[Stoves] Off-topic news: Biomass power is not climate-neutral
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Tue Jan 3 12:05:38 CST 2017
To Nikhil only,
I agree that your message is "Off-topic". Thank you for making that
clear in your subject line. Please do not make more messages that are
so far off-topic that they just are beyond the scope of the Stoves Listserv.
Thanks,
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 1/3/2017 9:04 AM, Traveller wrote:
> Oh, dear. Just because a tree is releasing CO2 absorbed earlier makes
> it carbon neutral?
>
> Then all trees could be harvested, burnt, and that would still be
> carbon neutral. I don't think IPCC allows that -- its inventorying
> methods require that such "land use change" be reported separately.
>
> ****
> Another way of putting the question (and I think this is implied by
> the current methods) is whether the CO2 released will in future be
> absorbed by another tree.
>
> But that raises a different problem -- this re-absorption may take
> years and that it may happen somewhere else. Assuming that the Drax
> carbon emissions from biomass burning were to be re-absorbed in the US
> forests where the pellets came from is quite a stretch.
>
> And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon
> from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere.
>
> Since CO2 from wood combustion in a power plant is no different from
> CO2 from my breaths or cremation or CO2 from a power plant, it is
> plausible to argue that CO2 from Chinese coal-fired power plant is
> what gets absorbed in the net expansion of boreal forests in Canada
> and Europe.
>
> Aha! But then we have the dilemma of changing the albedo effect.
> (Reforestation Doesn’t Fight Climate Change Unless It’s Done Right
> <https://thinkprogress.org/planting-trees-climate-change-solution-3e5b6979561f#.jok1faoia>,
> Natasha Geiling, ThinkProgress, 31 August 2016).
>
> Perhaps it's better to trim boreal forests, convert into charcoal, and
> export to Nigeria, Ethiopia, DRC.
>
> Albedo effect, apart, bioenergy capture has another problem - "“But if
> you are going to do BECCS, you are going to have to grow an awful lot
> of trees and the impact on land use may have very significant effects
> on food security,” (Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying
> consequences, say scientists
> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change>,
> Damien Carrington, Guardian (UK) 26 November 2014)
>
> In short, the CO2 accounting business is riddled with confusion.
>
> ****
>
> Deliberate confusion for political purposes. The methods of GHG
> accounting are NOT value-free; they (including the choice to use
> 100-year GWPs instead of 20- or 50-year GWPs) are intentionally
> biased. (I was marginally involved with this 30-odd years ago.)
>
> The most serious objection to the purported "carbon neutrality" of
> "biomass" is that depending on combustion technology, the emissions of
> non-CO2 GHGs - methane, which is counted under Kyoto cooking of
> numbers, and NMVOCs, CO, which Kyoto does not permit -- are more
> potent than CO2.
>
> If you add in black carbon, the non-CO2 damage is significantly higher.
>
> More so if you use 20-year GWP (my preference for the developing
> countries).
>
> The combined GHG loads from biomass direct thermal use around the
> world - when counting all GHGs and black carbon (I can cook up some
> estimates) - are in the range of all CO2 from Indian coal-fired power
> plants, maybe even all CO2 from Chinese coal-fired power plants.
>
> So, global warming is due to inefficient biomass use, as much as it is
> from India-China coal-fired power plants.
>
> Surprised?
>
> Some sages said 16+ years ago, "If one is going to put carbon in the
> atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least harmful species from climate or
> health point of view."
>
> The policy implications of this observation are profound.
>
> To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period.
>
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------
> (US +1) 202-568-5831
> //
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com
> <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
>
> Nikhil,
>
> I’m thinking the energy used to make the pellets and transport are
> from fossil fuel. The CO2 released during combustion is from a
> tree that once took it out of the air. And during combustion is
> now releasing it back into the air - carbon neutral.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
> Keith Day Company, Inc.
> 1091 Madison Lane
> Salinas, CA 93907
> (831) 246-0417 <tel:%28831%29%20246-0417> cell
> (831) 771-0126 <tel:%28831%29%20771-0126> office
> fShields at keithdaycompany.com <mailto:fShields at keithdaycompany.com>
>
>
>
> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
>
>
>
>> On Jan 2, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:miata98 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> This is about US wood being exported to the Drax station in England.
>>
>> "The growing transatlantic trade is being financed with billions
>> of dollars in European climate subsidies
>> <http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/> because of a
>> regulatory loophole that allows wood energy to count as if it’s
>> as clean as solar or wind energy, when in reality it’s often
>> worse for the climate than burning coal. Only the pollution
>> released when wood pellets are produced and transported is
>> counted on climate ledgers. Actual pollution from the smokestack
>> — by far the greatest source of carbon pollution from wood energy
>> — is overlooked."
>>
>> E.U. loophole counts wood energy as “carbon neutral.” It’s not.
>> <http://grist.org/article/e-u-loophole-counts-wood-energy-as-carbon-neutral-its-not/> John
>> Upton, Grist, 1 January 2017
>>
>> Why wasn't such loophole applied to cookstoves project, I wonder.
>>
>> Bean-counters for the poor, unite!
>>
>> Nikhil
>>
>> ---------
>> (US +1) 202-568-5831 <tel:%28202%29%20568-5831>
>> //
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>> <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our
>> web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170103/0d553823/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list