Just a point - biomass regenerates and sucks carbon while it does.
Coal gets burnt and stays out there.
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
46 points (89.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5286 readers
841 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
Yes, this was my thought as well.
Tree grows, captures CO2 from atmosphere, is chopped and burned releasing the CO2.
Coal is dug up and burned, releasing CO2 that was trapped in the ground imto the atmosphere.
Disclaimer: I haven't watched the vid.
I think we should generally differentiate between biomass that has been grown for the sole purpose of being burned (bad), and biomass that's just organic matter as part of the waste system that cannot be otherwise recycled.
That's interesting.
Biomass that is grown to be burned is completely sustainable, increases the earths carrying capacity and provides economic growth, profit and jobs. Triple bottom line.
Biomass burned as waste is just incineration with a bit of green washing.
The problem is that much biomass burning happens in the form of "take a mature forest, which existed for other reasons, and burn it for the purpose of generating electricity." This means that you go from having a large mature forest, to having large areas of immature forest.
This on net adds CO2 to the atmosphere until several decades after it stops.
Different areas - you are correct with what you said.
My comment was specifically on those grown to be burned for biomass. Taking a mature forest on the other hand is indeed a problem.
Actual biomass power plants operating today are buying forests to burn them. Those which run in the manner you describe are exceedingly rare.
Not denying that - wish I could though....
Biomass that is grown to be burned is completely sustainable, increases the earths carrying capacity and provides economic growth, profit and jobs. Triple bottom line.
No, it's not. Just because it is carbon neutral does not mean it is sustainable. It also does not increase Earths "carrying capacity", that's a fallacy, and it is in fact quite the contrary. To increase Earth's carbon storage we'd need long term forests that actually capture the co2 for many generations to come. What happens with "bio" fuels is that we instead cut down forests and create cultivated ones, which not just take ages to grow, but are then cut down, processed and consequently burned. This kills real forests that capture co2, have real ecosystems and the land use needed to fuel our energy need in relation to the long growth time would mean we'd have to clear massive swaths of land, like the rain forests on other continents, which then still could not fulfill the demand of even a single industrialized nation. You're literally spreading corpo propaganda here. And economic growth is exactly the killer that brought us into this mess.
Biomass burned as waste is just incineration with a bit of green washing.
It's not greenwashing when there's literally no other way or processing it and highly ironic since you're trying to greenwash bio fuels.
You're getting carrying capacity, carbon capture and carbon neutral confused, which then flows into sustainability.
Carrying capacity isn't about getting it back or stored - its the environments ability to "carry" our waste products without long term damage or effects. Increases of forest - pine or mature native - does indeed increase the earths carrying capacity for carbon emissions, waste water, runoff and other areas. You're right, pine doesn't mean long term carbon capture but that's not this arguement.
Regarding burning waste that otherwise cant be used - yes it is greenwashing. We used to think the same thing about burning or dumping rubbish- can't use it so let's just burn it. Admittedly this is a much more complicated problem and reverts back to a complete circular economy requiring a significant change in design, ways of thinking and culture to eliminate this one - but it can still be done.
Even tho Drax uses only biomass and its CO~2~ emissions are 4 times higher than Ractcliffe's which uses coal, I think it is also important to mention that Drax can produce twice as much electricity in comparison to Ratcliffe. Still terrible news from the 2023 report, just saying.
Its generating capacity of 3,906 megawatts (MW),
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station
the station has a capacity of 2,000 MW
Actually that is capacity and not the electricity the actually produce. In 2021 Drax produced 4.2TWh of electricity. In 2021 Ratcliff produced 0.8TWh
So we are talking 5times more electricity from Drax. Hence 4x emissions is not as bad as it seems. I can not find 2023 numbers and I could imagine that they are even starker.
EDIT: Fix because I can not read properly apparently.
From the link you provided, it looks like in 2021 it was 4.2 not 7.5. Apart from that, this approach sounds too speculative to me, since the production comes from 2021 and the CO~2~ emissions quota from 2023. In the Drax chart it shows a decline in TWh produced from 2017 to 2021 (btw 2021 is also the year they retired coal). Still, assuming from this trend that their production few years latter continues to decline is something I would consider too risky to do.
- 2017 -> 14.9
- 2018 -> 11.7
- 2019 -> 10.2
- 2020 -> 7.5
- 2021 -> 4.2
The Ratcliffe chart has so many fluctuations till 2021 that I couldn't dare guess what their 2023 production was.
- 2017 -> 2.6
- 2018 -> 3.2
- 2019 -> 0.7
- 2020 -> 0.1
- 2021 -> 0.8
If I find the 2023 numbers, I'll add a comment or edit this one.
Thanks. Fixed the original comment.
Did not watch the video yet, but isn’t the amount of CO2 released always the same for a specific source? If you use coal, the coal production releases CO2 by burning off anything but carbon. So the CO2 production just happens at different places, but the sum should be the same.
Can someone quickly tell me what I am missing here?
It's unfortunate that so much susidies go into burning wood, and fossil fuel.
I looked into a local nonprofit that support renewables, and it focus on biomass, less so on solar, and didn't focus of wind at all (because of scale and upfront cost). Because of that focus on biomass and uncertainty on emissions from biomass I stayed away from them.
This video is misinformation !
This video only talk about the total emissions of the power station, it never talk about CO2 per kWh.
By using this logic I can easily prove that producing bikes is way more polluting than producing cars, if I take a plant that produce millions of bikes compare to a plant that produce few hundreds cars.