I don't disagree with your basic point. But a problem that doesn't get discussed is what to do with the leftover branches, chips, sawdust, etc. that result from turning trees into lumber. I'm not sure it can just be left on the forest floor. And does the leftover stuff increase the fire risk?
Drax imports pellets from the Southeast US made from entire trees, not just the unusable parts. That's truly nuts, from a climate change perspective. But burning just the unusable wood is more complicated. What is the alternative fuel that would be burned to make the power? Is that alternative better or worse than using the wood?
I took a bit of a look into some figures and data involved here.
Roger Pielke writes recently on his Substack that: "wildfire emissions have declined globally since 2003, based on data from the EU." This is good news.
Also, it's good to be careful about using scientists' remarks from journalism, rather than from scientific reports. For instance, I took a look at Steven Davis's (quoted above, from Cal-Irvine) and the other related reports, and they show this:
-Boreal emissions were .48 gtons of carbon in 2021.
-Flight emissions in 2019, before the pandemic, were 1.7 gtons, factoring in a low multiplier for extra climate forcing. If you factor in a larger multiplier, such as the UK uses, then it's double that amount.
This means that Davis was somewhat cherrypicking data for his quote that "boreal fires were double the carbon emissions from flying that year." If you take typical flight emissions for a typical year, then the boreal fires in 2021 were 28% of recent years' flight emissions average. Factoring in the UK's flight emissions climate multiplier (2x), those boreal-fire emissions were only 14% of flight emissions. Then there is the fact that forest fire smoke also has a cooling effect, and not including that in these claims is also a form of obfuscation or a mistake, it would seem.
hi Lloyd, this is a great explanation about how we got to biomass. And it is a super vivid explanation about carbon types. Thanks. But I have a question:
Assume you are in a part of the world where you are substituting biomass energy for coal/oil.
Assume you are burning it in one of those super high tech Danish heat/waste recovery facilties, that both filter the particles and recover the heat from burning.
Then your argument that it is like a ‘forest fire’ doesn’t seem to hold up? The fires don’t replace any other energy. Their emissions are not filtered in anyway from damaging particulates. And certainly their carbon is not filtered, as you so vividly point out.
What I don’t know is the deep science of the heat recovery systems to know if some of the particles they recover are the carbon particles. They recover a lot, and my I-sustain tours in 2004 claimed that the emissions were as clean as steam. Of course the wood or waste got burned, and the carbon is no longer in the wood. But isn’t that a bit like wood decomposing inside a soil bank, whether the roots of a dead tree or a landfill? The carbon goes back to the earth, or is capped by landfill, but is not released to the atmosphere.
Your comments remind me again of a chapter title from Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart's book, "Why being less bad is no good." We don't want, and can't afford, to be carbon neutral. We have to be carbon negative. You can't burn the trees and draw down carbon. This means conservation and reduction first, then solar and wind for production of energy. Nothing works if we don't consume less. The prompts doing exactly the things you promote, passive house building, riding bikes, living more densely in cities with decentralized and more convenient shopping, and more. A crucial and more is to grow our own food where possible and planting a trillion trees that mature successfully. Premier Ford, and Governor Youngkin in my state, are so off base that laughing at them is the only appropriate response.
I don't disagree with your basic point. But a problem that doesn't get discussed is what to do with the leftover branches, chips, sawdust, etc. that result from turning trees into lumber. I'm not sure it can just be left on the forest floor. And does the leftover stuff increase the fire risk?
Drax imports pellets from the Southeast US made from entire trees, not just the unusable parts. That's truly nuts, from a climate change perspective. But burning just the unusable wood is more complicated. What is the alternative fuel that would be burned to make the power? Is that alternative better or worse than using the wood?
I took a bit of a look into some figures and data involved here.
Roger Pielke writes recently on his Substack that: "wildfire emissions have declined globally since 2003, based on data from the EU." This is good news.
Also, it's good to be careful about using scientists' remarks from journalism, rather than from scientific reports. For instance, I took a look at Steven Davis's (quoted above, from Cal-Irvine) and the other related reports, and they show this:
-Boreal emissions were .48 gtons of carbon in 2021.
-Flight emissions in 2019, before the pandemic, were 1.7 gtons, factoring in a low multiplier for extra climate forcing. If you factor in a larger multiplier, such as the UK uses, then it's double that amount.
This means that Davis was somewhat cherrypicking data for his quote that "boreal fires were double the carbon emissions from flying that year." If you take typical flight emissions for a typical year, then the boreal fires in 2021 were 28% of recent years' flight emissions average. Factoring in the UK's flight emissions climate multiplier (2x), those boreal-fire emissions were only 14% of flight emissions. Then there is the fact that forest fire smoke also has a cooling effect, and not including that in these claims is also a form of obfuscation or a mistake, it would seem.
hi Lloyd, this is a great explanation about how we got to biomass. And it is a super vivid explanation about carbon types. Thanks. But I have a question:
Assume you are in a part of the world where you are substituting biomass energy for coal/oil.
Assume you are burning it in one of those super high tech Danish heat/waste recovery facilties, that both filter the particles and recover the heat from burning.
Then your argument that it is like a ‘forest fire’ doesn’t seem to hold up? The fires don’t replace any other energy. Their emissions are not filtered in anyway from damaging particulates. And certainly their carbon is not filtered, as you so vividly point out.
What I don’t know is the deep science of the heat recovery systems to know if some of the particles they recover are the carbon particles. They recover a lot, and my I-sustain tours in 2004 claimed that the emissions were as clean as steam. Of course the wood or waste got burned, and the carbon is no longer in the wood. But isn’t that a bit like wood decomposing inside a soil bank, whether the roots of a dead tree or a landfill? The carbon goes back to the earth, or is capped by landfill, but is not released to the atmosphere.
Would love to learn more.
Thanks,
Susan
Your comments remind me again of a chapter title from Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart's book, "Why being less bad is no good." We don't want, and can't afford, to be carbon neutral. We have to be carbon negative. You can't burn the trees and draw down carbon. This means conservation and reduction first, then solar and wind for production of energy. Nothing works if we don't consume less. The prompts doing exactly the things you promote, passive house building, riding bikes, living more densely in cities with decentralized and more convenient shopping, and more. A crucial and more is to grow our own food where possible and planting a trillion trees that mature successfully. Premier Ford, and Governor Youngkin in my state, are so off base that laughing at them is the only appropriate response.