Carbon Loophole: Why Is Wood Burning Counted as Green Energy?

That was a dirty commie reactor. I ax'd you about clean nuclear energy.

They were first generation RBMK reactors which had many design flaws resulting from being 50s technology. Not least the fact that they didn't have containment shields. Even so there are actually 11 reactors of that type still in use in Russia. They have been retrofitted with far more safety measures and interlocks, and have been running without incident for over 2 decades now.


Key Facts

The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, then part of the former Soviet Union, is the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power to cause fatalities from radiation. It was the product of a severely flawed Soviet-era reactor design combined with human error. Key differences in U.S. reactor design, regulation and emergency preparedness make it highly unlikely that a Chernobyl-type accident could occur in the United States.Twenty-eight highly exposed reactor staff and emergency workers died from radiation and thermal burns within four months of the accident. Officials believe the accident also was responsible for nearly 7,000 cases of thyroid cancer among individuals who were under 18 years of age at the time of the accident. As of 2005, 15 children had died of thyroid cancer. Improved monitoring has been implemented to help ensure that thyroid cancer is detected early, when it is highly treatable.Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole-body radiation doses, according to a United Nations study published in 2011. The study found no evidence of increases in solid cancers, decreased fertility or congenital malformations. However, there is “some evidence of a detectable increase” in leukemia and cataract risk among workers who received higher radiation doses when engaged in recovery at the site. Long-term health monitoring of these workers is ongoing.

What Happened

The accident, which occurred in the early morning of April 26, 1986, resulted when operators took actions in violation of the plant’s technical specifications. Operators ran the plant at very low power, without adequate safety precautions and without properly coordinating or communicating the procedure with safety personnel.

The four Chernobyl reactors were pressurized water reactors of the Soviet RBMK design, or Reactor BolshoMoshchnosty Kanalny, meaning “high-power channel reactor.” Designed to produce both plutonium and electric power, they were very different from standard commercial designs, employing a unique combination of a graphite moderator and water coolant.

The reactors also were highly unstable at low power, primarily owing to control rod design and “positive void coefficient,” factors that accelerated nuclear chain reaction and power output if the reactors lost cooling water.

These factors all contributed to an uncontrollable power surge that led to Chernobyl 4’s destruction. The power surge caused a sudden increase in heat, which ruptured some of the pressure tubes containing fuel.

The hot fuel particles reacted with water and caused a steam explosion, which lifted the 1,000-metric-ton cover off the top of the reactor, rupturing the rest of the 1,660 pressure tubes, causing a second explosion and exposing the reactor core to the environment. The fire burned for 10 days, releasing a large amount of radiation into the atmosphere.

The Chernobyl plant did not have the massive containment structure common to most nuclear power plants elsewhere in the world. Without this protection, radioactive material escaped into the environment.

The crippled Chernobyl 4 reactor now is enclosed in a concrete structure that is growing weaker over time. Ukraine and the Group of Eight industrialized nations have agreed on a plan to stabilize the existing structure by constructing an enormous new sarcophagus around it, which is expected to last more than 100 years.

Officials shut down reactor 2 after a building fire in 1991 and closed Chernobyl 1 and 3 in 1996 and 2000, respectively.

https://www.nei.org/Master-Document...heets/Chernobyl-Accident-And-Its-Consequences

*




Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
It was a first generation RBMK reactor which had many design flaws resulting from being 50s technology. Even so there are actually 11 reactors of that type still in use in Russia. They have been retrofitted with far more safety measures and interlocks, and have been running without incident for over 2 decades now.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

It also had no secondary containment vessel. Here in the US, ours will survive a direct hit from an airliner.
 
Here is a prime example of classic greenwash in action, I really do not understand how this is even allowed to happen.

A loophole in carbon-accounting rules is spurring a boom in burning wood pellets in European power plants. The result has been a surge in logging, particularly in the U.S. South, and new doubts about whether Europe can meet its commitments under the Paris accord.

It was once one of Europe’s largest coal-burning power stations. Now, after replacing coal in its boilers with wood pellets shipped from the U.S. South, the Drax Power Station in Britain claims to be the largest carbon-saving project in Europe. About 23 million tons of carbon dioxide goes up its stacks each year. But because new trees will be planted in the cut forests, the company says the Drax plant is carbon-neutral.

There is one problem. Ecologists say that the claims of carbon neutrality, which are accepted by the European Union and the British government, do not stand up to scrutiny. The forests of North Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi — as well as those in Europe — are being destroyed to sustain a European fantasy about renewable energy. And with many power plants in Europe and elsewhere starting to replace coal with wood, the question of who is right is becoming ever more important.

Since 2009, the 28 nations of the European Union have embarked on a dramatic switch to generating power from renewable energy. While most of the good-news headlines have been about the rise of wind and solar, much of the new “green” power has actually come from burning wood in converted coal power stations. Wood burning is booming from Britain to Romania. Much of the timber is sourced locally, which is raising serious concerns among European environmentalists about whether every tree cut down for burning is truly replaced by a new one. But Drax’s giant wood-burning boilers are fueled almost entirely by 6.5 million tons of wood pellets shipped annually across the Atlantic.

Some 200 scientists wrote to the EU insisting that “bioenergy is not carbon-neutral” and calling for tighter rules to protect forests and their carbon. In September, some 200 scientists wrote to the EU insisting that “bio-energy [from forest biomass] is not carbon-neutral” and calling for tighter rules to protect forests and their carbon. Yet just a month later, EU ministers rubber-stamped the existing carbon accounting rules, reaffirming that the burning of wood pellets is renewable energy.

Under the terms of both the UN Paris climate agreement and Europe’s internal rules, carbon losses from forests supplying power stations should be declared as changes to the carbon storage capacity of forest landscapes. But such changes are seldom reported in national inventories. And there is no system either within the EU or at the UN for reporting actual changes in carbon stocks on land, so the carbon is not accounted for at either end — when trees are cut, or when the wood is burned.

Wood burning is turning into a major loophole in controlling carbon emissions. The U.S. could be the next country to take advantage. A federal spending bill that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year directed the Environmental Protection Agency to establish policies “that reflect the carbon neutrality of biomass” and to “encourage private investment throughout the forest biomass supply chain,” paving the way for a boom in American pellet burning.

Slovakia_Bardejov-Plant_Pearce_web.jpg

Logs await processing at a wood pellet plant in Bardejov, Slovakia. An estimated 10 million cubic meters of wood is logged each year from the country's forests.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/carbon-loophole-why-is-wood-burning-counted-as-green-energy

The Coalition to Ban Coalitions,i to am a tree hugger, we have a lot of timber on our property ,but we will not cut ,i am in the woods every day i mean every day unless i am fishing.
i am so tired of this ,The Coalition to Ban Coalitions
 
Again...somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I think saying 'most carbon neutral' would go a long way. The Big Dog links actually dispel the lies about deforestation. The whole idea of pellets is to use waste. Just as you or I would burn tops/cull trees, and sell off the furniture/veneer grade trees if we were managing our own woods.

DRAX gets 25% of its wood from Enviva. So let's dispel that lie of yours right now.
Drax claims that 9.5% is from sawdust. So twist, spin and lie all you want, those are the figures for recycled wood that YOU asked for.

Instead of leaving the non-commercial use wood behind for the critters and fertilization, the corporations now strip EVERYTHING from the forest and leave absolutely nothing behind for the wildlife, not even crooked trees or saplings.

You're an anti-environmentalist asshole just like your hero, the virtue signaling Goarcle. The worst thing that ever happened to environmentalism is the Goracle.

Furthermore, there are environmental groups that claim your favorite Big Corporation is lying and cheating about their wood harvesting. But you will believe Big Corp over true environmentalists ... just so you can virtue signal ... 'cause your certainly not saving the planet by burning tree scraps.

You even fail to acknowledge that there is not enough waste to meet even current demand, much less a vast future commercial wood burning enterprise. :palm:
 

DRAX gets 25% of its wood from Enviva. So let's dispel that lie of yours right now.
Drax claims that 9.5% is from sawdust. So twist, spin and lie all you want, those are the figures for recycled wood that YOU asked for.

Instead of leaving the non-commercial use wood behind for the critters and fertilization, the corporations now strip EVERYTHING from the forest and leave absolutely nothing behind for the wildlife, not even crooked trees or saplings.

You're an anti-environmentalist asshole just like your hero, the virtue signaling Goarcle. The worst thing that ever happened to environmentalism is the Goracle.

Furthermore, there are environmental groups that claim your favorite Big Corporation is lying and cheating about their wood harvesting. But you will believe Big Corp over true environmentalists ... just so you can virtue signal ... 'cause your certainly not saving the planet by burning tree scraps.

You even fail to acknowledge that there is not enough waste to meet even current demand, much less a vast future commercial wood burning enterprise. :palm:
Interesting that you're taking the word of a liberal who typically posts on Alternet, as a source for your information. Macon...the liberal you now agree with, trudged through muddy swamps to spy in logging trucks cutting 'hardwood cypress'(cypress is NOT a hardwood). Did he ask why the swamp was being cleared? Does someone with his agenda carry any more credibility to you than other libtards that you dismiss on a daily basis?
 
Interesting that you're taking the word of a liberal who typically posts on Alternet, as a source for your information. Macon...the liberal you now agree with, trudged through muddy swamps to spy in logging trucks cutting 'hardwood cypress'(cypress is NOT a hardwood). Did he ask why the swamp was being cleared? Does someone with his agenda carry any more credibility to you than other libtards that you dismiss on a daily basis?

So you're only response to all the issues in my post, is to defend the Giant Al Gorian Corporation :palm: You're a dick.
 
Use your google finger.
You will be surprised.
There have been many thousands not even counting Chernobyl.

Lying toerag!! I gave you a link to the UNSCEAR report but you just ignored that because your feels told you otherwise.



From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials from generating electricity with nuclear power. As in other industries, the design and operation of nuclear power plants aims to minimise the likelihood of accidents, and avoid major human consequences when they occur. There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.

These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 17,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries. The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.

http://world-nuclear.org/informatio...-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Lying toerag!! I gave you a link to the UNSCEAR report but you just ignored that because your feels told you otherwise.





http://world-nuclear.org/informatio...-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

Bull fucking crap.
The road to "safe" nukes was long and perilous. There were a great many accidents for whatever reason and Japan just prooved they haven't stopped yet regardless of earthquakes or backup cooling systems.
I could go on and on but it is pointless with Tom.
 
Lying toerag!! I gave you a link to the UNSCEAR report but you just ignored that because your feels told you otherwise.





http://world-nuclear.org/informatio...-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

Bull fucking crap.
The road to "safe" nukes was long and perilous. There were a great many accidents for whatever reason and Japan just proved they haven't stopped yet regardless of earthquakes or backup cooling systems.
I could go on and on but it is pointless with Tom.
 
Bull fucking crap.
The road to "safe" nukes was long and perilous. There were a great many accidents for whatever reason and Japan just proved they haven't stopped yet regardless of earthquakes or backup cooling systems.
I could go on and on but it is pointless with Tom.

Of course it is pointless because you are wrong. Japan's nuclear regulator in October approved an application from Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) to restart reactors 6 and 7 at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the world' s biggest nuclear power plant.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Bull fucking crap.
The road to "safe" nukes was long and perilous. There were a great many accidents for whatever reason and Japan just proved they haven't stopped yet regardless of earthquakes or backup cooling systems.
I could go on and on but it is pointless with Tom.
Yes you do go on and on, on that we agree.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 

So you're only response to all the issues in my post, is to defend the Giant Al Gorian Corporation :palm: You're a dick.
I don't buy the issues, given the source. I'm surprised that you offer a libtard/snowflake/tree hugger/moonbat's claims as evidence.
 
Bull fucking crap.
The road to "safe" nukes was long and perilous. There were a great many accidents for whatever reason and Japan just prooved they haven't stopped yet regardless of earthquakes or backup cooling systems.
I could go on and on but it is pointless with Tom.
Sorry but you are damned by your own words, you even reject the findings of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation report on Chernobyl.

China meanwhile, has 37 nuclear reactors operating with a capacity of 32.4 GW and another 20 under construction with a capacity of 20.5 GW. Additional reactors are also planned, providing 58 GW of capacity by 2020. These are all incredibly safe third generation plus PWRs equipped with passive shutdown technology meaning that an accident like that at Fukushima is impossible.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
How many deaths occurred from US nuclear energy?
Or Fukushima come to that, he's just a badly informed fool that refuses to learn the truth.

In its 2015 report, The Fukushima Daiichi Accident, the IAEA stated, “No early radiation induced health effects were observed among workers or members of the public that could be attributed to the accident.”

The IAEA noted that the “latency time for late radiation health effects can be decades,” but said “given the low levels of doses reported among members of the public, the conclusions of this report are in agreement with those of the UNSCEAR to the United Nations General Assembly.”

The UNSCEAR had reported in May 2013, two years after the Fukushima accident, “Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers.”

“No radiation-related deaths or acute effects have been observed among nearly 25,000 workers (including TEPCO employees and contractors) involved at the accident site,” reported the UNSCEAR. *(TEPCO is the acronym for the Tokyo Electric Power Company.)

“On the whole,” said UNSCEAR, “the exposure of the Japanese population was low, or very low, leading to correspondingly low risks of health effects later in life.. The actions taken to protect the public (evacuation and sheltering) significantly reduced the radiation exposures that would have otherwise been received.”

Three TEPCO workers were killed “directly by the earthquake and tsunami, but there have been no fatalities from the nuclear accident,” reported the World Nuclear Association in April 2016.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...ths-caused-fukushima-nuclear-radiation-leak-0





Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I don't buy the issues, given the source. I'm surprised that you offer a libtard/snowflake/tree hugger/moonbat's claims as evidence.

DRAX gets 25% of its wood from Enviva. So let's dispel that lie of yours right now. Drax claims that 9.5% is from sawdust. So twist, spin and lie all you want, those are the figures for recycled wood that YOU asked for.

Instead of leaving the non-commercial use wood behind for the critters and fertilization, the corporations now strip EVERYTHING from the forest and leave absolutely nothing behind for the wildlife, not even crooked trees or saplings.

You're an anti-environmentalist asshole just like your hero, the virtue signaling Goarcle. The worst thing that ever happened to environmentalism is the Goracle.

Furthermore, there are environmental groups that claim your favorite Big Corporation is lying and cheating about their wood harvesting. But you will believe Big Corp over true environmentalists ... just so you can virtue signal ... 'cause your certainly not saving the planet by burning tree scraps.

You even fail to acknowledge that there is not enough waste to meet even current demand, much less a vast future commercial wood burning enterprise.
 
Back
Top