4 ms·

I had a similar realization a few weeks back while trying to purchase a new electricity contract. In the EU, this is made even worse by the definition of green

I had a similar realization a few weeks back while trying to purchase a new electricity contract. In the EU, this is made even worse by the definition of green electricity which includes biomass but excludes nuclear energy. For those curious, I wrote up what I found here: https://integralreview.com/green-electricity/ https://integralreview.com/green-electricity/

surfingdino 2y ago
What you get when you add politics to science.
blueflow 2y ago
Biomass gets its carbon from the atmosphere. Fossil carbon is the problem.
- pyrale 2y ago
  > Fossil carbon is the problem. Greenhouse gases are merely one of the significant changes we cause to our environment. The issue with biomass is the huge land surface it requires to produce the necessary fuel.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    You are not disputing that biomass is carbon neutral?
    - ljf 2y ago
      The fuel you burn is neutral in that it pulled as much carbon from the air while growing, as is released by burning it. But the carbon cost to manage, process and transport that fuel is not neutral.
      - blueflow 2y ago
        > But the carbon cost to manage, process and transport that fuel is not neutral. Because gasoline for the trucks and coal for the electricity is fossil carbon. Which is not biomass. My point.
    - pyrale 2y ago
      Well, my point was that carbon neutrality is only one variable of the equation. But if you want to focus specifically on biomass, I would say: "it depends". You can't answer that question easily. For instance, would you say a biomass plant producing electricity from wood pellets imported from Brazil is carbon-neutral? I think it isn't. When you're looking at biomass, you can't just look at the plant, you need to focus on how its fuel is sourced, what impacts this sourcing activity has, etc.
      - blueflow 2y ago
        Because the fuel for the wood freighter is fossil carbon! This is an argument against fossil carbon, not against biomass.
        pyrale 2y ago
        > Because the fuel for the wood freighter is fossil carbon! No; the reason is that this wood is a byproduct of land use change, which is a source of increased carbon emissions [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use,_land-use_change,_and_forestry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use,_land-use_change,_and...
- wiredfool 2y ago
  In some countries, peat is considered biomass. It’s probably worse than coal in terms of per unit damage, but generally it’s burned in far lower quantities.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    Greenwashing. Peat is an early stage of coal.
    - wiredfool 2y ago
      Yeah, I've had these discussions with some scientists who are _really_ into peat, and got down a rabbit hole looking at the various EU states and how they deal with their peatlands from a policy point of view.
- stefan_ 2y ago
  Yes, it’s releasing carbon now, to be recovered a hundred years down the road. That doesn’t really work with the timelines we are looking at.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    That's not how it works with plants. If you or a cow can eat them, that means that they are already done capturing the carbon because that's what they are made out of.
    - stefan_ 2y ago
      They are done and we still got too much atmospheric CO2, now you burn them. Feel free to insist they captured it in the past hundred years but it’s really a distinction without a difference in this situation. You don’t get a free pass on the CO2 you are releasing now.
      - blueflow 2y ago
        If you do not burn them, the plants will die and get composted into soil. Soil itself will decompose and release that carbon back into the atmosphere. In temperate climate, this happens in a decade or less. The cycle keeps running with or without humans doing the emissions part. So lets focus on the extra carbon that we dug out and inserted into the cycle.
- sp332 2y ago
  Drax is cutting down old-growth forests in Canada and shipping them to the UK to be burned for fuel. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-farce-of-burning-wood-pellets/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-farce-of-burning-woo... This is compressing the release of hundreds of years of captured carbon into a lot less time, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    This "compression" also applies to fossil carbon, even if on a larger scale. So fossil carbon is still worse than biomass.
- flakeoil 2y ago
  If it takes 50-100 years to grow back, then the CO2 is still in the air during this time plus you reduce a lot of habitat and create deserts. If all the energy we consume today for heating, cars, electricity etc would come from biomass/trees then a huge part of our forests would have to be cut down in just a few years time, before they have a chance to grow back.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    50-100 is a pretty short time-frame compared to coal and oil formation.
vladvasiliu 2y ago
> In the EU, this is made even worse by the definition of green electricity which [...] excludes nuclear energy Are you sure about this? I've done a quick search for what is specifically included, but came out empty-handed. I was under the impression that France managed to get nuclear to be included. --- Edit: found something that seems to say it's included in the "list of technologies" aimed to achieving "net zero" emissions. Although it's not "green", it's "strategic". https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/nuclear-power-officially-labelled-as-strategic-for-eus-decarbonisation/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/nuc... > After much back and forth, nuclear power was finally included in the single list of 17 technologies proposed in November by the text’s rapporteur, German MEP Christian Ehler (European People’s Party – EPP). In addition, all nuclear technologies were covered: existing and future ones, fission, fusion as well as the fuel cycle.
- integral_1699 2y ago
  When I searched, none of the electricity providers included nuclear energy in their list. I tried doing some research and found this definition for the European Environment Agency: "Electricity produced from resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and low-impact hydro facilities is often referred to as 'green electricity'." It's good to see as you point out that the situation is evolving. Strategic is better than nothing!

surfingdino 2y ago

What you get when you add politics to science.

blueflow 2y ago

Biomass gets its carbon from the atmosphere. Fossil carbon is the problem.

pyrale 2y ago
> Fossil carbon is the problem. Greenhouse gases are merely one of the significant changes we cause to our environment. The issue with biomass is the huge land surface it requires to produce the necessary fuel.
- blueflow 2y ago
  You are not disputing that biomass is carbon neutral?
  - ljf 2y ago
    The fuel you burn is neutral in that it pulled as much carbon from the air while growing, as is released by burning it. But the carbon cost to manage, process and transport that fuel is not neutral.
    - blueflow 2y ago
      > But the carbon cost to manage, process and transport that fuel is not neutral. Because gasoline for the trucks and coal for the electricity is fossil carbon. Which is not biomass. My point.
  - pyrale 2y ago
    Well, my point was that carbon neutrality is only one variable of the equation. But if you want to focus specifically on biomass, I would say: "it depends". You can't answer that question easily. For instance, would you say a biomass plant producing electricity from wood pellets imported from Brazil is carbon-neutral? I think it isn't. When you're looking at biomass, you can't just look at the plant, you need to focus on how its fuel is sourced, what impacts this sourcing activity has, etc.
    - blueflow 2y ago
      Because the fuel for the wood freighter is fossil carbon! This is an argument against fossil carbon, not against biomass.
      - pyrale 2y ago
        > Because the fuel for the wood freighter is fossil carbon! No; the reason is that this wood is a byproduct of land use change, which is a source of increased carbon emissions [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use,_land-use_change,_and_forestry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use,_land-use_change,_and...
wiredfool 2y ago
In some countries, peat is considered biomass. It’s probably worse than coal in terms of per unit damage, but generally it’s burned in far lower quantities.
- blueflow 2y ago
  Greenwashing. Peat is an early stage of coal.
  - wiredfool 2y ago
    Yeah, I've had these discussions with some scientists who are _really_ into peat, and got down a rabbit hole looking at the various EU states and how they deal with their peatlands from a policy point of view.
stefan_ 2y ago
Yes, it’s releasing carbon now, to be recovered a hundred years down the road. That doesn’t really work with the timelines we are looking at.
- blueflow 2y ago
  That's not how it works with plants. If you or a cow can eat them, that means that they are already done capturing the carbon because that's what they are made out of.
  - stefan_ 2y ago
    They are done and we still got too much atmospheric CO2, now you burn them. Feel free to insist they captured it in the past hundred years but it’s really a distinction without a difference in this situation. You don’t get a free pass on the CO2 you are releasing now.
    - blueflow 2y ago
      If you do not burn them, the plants will die and get composted into soil. Soil itself will decompose and release that carbon back into the atmosphere. In temperate climate, this happens in a decade or less. The cycle keeps running with or without humans doing the emissions part. So lets focus on the extra carbon that we dug out and inserted into the cycle.
sp332 2y ago
Drax is cutting down old-growth forests in Canada and shipping them to the UK to be burned for fuel. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-farce-of-burning-wood-pellets/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-farce-of-burning-woo... This is compressing the release of hundreds of years of captured carbon into a lot less time, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
- blueflow 2y ago
  This "compression" also applies to fossil carbon, even if on a larger scale. So fossil carbon is still worse than biomass.
flakeoil 2y ago
If it takes 50-100 years to grow back, then the CO2 is still in the air during this time plus you reduce a lot of habitat and create deserts. If all the energy we consume today for heating, cars, electricity etc would come from biomass/trees then a huge part of our forests would have to be cut down in just a few years time, before they have a chance to grow back.
- blueflow 2y ago
  50-100 is a pretty short time-frame compared to coal and oil formation.

vladvasiliu 2y ago

> In the EU, this is made even worse by the definition of green electricity which [...] excludes nuclear energy Are you sure about this? I've done a quick search for what is specifically included, but came out empty-handed. I was under the impression that France managed to get nuclear to be included. --- Edit: found something that seems to say it's included in the "list of technologies" aimed to achieving "net zero" emissions. Although it's not "green", it's "strategic". https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/nuclear-power-officially-labelled-as-strategic-for-eus-decarbonisation/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/nuc... > After much back and forth, nuclear power was finally included in the single list of 17 technologies proposed in November by the text’s rapporteur, German MEP Christian Ehler (European People’s Party – EPP). In addition, all nuclear technologies were covered: existing and future ones, fission, fusion as well as the fuel cycle.

integral_1699 2y ago
When I searched, none of the electricity providers included nuclear energy in their list. I tried doing some research and found this definition for the European Environment Agency: "Electricity produced from resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and low-impact hydro facilities is often referred to as 'green electricity'." It's good to see as you point out that the situation is evolving. Strategic is better than nothing!