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

cancel2 2022

Canceled
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
 
Back to the "good ol' days" when we heated our houses with wood, and lighted our homes with whale oil.

Liberals
:palm:
 
I woke up to the smell of wood stoves..yuk. Normally our winters are crisp and clear and no air pollution,'
But these blockheads who think they are in the mountains burn wood instead of nat gas, and it stinks -
ruins an other wise nice morning
 
I woke up to the smell of wood stoves..yuk. Normally our winters are crisp and clear and no air pollution,'
But these blockheads who think they are in the mountains burn wood instead of nat gas, and it stinks -
ruins an other wise nice morning

I actually like the smell of wood smoke, but there is such thing as too much of a good thing. I myself heat 100% with wood, but my nearest neighbor is over a quarter mile away.
 
I actually like the smell of wood smoke, but there is such thing as too much of a good thing. I myself heat 100% with wood, but my nearest neighbor is over a quarter mile away.
*barf* keep that shit out in the country. 1 house on a city block ruins the entire "atmosphere" for the rest of us
 
You're an idiot. Let's hold a basic physics conversation. Where do you suppose it was that the carbon in trees came from?

Exactly. Trees are carbon neutral. Any carbon they have was removed from the atmosphere to begin with so any that they return to the environment is already carbon that would have been there anyway.
 
Here is a prime example of classic greenwash in action, I really do not understand how this is even allowed to happen.

That doesn't make any sense, does it? Wood is a renewable resource, but it takes years upon years to replenish when cut down. Plus unless they are using some sort of scrubbers, all the carbon contained in the wood goes right back into the atmosphere when burned. What are they doing with the ashes?

Fairbanks Alaska in the winter is a good example showing why wood-burning isn't green. It sits in a shallow bowl surrounded by hills. In the winter it sometimes gets so heavily polluted due to the use of wood stoves and furnaces, oil - and coal-burning furnaces, etc. that people with respiratory problems can't go outside. At times the pollution is equal to -- or worse -- than Beijing's.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/us/alaskans-cost-of-staying-warm-a-thick-coat-of-dirty-air.html
 
*barf* keep that shit out in the country. 1 house on a city block ruins the entire "atmosphere" for the rest of us

I agree, and I am in the country. Wood burning has no place in an urban setting. Beyond maybe a small back yard chimenea.
 
I actually like the smell of wood smoke, but there is such thing as too much of a good thing. I myself heat 100% with wood, but my nearest neighbor is over a quarter mile away.

Same here. We have a population density here of 3.7 ppl per square mile, so it's not as bad as it would be in a typical suburban subdivision.
 
Exactly. Trees are carbon neutral. Any carbon they have was removed from the atmosphere to begin with so any that they return to the environment is already carbon that would have been there anyway.

Yes, but the new plantings to replace them will take decades to reach the carbon storing potential of the mature trees removed. Plus, do you think wood smoke is non-toxic? What about wood ash? I am not against using wood for energy, but don't pretend it's "green".
 
I love the smell of a wood stove. We used them for cooking and heating. It was good work for a young person to be responsible to cut and haul wood and then to make sure that it was available in the house each night. A lady in our congregation still cooks on a wood stove like the one below, though hers isn’t quite as ornate and fancy.

qsr4g6.jpg
 
Same here. We have a population density here of 3.7 ppl per square mile, so it's not as bad as it would be in a typical suburban subdivision.

Yep, and like I said, I like the smell of wood smoke, but I don't want to be choked out by it. It never fails in the Summer, you'll light the burn pile, and the wind will shift so the smoke follows you around the yard, lol. :D
 
Yep, and like I said, I like the smell of wood smoke, but I don't want to be choked out by it. It never fails in the Summer, you'll light the burn pile, and the wind will shift so the smoke follows you around the yard, lol. :D

Smoke follows beauty, you know. At least that’s what dad said as the smoke swallowed my mom when they were burning brush. :D
 
Exactly. Trees are carbon neutral. Any carbon they have was removed from the atmosphere to begin with so any that they return to the environment is already carbon that would have been there anyway.

Trees are a carbon sink if they are allowed to die and rot.
 
No, that would return the carbon to the cycle. The trees would have to be buried deep in the earth for the carbon to be sequestered.

While some carbon is returned to the atmosphere during the decomposing process, trees are a net carbon sink. Don't doubt me.
 
Yes, but the new plantings to replace them will take decades to reach the carbon storing potential of the mature trees removed. Plus, do you think wood smoke is non-toxic? What about wood ash? I am not against using wood for energy, but don't pretend it's "green".

Young trees take up more carbon than older trees relative to their size. Once a young tree reaches maturity, it's going to take up more carbon than during the latter parts of its life. This is not a comment about burning wood, just the carbon cycle. And in the green sense it is carbon neutral. Particulate from burning is not the same thing.
 
Back
Top