• 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)

jurek

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.

Yes, exactly on all fronts.

A sapling few years old captures 1000s times less carbon than a grown tree. The carbon released from burning wood will contribute to global warming for several decades before being captured back.

Forests and wood are a very limited resource. There is a fixed amount of land available to grow trees, and trees grow at a fixed, slow rate. The amount of coal possible to replace by burning wood is small part of the total.

Forests are already pressed by demand of wood for other purposes. Adding demand of 'green' industry destroys them.

Trees, rotting wood, shrubs and other wild biomass is a habitat for biodiversity. It should not be treated as a simple store of carbon like agricultural leftovers. From the point of conservation, it is better even to burn coal.

This is what happens in Poland, where everything is cut on enormous scale. Commercial forests, private forests, national parks, trees in city parks, trees on roadside verges, trees between fields. Carbon capture industry on top on existing timber industry is a death sentence to biodiversity.
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
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?

Probably because the only people still able to build them on a reasonably credible schedule are the Chinese and the Russians.
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
Yes, exactly on all fronts.

A sapling few years old captures 1000s times less carbon than a grown tree. The carbon released from burning wood will contribute to global warming for several decades before being captured back.

Forests and wood are a very limited resource. There is a fixed amount of land available to grow trees, and trees grow at a fixed, slow rate. The amount of coal possible to replace by burning wood is small part of the total.

Forests are already pressed by demand of wood for other purposes. Adding demand of 'green' industry destroys them.

Trees, rotting wood, shrubs and other wild biomass is a habitat for biodiversity. It should not be treated as a simple store of carbon like agricultural leftovers. From the point of conservation, it is better even to burn coal.

This is what happens in Poland, where everything is cut on enormous scale. Commercial forests, private forests, national parks, trees in city parks, trees on roadside verges, trees between fields. Carbon capture industry on top on existing timber industry is a death sentence to biodiversity.

How come there is no outrage in the environmental community as a result?
As with wind power and its decimation of raptors and bats, it seems that any sleazy taxpayer funded scheme gets complete absolution for its side effects as long as it can be brought under the 'carbon neutral' banner.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top