Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: How ‘green’ electricity from wood harms the planet — and people
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02676-z

INTRO: The town of Hamlet, North Carolina, seemed to hit the jackpot in September 2014. After the community had endured decades of economic despair and high poverty rates, the world’s largest producer of wood-based energy, Enviva Biomass, announced plans to open a major facility nearby that would turn wood into dense pellets that can be used as fuel. The project promised 80 well-paying jobs for residents in Hamlet and the surrounding area. It seemed like a win for both local people and the planet.

The company’s plant, which opened in 2019, is part of a global expansion in the use of wood — or solid biomass — to generate electricity. Pellet companies advertise their products as a renewable-energy source that lowers carbon emissions, and the European Union agrees, which has spurred many countries, including the United Kingdom, Belgium and Denmark, to embrace this form of energy. As with similar projects worldwide, Enviva Biomass, which is based in Bethesda, Maryland, said that its operations in Hamlet would displace fossil fuels, grow more trees and help to fight climate change.

But opposition is building on many fronts. An expanding body of research shows that burning solid biomass to generate electricity often emits huge amounts of carbon — even more than burning coal does. In February 2021, more than 500 scientists and economists signed a letter to US president Joe Biden and other world leaders urging them to not support using wood to generate energy, arguing that it harms biodiversity and increases carbon emissions. Although pellet companies advertise that their operations consume low-quality wood, this claim has come under increased scrutiny, with mounting evidence of significant deforestation around wood-pellet plants... (MORE - details)
OP Wrote:Sterman and his colleagues calculated that it would take between 44 and 104 years for new trees to absorb as much CO2 as the amount generated by wood bioenergy that displaces coal.
Let's go with a convenient 100 years for the forest to 'suck back' the amount of carbon released by burning it.
Simple arithmetic suggests we can burn 1% of the right type of forest every year and be in equilibium after 1 year (2% and 2 years). The OP bullshit (50-104 years!) is false because it attempts to define whatever bit you burn as being the entire forest.

Seek and ye shall find .. the right type of forest (ignoring the Amazon forest for no particular reason)..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga:-
Quote:Taiga or tayga (/ˈtaɪɡə/ TY-gə; Russian: тайга́), also known as boreal forest or snow forest, is a biome characterized by coniferous forests consisting mostly of pines, spruces, and larches. The taiga or boreal forest is the world's largest land biome.[1] In North America, it covers most of inland Canada, Alaska, and parts of the northern contiguous United States.[2] In Eurasia, it covers most of Sweden, Finland, much of Russia from Karelia in the west to the Pacific Ocean (including much of Siberia), much of Norway and Estonia, some of the Scottish Highlands,[citation needed] some lowland/coastal areas of Iceland, and areas of northern Kazakhstan, northern Mongolia, and northern Japan (on the island of Hokkaidō).[3]

Wood is good. Just burning it can produce electricity when wind and solar aren't enough .. instead of a coal stash you keep a wood stash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol
wiki Wrote:Methanol acquired the name wood alcohol because it was once produced chiefly by the destructive distillation of wood.

Methanol is good enough for rockets .. if 'they' chose to I'm sure 'they' could turn it into something you could safely put in your petrol tank.

Who wouldn't want a carbon neutral alternative to oil?

Personally I'm still in favour of (recently converted to 'em (thanks CC)) nukes which include storage so they can follow demand .. but wood is certainly attractive when looked at with even the tiniest amount of integrity.