101
Biomass power station produced four times emissions of UK coal plant, says report
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
101 points (96.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5249 readers
414 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well the justification is that we need to generate electricity for a number of other reasons. I'm not suggesting that biomass is better than wind or solar, but if there are other reasons that those don't suit the needs of a specific situation then biomass can make sense since it can be carbon neutral. It is, of course, important to make sure that it actually is that
That justification holds for coal just as much as it does for the act of throwing the biofuel into the power plant. Why is it irresponsible to burn trees that died 400 million years ago but okay to burn trees that died 6 months ago?
Whether you've "offset the emissions" of burning the trees by growing them yourself doesn't matter for the decision of burning the biofuel. You might as well call coal burning carbon neutral if you bury some trees underground in the place you mined the coal.
Because the carbon in coal is currently underground and not going to get into the atmosphere without human intervention, whereas growing trees pulls carbon that is currently in the atmosphere out of it and then burning them re-releases it. One option adds carbon that was not already in the relevant system, the other does not.
But once you put the trees underground, they're not going to get out without human intervention either...
When you've cut down the trees, they've "left the system". What does it matter whether the carbon you add to the system from the outside comes from trees that left the system 6 months ago or ones that left the system 400 million years ago?
Yes, but if you put them underground you do not get the electricity generated. Which is the point of this.
Because our baseline that we want to avoid changing the climate away from too much is a few hundred years ago, not a few hundred million years ago.
I don't see how you're not getting this.
Yes, when you burn the trees you get electricity, but you also release as much carbon dioxide per kWh into the atmosphere as if you were to burn coal instead.
The climate does not care about where your carbon emissions come from. All carbon emissions are getting us further away from the holocene climate.
Maybe you're acting under the assumption that the trees wouldn't have grown or that they wouldn't have been cut down to make place for new trees if they hadn't been planned to be burned. Maybe that is even true under our fucked up capitalist economy. But that is just capitalism being stupid. If it is worth it to cut down trees to capture carbon, then we should fund that without also requiring the trees to be burned so all that progress is undone.
And sure, once the fossil fuel industry lies dead and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are back below 280 ppm, then you can start burning biomass to keep the concentration stable. But that's a century from now. Before then, either bury the trees or don't cut them down in the first place.
Please recognise the difference between me not understanding you and me thinking that you are wrong.
All net emissions. If your process releases carbon at the end but captured the same amount of carbon at the start, you have not released any net carbon.
I'm acting under the assumption that they would have died anyway. As they do. When they decompose naturally, they release their carbon. Forests stop capturing more net carbon once they mature because they reach a point at which stuff is dying and releasing it as fast as new stuff is growing and capturing it.
The biggest problem with biomass is land use. In terms of area used per unit energy, it is terrible compared to basically every other option. Even hydro. This can be mitigated with good forestry practices, but it's a factor to be aware of and does rule biomass out as a really big contributor to a clean energy system.
Okay, glad to understand that the issue is that you didn't understand my first comment or any comment that came after it.
One last time: what I'm saying is that you bury the wood to prevent it from decomposing and releasing its carbon, as an alternative to burning it. And that as an alternate source of electricity you use something that doesn't produce as much emissions, like solar, wind, or nuclear. And if you think burying wood is bad for any reason, then setting it on fire is bad for the same reason.
At literally no point have I said burying wood is a good or bad idea, but I don't think we're going to see eye to eye here
On that we agree.
Do you only have shit takes?