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

Right said:
Algore is his messiah.
Click to expand...

The Goracle is pro nuke.

I hope this thread stays on topic, i.e. ... the booming wood burning commercial power plant industry.

You guys have hashed and rehashed the nuke arguments until the cows come home.
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:

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.
Click to expand...
There is no shortage of pellets. Ever. Maybe if this cold snap keeps up, we'll see stock dwindle, but I buy mine in the fall. I see no shortages at any local distributors.

You can't complain about not using the crooked/sickly trees, or the tops, while complaining that they don't leave them behind for wildlife. Pick an argument and stick to it.


Would you recommend that the EPA restrict the way wood is used for pellet fuel?
 
New study due to be published this month shows that burning wood pellets actually emit more CO2 per kilowatt hour than that generated by coal.

The researchers found that wood pellets burned in European and UK power plants, such as the Drax facility in North Yorkshire—which has transitioned some of its coal power generation capacity to wood pellets with the support of UK government subsidies—actually emit more CO2 per kilowatt hour than that generated by coal. This is because wood is both less efficient at the point of combustion and has larger processing and supply chain emissions than coal. Their research shows that using wood instead of coal in power generation increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, worsening climate change until—and only if—the harvested forests regrow.

US forests are a main source for EU wood pellet imports, which have been rising as demand has grown. These forests grow back slowly, so it takes a long time to repay the initial “carbon debt” incurred by burning wood instead of coal. For forests in the central and eastern US, which supply much of the wood used in UK power plants, the payback time for this carbon debt ranges from 44 to 104 years, depending on forest type—and assuming the land remains forest. If the land is developed, or converted to agricultural use, then the carbon debt is never repaid and grows over time as the harvested land emits additional carbon from soils.

https://www.thegwpf.com/europes-green-energy-burning-is-worse-than-coal/

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Havana Moon said:
New study due to be published this month shows that burning wood pellets actually emit more CO2 per kilowatt hour than that generated by coal.

The researchers found that wood pellets burned in European and UK power plants, such as the Drax facility in North Yorkshire—which has transitioned some of its coal power generation capacity to wood pellets with the support of UK government subsidies—actually emit more CO2 per kilowatt hour than that generated by coal. This is because wood is both less efficient at the point of combustion and has larger processing and supply chain emissions than coal. Their research shows that using wood instead of coal in power generation increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, worsening climate change until—and only if—the harvested forests regrow.

US forests are a main source for EU wood pellet imports, which have been rising as demand has grown. These forests grow back slowly, so it takes a long time to repay the initial “carbon debt” incurred by burning wood instead of coal. For forests in the central and eastern US, which supply much of the wood used in UK power plants, the payback time for this carbon debt ranges from 44 to 104 years, depending on forest type—and assuming the land remains forest. If the land is developed, or converted to agricultural use, then the carbon debt is never repaid and grows over time as the harvested land emits additional carbon from soils.

https://www.thegwpf.com/europes-green-energy-burning-is-worse-than-coal/

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This new study is from researchers at MIT, Climate Interactive, and UMass Lowell.


Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
image_thumb57.png


The race to adopt green energy has led to the use of materials that are dirtier, costlier and require the felling of hardwood forests in America, it is claimed.
Acres of trees have been chopped down to create wood pellets that are shipped across the Atlantic to be burned in a British power station. The idea is that power produced from what is called ‘biomass’ at the giant Drax power station, in North Yorkshire, is cleaner and greener than using coal.

4B3237E100000578-5619215-image-a-1_1523833897813.jpg

Acres of trees have been chopped down to create wood pellets that are shipped across the Atlantic to be burned in a British power station

But research by British academics suggests wood pellets create more carbon emissions than supposedly dirty coal. On top of that, British consumers are subsidising the use of these pellets in pursuit of Government green policies. Estimates suggest the policy adds up to £700million a year to bills. Details of the felling of one US hardwood forest in Virginia – home to a wide variety of wildlife – has been uncovered by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme.

The biomass industry and UK government argue that because wood is a renewable source of energy, and trees can be replanted to reabsorb carbon dioxide, this policy is good for the environment. Labelling electricity produced by Drax as ‘green’ mean that this one plant produces 17 per cent of the country’s entire renewable power – enough to power four million homes – and is not obliged to report the carbon emissions it produces


4B3237E100000578-5619215-image-a-1_1523833897813.jpg


Yet, it is claimed that the Drax plant produces millions of tonnes more greenhouse gases using wood pellets than coal. Footage shows the US forest being chopped down and taken to a factory owned by US firm Enviva, which grinds logs into pellets. As one of Enviva’s main customers, a large proportion of these are shipped to the UK. The power station giant claims that burning pellets instead of coal reduces carbon emissions by more than 80 per cent.

However, Dispatches conducted a simple experiment at a laboratory at the University of Nottingham which found that to burn an amount of wood pellets generating the same amount of electricity as coal, it would actually produce roughly 8 per cent more carbon.

Clean energy, big bills

Household energy bills are increasing by an average of £23 this year to reflect the rising cost of switching to green energy, says industry regulator Ofgem.
This takes the figure up to £135 on a typical household bill of £1,100 for a standard variable tariff.
Under a scheme known as the Renewables Obligation, energy companies are required to buy a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable sources, which could be a so-called biomass plant burning wood, such as Drax, or wind farms.
These energy supplies are typically more expensive than the cheapest form of power, which most often comes from gas- fired power stations.
The bill for this scheme, which is passed on to customers through bills, is rising by £700million this year to reach £5.4billion. And a so-called Contracts for Difference scheme pays low-carbon generators to develop new projects.
​

The programme calculated that if Drax were to report fully on its chimney stack emissions it would show a figure of 11.7 million tonnes of CO2 last year. Yet Drax claims that this is not an issue because replanting trees means that all carbon dioxide will be reabsorbed. Professor Bill Moomaw helped lead a team that won a Nobel Peace Prize for its work on climate change at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He said: ‘If we take the forests and burn them, the carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere instantly, in a few minutes. It takes decades to a century to replace that.’

Drax Power’s chief executive Andy Koss said: ‘I am very comfortable that all the material what we source meets regulatory standards in the UK and meets our very strict sustainability criteria.’ He explained that the Virginia forest at the centre of the investigation would be regrown. Enviva insisted it works to ‘industry leading, strict sustainability and wood-sourcing policies and certifications’. Meanwhile, the Government’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy said: ‘Between 1990 and 2016, the UK reduced its emissions by over 40 per cent.’

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/burning-green-pellets-is-filthier-than-using-coal/
 
Lie #1. While some carbon is released, much is sequestered undergroud via the root system. Even when burned, Trees remove more carbon than they release.
Lie #2. Pellets need not be hardwood.
Pound for pound the BTU content is the same.
Lie #3. The trees harvested for pellets are not taken from virgin forrests. They were planted by paper mill owners a generation ago. They most certainly are renewable.

Dr. Moomaw's comment borders on mental retardation.
If we take coal and burn it, the carbon enters the atmosphere immediately, having been collected over millions of years. It is very interesting that Tom doesn't understand the phenomenon of burning fossil fuels.

Note, all of the above was covered already.
 
Rune said:
Lie #1. While some carbon is released, much is sequestered undergroud via the root system. Even when burned, Trees remove more carbon than they release.
Lie #2. Pellets need not be hardwood.
Pound for pound the BTU content is the same.
Lie #3. The trees harvested for pellets are not taken from virgin forrests. They were planted by paper mill owners a generation ago. They most certainly are renewable.

Dr. Moomaw's comment borders on mental retardation.
If we take coal and burn it, the carbon enters the atmosphere immediately, having been collected over millions of years. It is very interesting that Tom doesn't understand the phenomenon of burning fossil fuels.

Note, all of the above was covered already.
Click to expand...

I watched the Channel 4 documentary last night, very illuminating. It addressed all your 'points', and exposed them as ocean going bullshit.


ba7e3415a179f4faf2d399e08d5ab643.jpg
 
Last edited:
Primavera said:
.
As usual McMoonshi'ite is late to the party, only four years in this case. Equally disturbing is I actually agree with him, although no doubt he'll blame the dastardly Zionists!

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Counted-as-Green-Energy&p=2156447#post2156447
Click to expand...

JOURNALISTS have uncovered the fact that Drax is burning ENVIRONMENTALLY-IMPORTANT FORESTS, maggot. That's NEWS to us environmentalists, although capitalist assholes, such as yourself, may have been involved in concealing it for years.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...s-cutting-down-Canadian-forests-to-burm-in-UK
 
.
The Daily Mail was on the case nearly a decade ago, I really do have to laugh at imbeciles like McMoonshi'ite. You have to pity the fool, he's a truly ignorant peasant and has just only just realised what others knew eight years ago.

The bonfire of insanity: Woodland is shipped 3,800 miles and burned in Drax power station. It belches out more CO2 than coal at a huge cost YOU pay for... and all for a cleaner, greener Britain!

Carolina’s ‘bottomland’ forest is being cut down in swathes, and much of it pulped and turned into wood pellets – so Britain can keep its lights on.

The UK is committed by law to a radical shift to renewable energy. By 2020, the proportion of Britain’s electricity generated from ‘renewable’ sources is supposed to almost triple to 30 per cent, with more than a third of that from what is called ‘biomass’.

The only large-scale way to do this is by burning wood, man’s oldest fuel – because EU rules have determined it is ‘carbon-neutral’.

So our biggest power station, the leviathan Drax plant near Selby in North Yorkshire, is switching from dirty, non-renewable coal. Biomass is far more expensive, but the consumer helps the process by paying subsidies via levies on energy bills.

That’s where North Carolina’s forests come in. They are being reduced to pellets in a gargantuan pulping process at local factories, then shipped across the Atlantic from a purpose-built dock at Chesapeake Port, just across the state line in Virginia.

Those pellets are burnt by the billion at Drax. Each year, says Drax’s head of environment, Nigel Burdett, Drax buys more than a million metric tons of pellets from US firm Enviva, around two thirds of its total output. Most of them come not from fast-growing pine, but mixed, deciduous hardwood.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...uge-cost-YOU-pay-cleaner-greener-Britain.html
 
Last edited:
Money wise wood pellets arent all that great of a deal. Natural gas is still the most cost effective in that regard. You also arent lugging around messy bags of pellets either or having to listen to the ching ching ching of pellets dropping into the burn pot. Pellets also do not even produce a pretty fire to look at as a burning pellet stove looks basically like a small torch. You can buy the little fake log set that sits in front of it but then it just looks like someone put some fake logs in front of a torch! :laugh:

Burning firewood isnt even that great either money wise unless you own the land where you are harvesting it and are willing to do all the work yourself. If not,.....more expensive than natural gas.

I do recommend some of the high efficiency wood products available in wood stoves, inserts, and wood fireplaces. They burn much much much less wood than traditional products and produce enuff heat to heat an entire home. Of the three the fireplace is the best because you can put in a heat zone kit which has its own fan that allows you to channel that heat into your existing ductwork and spread the heat around so you dont end up having a boiling hot couple of rooms by the fireplace and cold areas away from the fireplace. IMO,.....Quadra fire is near the top of the line for the dollars spent.

 
In floor Hydronic heat is still far and away the best though,...powered by natural gas. Nice even heat, cost effective, burning less natural gas. You can and SHOULD if you live in northern climate also run the tubing the hot water runs through into the concrete in your garage floor, sidewalks, and front entryway. Awesome.
 
Primavera said:
.
The Daily Mail was on the case nearly a decade ago, I do have to laugh at imbeciles like McMoonshi'ite.

You do have to pity the fool, he's an ignorant peasant and has just only just realised what others knew eight years ago.
Click to expand...


Show the ' eight years ago ' Daily Mail article .maggot, that states that Drax is burning environmentally-important forests in Canada.
C'mon, asshole- money where mendacious mouth is.


JOURNALISTS have uncovered the fact that Drax is burning ENVIRONMENTALLY-IMPORTANT FORESTS, maggot. That's NEWS to us environmentalists, although capitalist assholes, such as yourself, may have been involved in concealing it for years.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-to-burm-in-UK
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top