<div dir="ltr">Oh, dear. Just because a tree is releasing CO2 absorbed earlier makes it carbon neutral? <br><br>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. <br><br>****<br><div>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. <br></div><div><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br></div><br>Aha! But then we have the dilemma of changing the albedo effect. (<a href="https://thinkprogress.org/planting-trees-climate-change-solution-3e5b6979561f#.jok1faoia" target="_blank">Reforestation Doesn’t Fight Climate Change Unless It’s Done Right</a>, Natasha Geiling, ThinkProgress, 31 August 2016). <div><br></div><div>Perhaps it's better to trim boreal forests, convert into charcoal, and export to Nigeria, Ethiopia, DRC. <br><br>Albedo effect, apart, bioenergy capture has another problem - "<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"guardian text egyptian web",georgia,serif;font-size:medium">“</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"guardian text egyptian web",georgia,serif">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,” (</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"guardian egyptian web","guardian text egyptian web",georgia,serif"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change" target="_blank">Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists</a>, Damien Carrington, Guardian (UK) 26 November 2014)</span><div><font size="2"><br></font></div>In short, the CO2 accounting business is riddled with confusion. <br><br>****<br><br>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.) <br><br>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. </div><div><br></div><div>If you add in black carbon, the non-CO2 damage is significantly higher. <br><br>More so if you use 20-year GWP (my preference for the developing countries). </div><div><br>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. <br><br>So, global warming is due to inefficient biomass use, as much as it is from India-China coal-fired power plants. <br><br>Surprised? <br><br>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." <br><br>The policy implications of this observation are profound. <br><br>To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period. <br><br><br>Nikhil</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br><br><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>--------- </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">(US +1) 202-568-5831<br><i> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Frank Shields <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Nikhil, <div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div>
<div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>Frank</div><div>Frank Shields</div><div>Gabilan Laboratory</div><div>Keith Day Company, Inc.</div><div>1091 Madison Lane</div><div>Salinas, CA 93907</div><div><a href="tel:(831)%20246-0417" value="+18312460417" target="_blank">(831) 246-0417</a> cell</div><div><a href="tel:(831)%20771-0126" value="+18317710126" target="_blank">(831) 771-0126</a> office</div><div><a href="mailto:fShields@keithdaycompany.com" target="_blank">fShields@keithdaycompany.com</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="mailto:franke@cruzio.com" target="_blank">franke@cruzio.com</a></div><div><br></div><br class="m_-3174680308627332119Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5"><div>On Jan 2, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Traveller <<a href="mailto:miata98@gmail.com" target="_blank">miata98@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-3174680308627332119Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr">This is about US wood being exported to the Drax station in England. <br><br>"<span style="color:rgb(9,34,43);font-family:merriweather,georgia,"droid serif",cambria,"times new roman",times,serif;font-size:16px">The growing transatlantic trade is being financed with </span><a href="http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/" style="box-sizing:border-box;color:rgb(5,74,97);line-height:inherit;border-bottom:0.0625rem solid rgb(148,168,183);font-family:merriweather,georgia,"droid serif",cambria,"times new roman",times,serif;font-size:16px;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">billions of dollars in European climate subsidies</a><span style="color:rgb(9,34,43);font-family:merriweather,georgia,"droid serif",cambria,"times new roman",times,serif;font-size:16px"> 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."</span><br><br><a href="http://grist.org/article/e-u-loophole-counts-wood-energy-as-carbon-neutral-its-not/" target="_blank">E.U. loophole counts wood energy as “carbon neutral.” It’s not.</a> John Upton, Grist, 1 January 2017<br><br>Why wasn't such loophole applied to cookstoves project, I wonder. <br><br>Bean-counters for the poor, unite! <br><br>Nikhil<br><div><div class="m_-3174680308627332119gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>--------- </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">(US <a href="tel:(202)%20568-5831" value="+12025685831" target="_blank">+1) 202-568-5831</a><br><i> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_<wbr>lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/</a><br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>