclear and water power.
  - landemva 4y ago
    > These are very expensive machines Both to purchase and maintain. Some operators depreciate ~usd70/hour. > they'll probably start to be battery powered Expensive machines are typically worked hard (long hours) when they are working. They need to keep working to make them pay. They typically work in forests not near the iTesla charging point by Starbucks. When working, fellers are ferocious. The cabs are basically bulletproof.
    - tpmx 4y ago
      Agreed. I wrote "will start to". There'll be pressure for that. And perhaps in 10 years with new battery tech and more remote charging infrastructure they'll actually be mostly fossil-free.

raphaelj 4y ago

Considering wood is at most as expensive as petrol per kWh (at least here in Belgium, heating fuel is not heavily taxed), I have a hard time understanding that it takes more fossil fuel energy to manufacture pellets than burning the fossil fuel directly.

fsloth 4y ago

His example is wood shipped from US to EU. This is bogus in many cases as wood for pellets is sourced and processed locally, hence energy input is much lower.

dzhiurgis 4y ago

If you burn it at utility scale, like in most eastern european towns, then you can add co2 scrubbers effectively making it carbon negative.