• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

No coal burned (1 Viewer)

Farnboro John

Well-known member
Hang on: 7,000,000 tonnes of wood pellets count as renewables? They may not be fossil fuels but they surely produce CO2 when you burn them, and for that matter how many heavy oil fuelled ships bring the things from the USA (and how are "wood pellets" produced in the first place?)

There's a distinct whiff of rat about this.

John
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Czech Republic
The difference is that the wood just cycles CO2 presemt in the atmosphere around (that's where the tree got the carbon in the first place) while burning fossil fuels releases carbon that would otherwise be safely stored underground. Unless the place where the trees in question is now an unhabitable desert, there are likely new trees there that are removing the same CO2 frok the atmosphere.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Agree with that. Though the problem is unintended consequences. Diverse primary forest and woodland (or now unviable crop/ grazing land which was former forest/woodland and will never be restored) will be torn down for eventual replacement by commercially viable sterile wood plantations. The immediate hit will be an increase in emissions and a massive hit to biodiversity. It will be the same debacle as biofuels.

If only there was a great big nuclear fusion reactor sitting in the sky constantly beaming free energy down upon us ........ :eat: ;)





Chosun :gh:
 

DMW

Well-known member
Isn't large-scale use of wood pellets to generate electricity effectively a giant pyramid scheme? It takes what, about 30 years for a commercial plantation to grow to harvest. Carbon sequestration isn't linear - a 30 year old tree captures far more than a 1 year old or 10 year old, so clear-cutting a plantation and planting seedlings isn't a like-for-like replacement. It takes 30 years to achieve parity, and I don't think you get 30 years' worth of power generation from one harvest. As demand for "green" energy grows, the area of forest required to support the wood pellet industry is going to exceed the amount of forest available.

Of course, if the pellets were just made from waste by-products from sawmills, it would be a completely different matter, but I don't think this is the case.
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Czech Republic
Sure, it's just still better than coal. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, right? I can see Chosun's point, because she is from Australia - good luck making consistent solar power in the UK :) Yeah, you have wind, but there is still need for a "give power right now" source, which is basically "burn something" or nuclear at this point. In the future, there will be more power storage, but we are not yet there, in such a situation, biomass burning is actually the best solution (in the political climate that's not friendly to new nuclear sources, which are the cleanest obviously).
 

King Edward

Well-known member
Sure, it's just still better than coal. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, right? I can see Chosun's point, because she is from Australia - good luck making consistent solar power in the UK :) Yeah, you have wind, but there is still need for a "give power right now" source, which is basically "burn something" or nuclear at this point. In the future, there will be more power storage, but we are not yet there, in such a situation, biomass burning is actually the best solution (in the political climate that's not friendly to new nuclear sources, which are the cleanest obviously).

'Better than coal' is a pretty low bar to clear, and in the short-term burning wood actually produces more CO2 than burning coal, not less.

There's a distinct lack of transparency about the source of the wood pellets being burned. The claim originally was that they were made from 'waste' wood, whereas the reality is mass clearfelling of native hardwood forests in the SE USA to supply the demand.
 

DMW

Well-known member
Sure, it's just still better than coal. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, right? I can see Chosun's point, because she is from Australia - good luck making consistent solar power in the UK :) Yeah, you have wind, but there is still need for a "give power right now" source, which is basically "burn something" or nuclear at this point. In the future, there will be more power storage, but we are not yet there, in such a situation, biomass burning is actually the best solution (in the political climate that's not friendly to new nuclear sources, which are the cleanest obviously).

I agree that there's no perfect solution and we need to look at all alternatives, but it's really annoying to see industries and governments greenwashing and promoting some of the most harmful sources of energy as being environmentally friendly. Palm oil biodiesel, for example.

My own view is that the only viable mid term option if we want to move away from a carbon based civilisation is nuclear.
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Czech Republic
I agree that there's no perfect solution and we need to look at all alternatives, but it's really annoying to see industries and governments greenwashing and promoting some of the most harmful sources of energy as being environmentally friendly. Palm oil biodiesel, for example.

My own view is that the only viable mid term option if we want to move away from a carbon based civilisation is nuclear.

Preaching to the choir! But sadly, the pushback is immense and it got worse because some people in Japan decided that building a nuclear plant on a seashore with inadequate tsunami protection and wrong placement of backup generators was a good idea ...
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
I agree that there's no perfect solution and we need to look at all alternatives, but it's really annoying to see industries and governments greenwashing and promoting some of the most harmful sources of energy as being environmentally friendly. Palm oil biodiesel, for example.

My own view is that the only viable mid term option if we want to move away from a carbon based civilisation is nuclear.

Completely agree but the cost of construction is ENORMOUS, especially after we've been screwed by the French and Chinese.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant

'According to Gérard Magnin, a former EDF director, the French company sees Hinkley as “a way to make the British fund the renaissance of nuclear in France”. He added: “We cannot be sure that in 2060 or 2065, British pensioners, who are currently at school, will not still be paying for the advancement of the nuclear industry in France.”
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Preaching to the choir! But sadly, the pushback is immense and it got worse because some people in Japan decided that building a nuclear plant on a seashore with inadequate tsunami protection and wrong placement of backup generators was a good idea ...
Anything with a 'free' resource and centralized control is the go to choice for those oligarchical players that benefit, with the added enticement of publicizing costs while privatizing profits.

If we look at each of the main energy sources:-
Nuclear = free dumping of waste. It doesn't stack up once the true costs are added in. The US also has some wonderfully tsunami prone locations. The HLW created to this point in time is an intractable problem.
Wood pellets = free forest resource, even waste resources should be composted to return nutrients to the soil that were extracted, no sustainable operations otherwise.
Biofuels = even worse again.
Hydro = free destruction of downstream rivers and upstream riparian areas.
Shale Oil and Coal Seam Gas = free permanently 'fracked' landscapes.
Tar sands = free yuk.
Coal = free damage to aquifers and hydrological cycles - this in itself upsets the carbon cycle adding to the factors allowing huge bushfires.
Wind = 'free' bird carnage (though with the right locations, protocols, systems, would at least seem.more manageable than nuclear)
Solar thermal = bird risk, but manageable with the right sites - it's just that such 'desert' locations are far away from most traditional population centres which need water. Storage options are better than some other generation sources. Same goes for geothermal.

Solar PV. The only truly egalitarian distributed sustainable power generation source is solar PV. Every building humans build as shelter, certainly residentially and more or less commercially has enough surface area on the building envelope to power it with Solar PV if other building efficiency measures are employed. They can probably also run a fair chunk of related transport too. Even the UK etc with only half the per annum sunshine hours of places like Australia etc, are viable with the right design and paradigm shifts.

Some industrial sites will need additional energy input. The big issues for PV overall are:-
* Loss of control and profits for existing energy sector investors.
* Required investment in distribution network infrastructure and operational control and markets to allow multidirectional flows of excess energy.
* There is a recycling/ integral battery industry issue to be sorted out (again, much easier than nuclear)

Human's energy problems aren't technical (acknowledging that a heck of a lot of buildings have been built facing the wrong way) , they are investment, governance, and market related.

In this country, any wood pellet type proposals invariably want to use public forests in order to be commercially viable. It is unacceptable. I really think we have to rigorously scrutinize any 'greenwashing' that negatively impacts biodiversity - because that is what will see us out the back door minus a shirt ......






Chosun :gh:
 

DMW

Well-known member
Completely agree but the cost of construction is ENORMOUS, especially after we've been screwed by the French and Chinese.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant

'According to Gérard Magnin, a former EDF director, the French company sees Hinkley as “a way to make the British fund the renaissance of nuclear in France”. He added: “We cannot be sure that in 2060 or 2065, British pensioners, who are currently at school, will not still be paying for the advancement of the nuclear industry in France.”

In Jersey, we buy pretty much all our electricity from France, so I appreciate you subsidising our electricity too :t:
 

rosbifs

Well-known tool
France
We have been buying electricity from France and Holland for years. During the miners strike Maggy rather paid France for electricity than our miners. It's an old argument. The mining industry employs less than a 1000 people now.

Oil and Gas, mainly, from Norway

Woodpellets from America by the container full. Its renewable but its not a carbon free calculation. If the deforestation follows the Finnish model there will be little in the way of 'interesting' woods left. Just churned up clearings before reseeding and young pine woods with little by the way of undergrowth.

Agree coal is better left in the ground but I don't believe the 'aren't we green now' declaration by the BBC and others.

I don't have a problem with nuclear - just the waste.

All ways up there is a payoff or a payback.
 

Pinewood

New York correspondent
United States
Hello,

Bituminous coal is very dirty.
Anthracite coal, still dirty.
Clean coal is a hoax.
Oil is less dirty.
Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel.

I have no idea about wood pellets.

Solar, in various forms, and wind are cleaner but some consideration has to be given to how much carbon is used in the construction of any energy producer.

What I found interesting in the BBC article, which I read, is that capital investment in renewables is very competitive with fossil fuel investment in plant but once solar, hydroelectric and wind are running, there running costs are far lower.

So in the short term, we may be looking at renewables with the use of natural gas turbines, which are very efficient for peak or backup power.

Stay safe,
Arthur
 

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
Hello,

Bituminous coal is very dirty.
Anthracite coal, still dirty.
Clean coal is a hoax.
Oil is less dirty.
Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel.

I have no idea about wood pellets.

Solar, in various forms, and wind are cleaner but some consideration has to be given to how much carbon is used in the construction of any energy producer.

What I found interesting in the BBC article, which I read, is that capital investment in renewables is very competitive with fossil fuel investment in plant but once solar, hydroelectric and wind are running, there running costs are far lower.

So in the short term, we may be looking at renewables with the use of natural gas turbines, which are very efficient for peak or backup power.

Stay safe,
Arthur

Hi Arthur,

Here is an informative article about wood pellets.

All,

In this context it might be worthwhile viewing Planet of the Humans since it's quite relevant. Unfortunately, though, it's about 1.75 hrs long and has good stuff right up to the end.

Chosun,

I've been wanting to hear your insights about the film.

I'm inclined to say that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Ed
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
.... Solar, in various forms, and wind are cleaner but some consideration has to be given to how much carbon is used in the construction of any energy producer.

Hi Arthur, All,

It is interesting that I never ever hear of the embodied energy of any other forms of energy production, other than solar .....
Bit of a DING DING do you think ? :cat:




Chosun :gh:
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
..... Chosun,

I've been wanting to hear your insights about the film.

I'm inclined to say that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Ed

Hi Ed, - yes it's on the 'to do' list ..... the last couple of months have been .... well, less than ideal. Here's hoping for a brand new day tomorrow :) :t:

I was very disappointed that I couldn't go to the rallies on the weekend either ...... :-C





Chosun :gh:
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
How can you even think about letting any company from China come even close to your nuclear power plants, let alone build them? How is there not a widespread outrage in the UK against that?

The UK public doesn't really do widespread outrage, they are much better at widespread apathy (until the footy isn't on TV). Most of the "widespread outrage" or for that matter "touching everybody's hearts" reported is media BS: but I agree with you. :t:

John
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top