4 ms·

Something like 40% of the "renewable" energy being generated in the EU/Britain comes from burning wood, a lot of which was shipped from the US.

nicoburns 4y ago
I don't think most reasonable people count biomass in with renewable (at least not large scale biomass). e.g. this website https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/ has biomass in "other" along with nuclear and pumped hydro storage.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  The people setting Germany's energy policy are not reasonable, unfortunately.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Biomass literally grows on trees. It's by definition renewable.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    In theory, but an unfortunate amount of biomass burnt in Europe is old growth forest being cut down in the US and shipped across the Atlantic. So renewable, but it would take hundreds of years to renew, and likely won't be renewed.\ https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/insight/future-drax-old-inefficient-damaging-and-expensive https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/insight/future-drax-old-...
  - michaelt 4y ago
    The wood pellet power used in the UK is pretty sketchy. Even in the best case, when you cut down a tree, burn it, and plant a replacement you've still released a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere. So carbon in the atmosphere will be raised for 20-50 years. When people have looked into the source of these wood pellets the claims of the pellet companies often don't line up with official records - like saying they didn't log an old-growth forest, when they held the logging license at the time it was logged. Or claiming they only use sawdust and low-quality wood, when their output volume is much greater than the amount of low-quality wood you'd expect [1]. And supposedly the trees get replanted - but the company doing it got paid when the pellets were delivered. If in 5 years time they decide to do something else with the land, they can do. The government turns a blind eye to this to hit their 'renewables' targets. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      > Even in the best case, when you cut down a tree, burn it, and plant a replacement you've still released a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere. So carbon in the atmosphere will be raised for 20-50 years. Global warming is a global, long term issue. Focusing on a single tree is pretty much the canonical opposite of the wrong perspective to bring to it. For the replanting side to work, growing fuel trees needs to be profitable. When it is, capitalists will replant out of greed, and the system will hum along by itself.

nicoburns 4y ago

I don't think most reasonable people count biomass in with renewable (at least not large scale biomass). e.g. this website https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/ has biomass in "other" along with nuclear and pumped hydro storage.

Georgelemental 4y ago
The people setting Germany's energy policy are not reasonable, unfortunately.
BurningFrog 4y ago
Biomass literally grows on trees. It's by definition renewable.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  In theory, but an unfortunate amount of biomass burnt in Europe is old growth forest being cut down in the US and shipped across the Atlantic. So renewable, but it would take hundreds of years to renew, and likely won't be renewed.\ https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/insight/future-drax-old-inefficient-damaging-and-expensive https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/insight/future-drax-old-...
- michaelt 4y ago
  The wood pellet power used in the UK is pretty sketchy. Even in the best case, when you cut down a tree, burn it, and plant a replacement you've still released a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere. So carbon in the atmosphere will be raised for 20-50 years. When people have looked into the source of these wood pellets the claims of the pellet companies often don't line up with official records - like saying they didn't log an old-growth forest, when they held the logging license at the time it was logged. Or claiming they only use sawdust and low-quality wood, when their output volume is much greater than the amount of low-quality wood you'd expect [1]. And supposedly the trees get replanted - but the company doing it got paid when the pellets were delivered. If in 5 years time they decide to do something else with the land, they can do. The government turns a blind eye to this to hit their 'renewables' targets. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    > Even in the best case, when you cut down a tree, burn it, and plant a replacement you've still released a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere. So carbon in the atmosphere will be raised for 20-50 years. Global warming is a global, long term issue. Focusing on a single tree is pretty much the canonical opposite of the wrong perspective to bring to it. For the replanting side to work, growing fuel trees needs to be profitable. When it is, capitalists will replant out of greed, and the system will hum along by itself.