3 ms·

Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada

27 points by zeristor 4y ago

automatic6131 4y ago
This comes down to the insanity of burning WOOD for power. If energy is a ladder[1], nuclear power is at the top, then natural gas, then coal and wood is the first rung. Civilisation is a story about climbing this energy ladder. [1] roughly and ungainly paraphrased from https://nitter.net/DoombergT/status/1540663901674676224 https://nitter.net/DoombergT/status/1540663901674676224
hulitu 4y ago
I don't underestand what all the fuss is. It is renewable energy. Carbon "neutral" ( although taking into account that they will use machines to cut it which run on diesel or gas - it might not be so neutral after all) /s
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  The problem is that they're logging primary forests specifically to make the pellets. If it'd been made from recently planted energy forests, using pellets wouldn't have been an issue.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    That is, in my opinion, the smallest problem. Cutting an ancient forest, they are destroying an ecosystem.
    - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
      > Cutting an ancient forest, they are destroying an ecosystem. Which is why this would have been a non-issue if they'd planted some Willow 10 years ago and harvested that instead. Energy forests are just another farmed monoculture.
- brandelune 4y ago
  It is "carbon neutral" because of a bet on the future of trees that will be planted in replacement for the burned ones. The future trees do not exist yet. And with global warming probably won't come soon enough. So that's extremely stupid and criminal to do what they're doing.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Waste wood for power is fine. Similarly other biomass from agricultural waste is good. Key word here is waste, because it'll naturally be cheaper and more efficient to use animal droppings or the inedible bits of food crops or post-consumer food waste or sawdust or offcut branches that are only going to be dumped in a way that releases methane. This can make them GHG negative, and so better than even renewables, though they can't scale as much so they're only part of the solution. If that primary forest was sold and cleared to make planks, then that might be a problem for Canada to look into, but people using the waste from the process is not. The article tries to imply that the whole forest was clear cut and burned for power but they don't actually state that, presumably because it's not true. It would be a much bigger scoop if it was. Once we get rid of the need to burn stuff for power by rolling out more renewables, it'll probably still make sense to process waste biomass via pyrolysis to achieve carbon removal.
- dabedee 4y ago
  The point of the article is that it isn't clear and that it seems like the company has been caught red-handed in the past. What should anyone believe the company in the first place? It implies that it should be looked into more thoroughly, which I completely agree with.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Both the headline and the name of the documentary seem to be suggesting it is "clear". It's only when you read carefully you notice them writing in a way that seems designed to confuse people. But yeah, forcing corporations to not lie is an obvious good thing. I'm not sure this documentary isn't actually a corporate funded lie though. They may just be callous clickbaiters making money by taking advantage of coporate funded climate change denial lies, so don't want to jump to any strong conclusions.

27 points by zeristor 4y ago

This comes down to the insanity of burning WOOD for power. If energy is a ladder[1], nuclear power is at the top, then natural gas, then coal and wood is the first rung. Civilisation is a story about climbing this energy ladder. [1] roughly and ungainly paraphrased from https://nitter.net/DoombergT/status/1540663901674676224 https://nitter.net/DoombergT/status/1540663901674676224

hulitu 4y ago

I don't underestand what all the fuss is. It is renewable energy. Carbon "neutral" ( although taking into account that they will use machines to cut it which run on diesel or gas - it might not be so neutral after all) /s

2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
The problem is that they're logging primary forests specifically to make the pellets. If it'd been made from recently planted energy forests, using pellets wouldn't have been an issue.
- hulitu 4y ago
  That is, in my opinion, the smallest problem. Cutting an ancient forest, they are destroying an ecosystem.
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    > Cutting an ancient forest, they are destroying an ecosystem. Which is why this would have been a non-issue if they'd planted some Willow 10 years ago and harvested that instead. Energy forests are just another farmed monoculture.
brandelune 4y ago
It is "carbon neutral" because of a bet on the future of trees that will be planted in replacement for the burned ones. The future trees do not exist yet. And with global warming probably won't come soon enough. So that's extremely stupid and criminal to do what they're doing.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Waste wood for power is fine. Similarly other biomass from agricultural waste is good. Key word here is waste, because it'll naturally be cheaper and more efficient to use animal droppings or the inedible bits of food crops or post-consumer food waste or sawdust or offcut branches that are only going to be dumped in a way that releases methane. This can make them GHG negative, and so better than even renewables, though they can't scale as much so they're only part of the solution. If that primary forest was sold and cleared to make planks, then that might be a problem for Canada to look into, but people using the waste from the process is not. The article tries to imply that the whole forest was clear cut and burned for power but they don't actually state that, presumably because it's not true. It would be a much bigger scoop if it was. Once we get rid of the need to burn stuff for power by rolling out more renewables, it'll probably still make sense to process waste biomass via pyrolysis to achieve carbon removal.

dabedee 4y ago
The point of the article is that it isn't clear and that it seems like the company has been caught red-handed in the past. What should anyone believe the company in the first place? It implies that it should be looked into more thoroughly, which I completely agree with.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Both the headline and the name of the documentary seem to be suggesting it is "clear". It's only when you read carefully you notice them writing in a way that seems designed to confuse people. But yeah, forcing corporations to not lie is an obvious good thing. I'm not sure this documentary isn't actually a corporate funded lie though. They may just be callous clickbaiters making money by taking advantage of coporate funded climate change denial lies, so don't want to jump to any strong conclusions.