5 ms·

Biomass is a small impact. The next big impact will be ever increasing wind power and the shift from gas to electric for heating.

ricardo81 3y ago
Drax which burns biomass is self-styled as "the UK's largest renewable power station"
- midasuni 3y ago
  Right now it’s generating less power than Solar - in the depth of winter, 8% Gas is 50% higher at 12% and that doesn’t include the gas usage in keeping homes warm Wind (32%) imports and nuclear are all higher than gas for the electricity generation, let alone imported wood generation.
  - ricardo81 3y ago
    It's not ideal to compare at any point in time. It's a clear day (and midday), not long after a storm has passed generating record levels of wind energy - during a national holiday when demand is always low (and prices often go into negative territory) I'm not disagreeing what'll be the next impact, just saying Drax and biomass is perhaps worth more than the statement of it being 'small impact'.
    - midasuni 3y ago
      In 2022 biomass was 5% https://www.edie.net/what-did-the-uks-electricity-generation-mix-look-like-in-2022/ https://www.edie.net/what-did-the-uks-electricity-generation...
      - ricardo81 3y ago
        It is worth bearing in mind that it can be seen as stored energy that can be used at any point in time, unlike wind and solar. In other words, 5% as an average means it's far higher during periods lacking light and wind. Solar is down as 4.4%, though in peak Summer during the day it can satisfy about a 1/4 of demand, cheaply.
        midasuni 3y ago
        It’s not clear if solar includes reduced demand from rooftop solar, or just grid connected solar Either way 5% is a tiny amount. biomass is also far better than gas for those times when you do need to boost supply, so increasing biomass still seems like a win.
        ricardo81 3y ago
        agreed. It can seem counter-intuitive with biomass since it's "burning trees", but generally it's a carbon neutral process or far closer to one than burning buried fossil fuels.
londons_explore 3y ago
Drax is huge, and now burns canadian imported wood rather than coal which is was built for because it can be considered carbon-free.
- tonmoy 3y ago
  Farmed wood should actually be considered carbon neutral. Other than transportation cost and the carbon emitted during harvesting, it’s a legitimate way of capturing carbon from the atmosphere and then just emitting the same carbon back
  - robin_reala 3y ago
    The problem is that at this point we need to be actually capturing carbon and not re-emitting it.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      Capturing carbon is literally a fantasy. Other than growing forests there is no hope we can invent a technological way out of our carbon emissions by capturing them. Companies which promise otherwise are essentially a scam. And growing forests is a viable option but the problem is that the carbon is only captured for as long as you don't burn the wood or let it rot, it has to be either buried or turned into things which ultimately won't release their CO2 back into the air.
      - _3u10 3y ago
        If we can increase our CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere we can become carbon neutral faster as increased concentrations drive forest growth and allow plants to grow in previously desert regions.
      - shaky-carrousel 3y ago
        Grow a forest, convert the wood into charcoal, then store it in a salt mine.

ricardo81 3y ago

Drax which burns biomass is self-styled as "the UK's largest renewable power station"

midasuni 3y ago
Right now it’s generating less power than Solar - in the depth of winter, 8% Gas is 50% higher at 12% and that doesn’t include the gas usage in keeping homes warm Wind (32%) imports and nuclear are all higher than gas for the electricity generation, let alone imported wood generation.
- ricardo81 3y ago
  It's not ideal to compare at any point in time. It's a clear day (and midday), not long after a storm has passed generating record levels of wind energy - during a national holiday when demand is always low (and prices often go into negative territory) I'm not disagreeing what'll be the next impact, just saying Drax and biomass is perhaps worth more than the statement of it being 'small impact'.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    In 2022 biomass was 5% https://www.edie.net/what-did-the-uks-electricity-generation-mix-look-like-in-2022/ https://www.edie.net/what-did-the-uks-electricity-generation...
    - ricardo81 3y ago
      It is worth bearing in mind that it can be seen as stored energy that can be used at any point in time, unlike wind and solar. In other words, 5% as an average means it's far higher during periods lacking light and wind. Solar is down as 4.4%, though in peak Summer during the day it can satisfy about a 1/4 of demand, cheaply.
      - midasuni 3y ago
        It’s not clear if solar includes reduced demand from rooftop solar, or just grid connected solar Either way 5% is a tiny amount. biomass is also far better than gas for those times when you do need to boost supply, so increasing biomass still seems like a win.
        ricardo81 3y ago
        agreed. It can seem counter-intuitive with biomass since it's "burning trees", but generally it's a carbon neutral process or far closer to one than burning buried fossil fuels.

londons_explore 3y ago

Drax is huge, and now burns canadian imported wood rather than coal which is was built for because it can be considered carbon-free.

tonmoy 3y ago
Farmed wood should actually be considered carbon neutral. Other than transportation cost and the carbon emitted during harvesting, it’s a legitimate way of capturing carbon from the atmosphere and then just emitting the same carbon back
- robin_reala 3y ago
  The problem is that at this point we need to be actually capturing carbon and not re-emitting it.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    Capturing carbon is literally a fantasy. Other than growing forests there is no hope we can invent a technological way out of our carbon emissions by capturing them. Companies which promise otherwise are essentially a scam. And growing forests is a viable option but the problem is that the carbon is only captured for as long as you don't burn the wood or let it rot, it has to be either buried or turned into things which ultimately won't release their CO2 back into the air.
    - _3u10 3y ago
      If we can increase our CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere we can become carbon neutral faster as increased concentrations drive forest growth and allow plants to grow in previously desert regions.
    - shaky-carrousel 3y ago
      Grow a forest, convert the wood into charcoal, then store it in a salt mine.