[Closed] Seems that burning wood for power “is misguided”

some of the statements spouted re emissions from combustion in this thread are somewhat lacking in depth of knowledge

Edukate us or you're just joining in with the

handbag slapping

with your accusation of

handbag slapping

because this:

I thought Zokes was arguing that burning wood now as carbon neutral is not sustainable, which it's not at scale due to competing land uses, food production being the largest.

makes even less sense than Zokes' own attempt and will upset Zokes and/or Ransos just by including "wood burning" as "carbon neutral" even though stoneage "man" managed to do just that.

Thats one of the problems with clear felling and replanting monocultures, Northwind. The thinning is due to the practice of over planting and then selectively thinning. Trees grow at different rates so in a clear fell some trees still won't ne at maturity but are felled all the same. I too mentionned that pulp tress are harvested younger at maximum mass productivity.

All these factors mean that there's plenty of wood for firewood and pellets produced by a sustainable forest even if that isn't the first objective.

If you abandon a managed forest, the trees will still die and release their captured carbon

I don't think they release it all.

As trees decompose the products decomposition can follow a variety of paths. If the tree is on a hill being slowly eroded then some (most) will ultimately follow the erosion path. In a sinking zone such as a delta then the organic material will be buried and end up in the sediment and end up as coal if burried sufficiently. In the UK trees are usually grown on eroding hillsides so:

If the wood ferments then one of the by-products of fermentation is CO2 released to the atmophere (other gases such as Methane CH4 too). If consumed by other plants it may be fixed as new fibre, if consumed by animals then the carbon will be rejected or stored as flesh or breathed out as CO2. If the organic material leaves in surface water then it enters the river's carbon cycle and may be either released as gas or used by plants and the food chain. If it's stil in the river when the water meets the sea there's a good chance it will be sedimented as flock and incorporated in sediment unless consumed by marine animals or plants.

If you want to explore further then you need to look at each of those paths and research further.

Zokes, some way back before the kids started fighting, you said:

One of the other issues with tidal is that whilst it's endlessly predictable, it's not always there when you need it. A big tide at 2am isn't much use to anyone.

Secondly, the tide comes at different times around the coast, so whilst a single massive site doesn’t solve the problem, and any big source is going to suffer the same infrastructure challenge as wind you can generate tidal power somewhere on the uk coast 24/7.

Thirdly, it should be possible to generate tidal power through a barrier that floods a little like cruachan when the sun and moon decide, but is released when demand is there. There were mills a few hundred years ago that did this on a fairly small scale.

Of course there are genuine and NIMBY issues with large scale tidal relating to ecology, shipping etc. And it may be the dream of free energy doesn’t add up, but people used to say that about wind, and thought the danish were crazy for investing it it.

[b]Edukator:[/b]

The idea that you can stock any signifacnt amount of man-released CO2 in soil on a planet with intensive agriculture, an ever increasing population, growing desert... Just deson't hold up.

That presumes that you're accepting business as usual. As we're waving our willies about what we do, I lead a team of researchers on soil organic matter dynamics at a national science agency. As I said, this is actually my day job... If you're quoting paragraphs from articles back to me though, you'd do well to read all of it, including the penultimate sentence: [i]"But these human activities also now provide an opportunity for sequestering carbon back into soil. "[/i]. Like I said, try reading.

[b]Northwind:[/b]

That, sorry, but it's a completely ridiculous way to think about growing trees

But I'm not thinking about growing trees. I'm thinking about the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which is what matters for the context of global warming. Think of it as sub-prime lending on the climate - it can be tolerated for a while, then it gets too popular, et voila, collapse. Only this time it's the planet we're talking about, not a few banks.

If you abandon a managed forest, the trees will still die and release their captured carbon (over a longer timescale, but still relatively short),

No, they will release some of it, whilst the rest becomes more stabilised in the soil, and released over centennial timescales - the sort of timescale we need to give ourselves breathing space. It also improves soil fertility, health and function, amongst which includes is susceptibility to erosion (which again is another can of worms, as if the C in eroded soil eventually ends up as buried sediment in a lake or estuary, it's probably even more stable than it was in the soil.).

For clarity, I'll say this again. I am simply coming from the perspective of how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how our energy generation activities impact that. Burning wood rather than coal reduces that (e.g. Drax). Burning locally sourced wood reduces it further (e.g. Edukator). However, none of these are carbon neutral, and at the national and certainly the global scale, they are not capable of fulfilling the world's energy requirements. As others have said, we started burning coal primarily because we ran out of trees in the first place...

[b]poly:[/b]

That’s slightly misleading though isn’t it? Firstly whilst power at the wrong time of day is not as useful as instant quick response power there is demand 24/7 (albeit variable) and some options for power storage exist (and as move to more electric vehicles this will increase).
Secondly, the tide comes at different times around the coast, so whilst a single massive site doesn’t solve the problem, and any big source is going to suffer the same infrastructure challenge as wind you can generate tidal power somewhere on the uk coast 24/7.

Thirdly, it should be possible to generate tidal power through a barrier that floods a little like cruachan when the sun and moon decide, but is released when demand is there. There were mills a few hundred years ago that did this on a fairly small scale.

Of course there are genuine and NIMBY issues with large scale tidal relating to ecology, shipping etc. And it may be the dream of free energy doesn’t add up, but people used to say that about wind, and thought the danish were crazy for investing it it.

Thanks Poly. We can store water from high tides in lagoons or estuaries, depending upon the design of the installation. This would depend upon whether the system is there to generate near constant output (turbines spin one way as the tide comes in, and the other way as the tide goes out), or a burst of energy whereby the high tide is released at a faster rate.

I think tidal energy, especially somewhere like the UK with its massive and varied tidal ranges has a substantial place in a future energy mix, and this will probably be a mix of underwater turbines, estuarine lagoons, and stand-alone lagoons with no physical connection to the coast. For me, the biggest issue is the undeniable ecological impact, but that has to be weighed against the ecological impact of business as usual. An 8GW barrage across the Severn, whilst locally quite destructive, is definitely less impactful than the impact of climate change globally, and possibly even on that very same estuary.

"But these human activities also now provide an opportunity for sequestering carbon back into soil. ". Like I said, try reading.

I have which is why my original contrinution which so upset you was "The problem is, Neil, that whilst you worry yourself about how much carbon can be tied up in soil you're fogetting that however much that is it's insignficant because you don't have enough soil."

Against the context of soil loss and appauvrissement you claim that soil sequestration is an answer to global warming. If you really want to convince me you'll have to do and presnet some maths because you're looking at 10 gigatonnes of C to sequester a year in soil which for the reasons I've already stated is currently losing carbon.

I didn't rubbish what you said on the previous page but

Sorry, now you're really just talking bollocks. Soil is the largest terrestrial pool of C. This is pretty basic stuff Edukator. You're starting to make me realise what Brian Cox must feel like having to deal with cretins like Malcolm Roberts.

Just accept that you don't know quite as much about this as at least two others on this thread, shut up, and you might even learn something.

Soil is the largest terrestrial pool of C.

is false (insults not included)

Carbon represents .03% of the earths mass, very approximately 1000 ppm in the earth's crust. The amount in soil is tiny compared with these totals. If you are looking for the highest concentrations in one pool then look at carbonate rocks.

Basisc stuff as you say and worth checking before you accuse someone of "talking bollocks".

If you are looking for the highest concentrations in one pool then look at carbonate rocks.

Are carbonate rocks actively cycling? Do they form part of the living terrestrial ecosystem? Aside from leaching of limestone etc., and its use as lime in agriculture, which is a very small proportion, the answer is no.

When the carbon cycle is discussed, we're typically talking about things we perturb, i.e. organic carbon in the terrestrial system. So, enjoy your faux oneupmanship, and as I said, do some more reading:

NORA.NERC.AC.UK "http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/517116/1/1-s2.0-S0016706117300095-main.pdf"

From the other paper you quoted but neglected to read earlier:

[i]The amount of C in soil represents a substantial portion of the carbon found in terrestrial ecosystems of the planet. Total C in terrestrial ecosystems is approximately 3170 gigatons (GT; 1 GT = 1 petagram = 1 billion metric tons). Of this amount, nearly 80% (2500 GT) is found in soil (Lal 2008). Soil carbon can be either organic (1550 GT) or inorganic carbon (950 GT). The latter consists of elemental carbon and carbonate materials such as calcite, dolomite, and gypsum (Lal 2004). The amount of carbon found in living plants and animals is comparatively small relative to that found in soil (560 GT). The soil carbon pool is approximately 3.1 times larger than the atmospheric pool of 800 GT (Oelkers & Cole 2008). Only the ocean has a larger carbon pool, at about 38,400 GT of C, mostly in inorganic forms (Houghton 2007). [/i]

zokes - Still not a customer

But I'm not thinking about growing trees.

Well yes, that's exactly my point- you're having a conversation about burning wood without thinking about growing trees.

you're having a conversation about burning wood without thinking about growing trees.

I'm not, I'm having a wider conversation about the implications of energy production on the climate, of which biomass can only be a very small part.

I said as much four posts above:

For clarity, I'll say this again. I am simply coming from the perspective of how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how our energy generation activities impact that. Burning wood rather than coal reduces that (e.g. Drax). Burning locally sourced wood reduces it further (e.g. Edukator). However, none of these are carbon neutral, and at the national and certainly the global scale, they are not capable of fulfilling the world's energy requirements. As others have said, we started burning coal primarily because we ran out of trees in the first place...

The moment we start thinking about each technology in isolation is the point at which we'll never get a solution. The task is huge, will require a massive reduction in energy consumption, and just about all the technologies we have at our fingertips or just beyond them. Conventional biomass can play a small part in that, but the facts remain that a) it's not carbon neutral, and b) there's not enough of it for it to become a major player. Further, burning it is often not the smartest thing to do (wood excepted). Some form of biodigestion followed by pyrolysis will produce gas and liquid energy outputs, and more stable carbon in the form of char that can be used as a soil improver in some instances. And if we're talking about growing energy crops, except in areas where you can't grow much else for various reasons, planting trees probably isn't the smartest option anyway.

The man who claims huge amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soil still refuses to accept burning wood can be carbon neutral. Your position is totally contradictory and hypocritical, Zokes. Read the following and follow your own advice to learn something. My advice to you is "il n'y a que des cons qui ne changent pas d'avis":

Take an iron mine spoil tip that is planted with trees as a reclamation and carbon sequestration project. If the planting and exploitation of the resulting woodland is done by hand whatever wood is burned will still be better than carbon neutral because however much wood from the man-made forest is burned carbon will still be being removed from the atmosphere and left as stumps/humous, and stored in the soil or wherever it ends up on being leeched from the soil so long as it isn't back in the atmosphere (see the paths in one of my earlier posts).

However, I'm still a sequestration skeptic; sequestration will never do more than scratch the surface of rising atmospheric CO levels. Emissions are orders of magnitude higher than what can be sequestered. Sequestration also irritates because it's a favourite of green washers. BP made ridiculous claims about using old North Sea oil fields to sequester carbon that were much vaunted by the petrolheads on this forum, the latest on that green washing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/04/uks-retreat-from-carbon-storage-a-mistake-for-crisis-hit-north-s/

If the big brains in here spent more time on their jobs and less on bicycle forums we may solve this problem.

I don't work, Wilburt, but put a lot of time and energy into a low-carbon lifestyle which includes recovering wood locally from tree felling and tree surgery. People who pay to have trees chopped down then have to pay to have the wood removed by big diesel guzzling machines. That's where I come in. I wander along with my electric chain saw and some extension cables, and set about turning the unwanted wood into firewood which I take away in my wheel barrow.

The man who claims huge amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soil still refuses to accept burning wood can be carbon neutral.

That's because the first is a fact which I have backed up with scientific references, whilst the latter is not. We all accept that in moderation it's better than burning fossil fuels, but it is not carbon neutral, for all the reasons several of us have been at lengths to explain to you. Perhaps you'd be a better edukator if you were also better at being edukated.

sequestration will never do more than scratch the surface of rising atmospheric CO [sic] levels.

In the long term that's probably correct, but in the medium term it provides a means to buy us time to shift from burning things for energy. Burning biomass negates that opportunity.

Emissions are orders of magnitude higher than what can be sequestered.

Wrong, see [url= http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/517116/1/1-s2.0-S0016706117300095-main.pdf ]Minasny et al.[/url]

Take an iron mine spoil tip that is planted with trees as a reclamation and carbon sequestration project. If the planting and exploitation of the resulting woodland is done by hand whatever wood is burned will still be better than carbon neutral because however much wood from the man-made forest is burned carbon will still be being removed from the atmosphere and left as stumps/humous, and stored in the soil or wherever it ends up on being leeched from the soil so long as it isn't back in the atmosphere (see the paths in one of my earlier posts).

If you leave the trees there, even more of it's sequestered, and you get quite a nice forest too 💡

I have backed up with scientific references

Which you use out of context.

Mainasny et al. propose unrealisticaly high sequestration objectives and still claim only to sequester roughly a third. Now look in detail at how realististic sequestering 4 per mile is in the countries they quote.

Indonesia has a rapidly growing population, deforestatioon is running a pace, soil depletion is a major problem and these intelectuals of yours reckon they can turn that soil carbon depletion around and sequester 4 per mile. They're living in dreamland and ignoring the needs of 200 000 000 people. It may be a published scientific paper about what could be done but it won't be done and it's just intellectualisign that distracts from what really needs to be done - reduce carbon emissions.

There have been lots of scientific papers about sequestering carbon in oil fields. Worthy scientists getting paid fat saleries to write rigourous science that even if aplliciable will never be applied.

You know who our bigest adversaries were when trying to get sulphur scrubbers fitted to power staion chinneys at power stations - exceptionally well qualified and well paid scientists at the CEGB. Scientists who had sold their souls to the higest bidders and published misleading inappropriate science.

You need to have a more questionning mind, Zokes, and make your own judgement about the quality and realism of the science before linking it.

Northwind - member
That's not really true- trees aren't immortal. If you abandon a managed forest, the trees will still die and release their captured carbon (over a longer timescale, but still relatively short), and the trees in managed forestry tend to have fairly short mean lifespans (because of the species we plant, the way we plant them, and the shitty ground we tend to plant them in) Coal may return its carbon to the atmosphere over geological time, trees will do it in human time.

Naturally occurring fires are common in naturally occurring forests.

You need to have a more questionning mind, Zokes, and make your own judgement about the quality and realism of the science before linking it.

As I happen to know several of the authors and have worked with them in a professional capacity, I'm quite happy with my interpretation of that paper. I too have reservations about just how feasible it will be, but it isn't impossible, and that much is clear.

You're yet again trying to argue in absolutes of black and white. If you wish to do so, lets apply that lens to how much use the lifestyle you virtue signal about is in the real world, eh?

Naturally occurring fires are common in naturally occurring forests.

And becoming more common thanks to the aforementioned climate change

If you wish to do so, lets apply that lens to how much use the lifestyle you virtue signal about is in the real world, eh?

A point I have made several times, which has been studiously ignored.

A point I have made several times, which has been studiously ignored.

Yeah, he’s good at that.

It’s a pity, this could have been a really good discussion. Instead it’s turned into a shit fight because rather than being content that we’re all more or less on the same page and accepting there’s more to do on all fronts, he’s decided that his lifestyle will save the planet, without much thought about how scaleable it actually is beyond his own fortunate personal circumstance.

I too have reservations about just how feasible it will be, but it isn't impossible, and that much is clear.

Go into detail then:

Ownership of the land
Increasing population
Increasingly intensive agriculture
increasing deforestation
Financial considerations
Practical considerations

4 per mile in Indonesia is nonsense and you know know it is so why try to defend the bad science of your colleagues. "but it isn't impossible that much is clear", the philosophy of doubt is a another thing scientists abuse. Just because it isn't impossible doesn't mean it's possible. And yet you are so certain carbon neutral wood burning isn't possible despite my concrete example of planting on mine waste. What kind of scientist are you, Zokes?

I published in peer review, The Journal of Environmental Management, I peer reviewed, and in all honesty scientists are some of the most dishonest, corrupt bunch of people I've ever come across. My best work was never published because it pointed the finger at the main financier of the project. However, paliative work that adressed the symptoms rather than the cause got published, but only because I glossed over some things. And that was despite working for an organisation on the side of right and good. The scientists working for the corporates or university people working for (financed by) the corporates were too often bare-faced liars.

It’s a pity, this could have been a really good discussion. Instead it’s turned into a shit fight

Go back and note the insults and slights, Zokes, you're well ahead

he’s decided that his lifestyle will save the planet, without much thought about how scaleable it actually is beyond his own fortunate personal circumstance.

It's highly scaleable and a lot more realistic and sequestering 4 per mile per year in Indonesia. I'll go as far as to say that it is [b]the[/b] solution. You just need to convince billions of people instead of which scientists sold out to the oil lobby undermine any attempt to convince people that personally investing in a low-carbon lifestyle is about as constructive as you can get.

And yet you are so certain carbon neutral wood burning isn't possible despite my concrete example of planting on mine waste.

The mine would require rehab anyway. You have to compare back to BAU, not a hypothetical worst case scenario.

What kind of scientist are you, Zokes?

One who can add up, it seems.

As for your whataboutery regarding the science profession, you really come across as just as unhinged as the climate denialists. By your own admission you had a very small exposure to academic research, and now spend your time not doing that any more. Perhaps you don’t know as much about it as you think you do.

You just need to convince billions of people

So not remotely the solution then.

By the way, please don’t ever try to advocate for the environment. If you do so in the manner you’ve made your failed point on here, the first thing anyone who you speak to is likely to do is go out and buy a big V8 or book a flight to Hawaii.

It's highly scaleable

Please tell us how.

You want a civil debate, Zokes/

Avoid the gratuitious pathetic insult such as

you really come across as just as unhinged as the climate denialists.

Now you're just being childish.

Avoid the gratuitous insult fallowed by factual inaccuracy, you could have the grace to acknowlege you were wrong, retract and apologise:

Sorry, now you're really just talking bollocks. Soil is the largest terrestrial pool of C.

Avoid telling someone who demonstrates great understanding to shut up because you don't have counter arguments:

Just accept that you don't know quite as much about this as at least two others on this thread, shut up,

And you have the cheek to accuse me of trolling.

You do realise he's bored and is baiting you?

Being a clever individual, it's much harder to see than the normal buffoons you get, but it's still bait.

It's why I've not responded earlier, and won't be in the future.

Ransos, highly scaleable yes, and you don't have to be the boss of a big British corporate green washer who buys land in Indonesian pulling the soil from under the feet of an Indonesian peasant farmer to try and achieve 4 per mile on an insignificant area to prove it's possible if you don't care if peasant farmers get displaced and starve to death as beggars in a big city.

Every UK home owner can do something, British houses are themric sieves so insulate. Roof wals, floor windows.

Heat using a wood burning stove if you have a renewable wood supply and local air pollution isn't an issue.

If you have south-facing roof fit PV and a solar water heater.

Use a heat pump hot water tank

Don't fly to Australia when you can take the train/bus to Nice if you really want a hot holiday.

Have CO2 per km as the main criteria when you choose your car if you really feel the need for your car (or more probably your partner does) because we're all walking, cycling bus riding, hitch-hiking people with no need for a private car, right?

Buy locally produced food and reduce meat consumption to what you feel you neeed to stay healthy (if you don't get on with being vegetarian)

Choose to live near you place of work even if that means a more modest house

Most people can do that and more, that's a huge scale.

In terms of politics vote green, because all of the above wil happen faster if there are incentives and disincentives. Vote for people who will:

have no tax on insulating materials and building materials from the point of production to the point of sale

Have punitive taxes on gas.

Have punitive taxes on electricity consumption above a level that can consistently be produced by renewable energy sources? 800 kWh/person/year at cost and painful taxes above.

Phase in punitive taxes on ICE cars in general with a programmed exponential increase in fuel tax over an 8 year period.

Phase out coal fired power stations.

Companies get taxed on their energy performance. Companies that don't meet ever tighter requirements are taxed at 95% on profits.

All that's required is the personal and political will. Because trying to impose soil sequestration on the developping world to compenstae for our own wasteful, pollutin ggreed isn't the answer.

And gettin back on topic, I have no problem with creating new deciduous forest in wilderness moorland and mountain areas as a source of bio fuel and simultaneously a minor contribution to carbon sequestration.

Join in Scienceofficer, if your science and objectivity is as good as your pseudo implies you've got nothing to fear.

Ransos, highly scaleable yes

Heat using a wood burning stove if you have a renewable wood supply and local air pollution isn't an issue.

You're not stupid, so I make Scienceofficer right.

So you've only picked one thing from my list that you don't consider highly scaleable, Ransos, I agree that wood burning isn't and shouldn't be a heat source for everybody hence my provisos.

I hope you realise and accept all the others are. Once houses are insulated to a reasonable standard the need for wood burning is very low. Reach passive house standards and a family of four living in a house may only use a wood burner a few times a year when it's exceptionally cold. Or simply use a heat pump because once the energy used by the housing stock has been divided by six and commercial use reduced then rewable electricity can realistically meet domestic demand (feel free to contest "divided by six" it's what I've ssen claimed on French and German programmes for new builds compared with current energy use in old building stock)

This discussion has gone down hill again

Well contribute and raise the standard rather than moaning, Neil, if not you're contributing to the "going downhill".

So you've only picked one thing from my list that you don't consider highly scaleable, Ransos, I agree that wood burning isn't and shouldn't be a heat source for everybody hence my provisos.

Yeah, it's only your source of heat, so scale isn't important. 🙄

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find some land and a private forest.

AD plants could be the way forward.

I'm convinced that more could be done to harvest the energy from agricultural waste too. Animal agriculture is a massive polluter, yes, but why not push efforts into collecting the methane and polluting gases and use those as alternatives to fossil fuels.

Well this thread went downhill quickly.

That’s slightly misleading though isn’t it? Firstly whilst power at the wrong time of day is not as useful as instant quick response power there is demand 24/7 (albeit variable) and some options for power storage exist (and as move to more electric vehicles this will increase).

Secondly, the tide comes at different times around the coast, so whilst a single massive site doesn’t solve the problem, and any big source is going to suffer the same infrastructure challenge as wind you can generate tidal power somewhere on the uk coast 24/7.

Thirdly, it should be possible to generate tidal power through a barrier that floods a little like cruachan when the sun and moon decide, but is released when demand is there. There were mills a few hundred years ago that did this on a fairly small scale.

Of course there are genuine and NIMBY issues with large scale tidal relating to ecology, shipping etc. And it may be the dream of free energy doesn’t add up, but people used to say that about wind, and thought the danish were crazy for investing it it.

Indeed, there's significant tidal timing variation around the country, and the tide just doesn't flow for a few minutes, there's hours of exploitable flow in each direction, and it's completely predictable for hundreds of years.

Unfortunately our governments have little interest in developing tidal except the big ones that attract Chinese investment and make them rich. In making developing tidal developments like Meygen compete against established offshore wind in pricing they've scared off developers and people like Atlantis have already said they'll be looking to France etc. There's also lots of interest in tidal in places like Indonesia, I suspect we'll see the UK falling behind in tidal as more forward thinking countries take advantage (same old story). I've worked on a few UK tidal developments and it's a shame to see the industry moving so slowly when it's such a superb energy source.

Always worth keeping an eye on the tidal section of http://renews.biz/ if you're interested.

Every UK home owner can do something, British houses are themric sieves so insulate. Roof wals, floor windows.
New build so pretty good

Heat using a wood burning stove if you have a renewable wood supply and local air pollution isn't an issue.
Can’t afford it, sorry

If you have south-facing roof fit PV and a solar water heater.
Had it in the old house, but can’t afford it, sorry.

Use a heat pump hot water tank
Probably can’t afford it.

Don't fly to Australia when you can take the train/bus to Nice if you really want a hot holiday.
Valid, doesn’t work so well for Islands when time off is finite! Also, if you put all current flying CO2 emissions into trains and buses, I’d be interested to see the savings.

Have CO2 per km as the main criteria when you choose your car if you really feel the need for your car (or more probably your partner does) because we're all walking, cycling bus riding, hitch-hiking people with no need for a private car, right?
Fuel economy is a big criterion, can’t afford full electric, cycle as much as practical. Buses and walking not practical. We’re not all retired!

Buy locally produced food and reduce meat consumption to what you feel you neeed to stay healthy (if you don't get on with being vegetarian)
Tick!

Choose to live near you place of work even if that means a more modest house
We work in opposite directions, suspect this is true of lots of people! Also, I move locations.

Most people can do that and more, that's a huge scale.

For perspective, I’m a 40% taxpayer and she’s not too badly off either, and we’ve no kids. I take your point that taxation reforms could make this stuff cheaper, but I’m just making the point that I can’t afford it and I’m supposedly top 10%........

There are a lot of good points being made here and instead of arguing which is best there should be support for all. There is no silver bullet single solution, like edukator listed, there are lots of things that can help, including zokes ideas. Some are more appropriate for different people/places/situations. Recognition and support for ideas implemented in the right way and time and place, rather than criticism that it isn't the whole solution might be more effective at stepping us forward.

Burning wood can be very positive, burning waste products locally is positive. Growing wood for fuel could be done positively too, but won't always be the best use of time/money/space. Drax power station.... Good intentions but currently poorly implemented, definitely not doing as much good as claimed by them, possibly doing some good, possibly probably doing some harm too.

This topic is so difficult partly because politicians don't understand the science, scientists don't understand ALL the science - the planet's system is too complex, and scientists don't understand the politics. Even in this thread there's a certain amount of talking in different languages, and shouting at others doesn't help them to understand.

True that! The big picture is that you need trans-governmental incentivisation to make 9 billion people live sustainably. Individuals will always be too poor/busy/selfish/lazy to make the sacrifices required; a few altruistic individuals won’t make any measurable difference. Government needs to set the conditions whereby the cheap, easy choice for the individual is also the environmental one.

ransos - Member

The point is that if a forest is left to self-manage, the growth, death and decay times are far longer,

Except for the parts that get turned into wood products- I think a lot of people in this thread have lost sight of that, wood used for biomass is largely a byproduct/coproduct of sawn wood.

More importantly, lifecycles make this part very tricky- essentially the management cycle of a forest is designed to get maximum usable volume. What this means is that the tree lives for its most productive growth period, when it's most healthy, while taking up the least possible space- a sitka's growth rate falls off after about 50 years frinstance. It's Logan's Run for trees.

The amount of carbon sequestered in a mature, managed block is way higher than in an equivalent sized area of wild forest- smaller, packed in, healthy trees are higher volume, you can fit about 4 healthy 50 year old sitka in the same area as 1 200 year old, the 200 year old will obviously be bigger but the volume will be less than the 4 younger trees. A 300 year old spruce is probably adding about 1m3 per year And in old variated growth, about 1/3d of the total standing volume won't be live wood, but decay, anyway.

But that's just a single point of time, and of course a mature wild forest has a fairly steady volume while a traditional forestry block is cyclical- plant, grow, peak, cut. I actually don't know which has the larger mean volume once you take into account the shortened lifecycle- it could easily go either way, it'd depend on the species and ground. In the UK I'd happily bet money that the forestry block has higher mean volume and higher mean carbon sequestration than an equivalent area of native species growing naturally, even before you consider the volume that goes into products. Elsewhere I don't know.

You could manage a forest from inception for peak sequestration, but I don't think that's ever really been considered, I'd be interested to see any real work that's been done on the subject- slow terraforming stuff. Heh, let's store the trees in salt caverns and slate mines, easier than pumping co2 into aquifiers and empty oilfields

(this is why you can't not think about growing trees, while discussing something that requires the growing of trees, otherwise you end up with great ideas like leaving sawmill coproducts in the tree.)

Except for the parts that get turned into wood products- I think a lot of people in this thread have lost sight of that, wood used for biomass is largely a byproduct/coproduct of sawn wood.

Up to a point, lord copper. It's largely taken from the wood not suitable for timber products, which often includes whole trees. In other words, material that would otherwise be left either to grown or to decompose very slowly.

I think we all agree that processing wastes and small offcuts are eminently suitable for burning.

The amount of carbon sequestered in a mature, managed block is way higher than in an equivalent sized area of wild forest- smaller, packed in, healthy trees are higher volume,

Sure, the problem comes when we burn it! And overlook the ecological impacts.

But governments are highly lobby sensitive. Even if MPs don't take bribes when in office they can look forward to being higly paid as a speaker when no longer in office. The lobby system in the EU is so well developed that the Commission consults lobby groups before the parliament; so as the Commission fixes the agenda environmental issues are in tha back seat while the car lobby is in the driving seat. Recent changes means the parliament can propose subjects for debate, lets hope the greens use this possibility wisely.

The glyco-phosphate and Bisphynol-A sagas are examples of where the Commission rides rough shod through the parliament so the chemical industry goes on poisoning us with impunity.

The collusion between the Commision and the motor industry means that E6 diesels are still highly polluting but still pass inadequate and unrealist tests. If people stil can't afford an electric car it's because the tax system still isn't providing enough incentive for people who would like to halve their driving related CO2 emissions. There's bonus-malus system in France but 96% of sales are still petrol and diesel which tells me those fuels and the vehicles they go in are still to cheap.

Exactly airtragic. I'm the same, I'll do what is easy/practical and affordable, but impinge on my lifestyle too much or my bank account too much and I won't. I do fear that we need to cut back on our lifestyle, and that isn't acceptable to the masses. Edukator suggests a lot of good stuff, a mix of punitive taxes and positive tax breaks and subsidies will help. If like to insulate my typical, poorly insulated 1930s house much more, but the pay back on external wall insulation is fairly long. The payback on 2 wood stoves and associated tools is a third the time. Little encouragement to do the insulation, but that surely is needed, not just in my house but many many millions of houses.

Some of the return periods on investments to save energy (and pollute less) are shorter than you might think. Especially as energy prices are set to rise above inflation and interest rates may be below inflation.

I expected my solar water heater to take at least 11 years to pay for itself, but it covers more of our hot water needs than expected and gas has increased in price far more than inflation so it's now paid for itself and still heating water:

[img] [/img]

(edit: that graph ends in 2013 and the current price is .077. The price is rising again after a dip below 2013 and 2017)

The gas price rise has meant that even the longest return period, the triple glazing, which I suspected wouldn't pay for itself in my lifetime (other than in peace and comfort) will pay for itself in under twenty years.

I insulated the walls on the inside as it was easier, cheaper, DIY practical and less likely to favour damp/condensation in the walls. As we were able to junk the radiators at the same time the loss of space wasn't significant.

You all know what your bills are, do some sums, consider rising energy prices and you might find things worth doing.

Have CO2 per km as the main criteria when you choose your car

So a remapped diesel then?

No, electric. And not unecessarily big or heavy.

After my contrubutions to petrol head threads over the years you'll know I'm anti-diesel for public health reasons. So persoanlly I'd rather see people in petrol hybrid cars if they live in urban areas and an electric isn't practical. If you will never drive anywhere air quality is an issue and there are no charge points then a diesel may be the best for you . It's the wood-burning stove consideration, will my stove/diesel contribute to a known public health issue. Do you live in the Western Isles, grumpysculler ❓

ransos - Member

Sure, the problem comes when we burn it!

Well, that's the point with mean carbon sequestration. It's totally realistic, and I suspect highly likely in many UK cases, for a managed forest to serve as a carbon "damper" or temporary store, usefully, while also being harvested- since the temporary sequestration over the lifespan can still be higher than the permanent sequestration of an unmanaged area of timber, by holding more carbon at peak. Not burning it will still be better than burning it, but doing either could be better than doing nothing. Basically it's about the efficiency of your forest.

Soil sapping remains an issue of course, and here I guess I'm offpiste because I just don't give much of a shit about that, with the scottish forestry, because it's primarily in the crappiest of crappy ground, not really fit for anything other than growing trees on. It's the dregs that sheep farming didn't want, nuff said. So I don't see any need to preserve it at its current level of fertility- I see it more akin to mining. Ultimately if the land gets degraded to the point it can't even support crappy spruce at industrial levels, then we can seed or plant it with native species and let it grow "wild" as a very low efficiency carbon sink soil retainer and flood retarder, and build epic bike trails in it and not worry about the trees getting harvested, and put it in future harry potter remakes so that americans will come and visit, and it'll still be no less valuable than it was before it was turned into forestry.

Edukator: in response to the post at the top of this page, I’ve explained everything you raise already, including that whilst you’re correct that sedimentary rocks contain the largest amount of C on the planet, they aren’t part of the active biological cycle in any significant quantity, and thus are irrelevant to the point at hand unless your sole purpose is to try to get one over on another forum user

You still don’t get that if you burn a tree containing 20 t of C now, and plant one containing 0.0001 t in its place you have a net emission of nearly 20 t of C as CO2 that is only reabsorbed over the multi-decadal lifetime of that new sapling. The point being that the atmosphere, and climate as a result doesn’t care that you’re planting another tree, all it sees and responds to is the net emissions at that point in time.

I can’t really explain these two points any clearer I’m afraid.

I’ll now read what I hope are more constructive posts below.

[

Northwind has been posting more on forest management than I have but I'll go into how forest can be managed to both provide wood and continusously increase biomass. As you read don't forget Northwind's comment on the density of wood in managed woodland compared with abandonned woodland.

The model is mainly German but can be carried out anywhere. Woodland is allowed to mature (in Germany it's mainly historic woodland that hasn't been clear felled for centuries if ever). The forester picks trees that he can sell, chops them down and removes them - th eages and value I put in a previosu post. That creates a micro clearing which favours undergrowth and the natural development of sapplings, the strongest of the essence chosen are allowed to grow. They grow following the shaft of light, tall and staight, the risk of storm damage is low because they are protected, surrounded by solid tress of varying solidity.

In terms of CO2, every year al the tres will absorb CO2 but exploitation of the wood stock will reduce the total wood mass by roughly the same amount, some years more some years less. The amount of wood reamins more or less constant, humpous very slowly increases and erosion wilh carry some away which may end up in flood palin, delta or marine sediment.

Some of the wood extracted wil be used for building and furniture which is a stock untill it eventually gets recycled or burned. Depending on the use it may be another carbon store for a few hundred years.

So you have a forest that even though exploited never results in a net release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Even with clear felling methods which are not as good for habitat, water quality or the qualtiy of wood produced, if you manage a large enough area the biomass that accumulates each year roughly equals the biomass exploited. And in addition you can store some of the wood in housing and furniture (or even musical instuments) and some of the humous ends up in sediment - more because clear felling leads to more erosion of the soil profile.

So ther are never net emission if you manage properly, only a steady production of biomass even if you burn some of the wood extracted.

Visit Germany if you need proof, you'll find forest with a density of wood you won't even find in wild unmanaged woodland - Northwind is right.

So you have a forest that even though exploited never results in a net release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

All that makes sense to some extent, but it comes back to the scalability issue once more. Works for high value timber for construction/furniture, less so as an economic fuel that can be accessed by millions of people.

But when you extend it to any form of intensive management it falls down. When you burn the contents of that clear-felled coup, the C that will eventually end up in the one planted to replace it is still in the atmosphere. For the next few decades, you have a net emission until those replacements have grown. As a consequence, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than if you’d not harvested the wood for fuel.

Now back to the 4/1000 thing: I don’t think anyone is suggesting we turf off smallholders in developing nations so big business can store carbon in the soil. That’s nonsense. What is being suggested is that we work with the smallholders to improve their farming systems so they store more C whilst still farming.

zokes - Still not a customer

You still don’t get that if you burn a tree containing 20 t of C now, and plant one containing 0.0001 t in its place you have a net emission of nearly 20 t of C as CO2 that is only reabsorbed over the multi-decadal lifetime of that new sapling. The point being that the atmosphere, and climate as a result doesn’t care that you’re planting another tree, all it sees and responds to is the net emissions at that point in time.

I can’t really explain these two points any clearer I’m afraid.

You don't need to explain yourself any better- we can see the logical flaw very clearly and we've tried to explain it to you, you just keep repeating it without challenging your own thinking.

The tree you cut today is not replaced by the tree you plant today, as I said way back in my first post. It's replaced by another, slightly younger tree growing to take its place. Or to be more precise, it's replaced by all the other trees, growing a little bit. The only way it makes sense to think of it as new-for-old is if you ignore that trees grow. (or if you only had one tree)

The amount of carbon in a growing, managed forest isn't steady. So removing and burning a tree doesn't automatically cause a net increase of carbon in the atmosphere- that only happens if we remove more than is being added, ie if the amount of carbon released by the tree you burn is greater than the amount of carbon sequestered by growth.

This could be carbon positive, negative or neutral, depending entirely on circumstances- the size and rate of growth, and the rate of felling, and the fate of all of the wood (not just the part that gets burned)

You said "climate as a result doesn’t care that you’re planting another tree, all it sees and responds to is the net emissions at that point in time."- and that's absolutely correct, it's just that you've wrongly assumed there's a net emission. You said earlier in the thread "But I'm not thinking about growing trees" and that's still the case. Think about growing trees.

It's replaced by another, slightly younger tree growing to take its place. Or to be more precise, it's replaced by all the other trees, growing a little bit.

No, it’s not. They’re still there, regardless of whether you cut down and burn the other one or not, all growing a little bit.

If you have £10k in the bank and take £100 out, the remaining £9900 might eventually make up the difference in interest. If you put £10 in a high interest account to replace the original £100 you took out of your other account, you might get back to a net of £10k quicker, but the fact is you still have less than £10k in the bank from the moment you withdraw the money.

If you cut down and burn a tree, you have less carbon in trees and more carbon in the atmosphere until it’s replaced by another tree of the same C content. The fact there are other trees there all growing too is a side show, they would have grown regardless of the fate of the one you cut down.

You don’t need to think about growing trees to get this. If anything, that confuses the issue. Whenever you try to workout these things they always need to be compared to what would have happened had you not burned that tree. The answer is that it would still have been there storing carbon. So would the others. In burning it, you have one less tree, just as you have £100 less in your account in the analogy above. That’s fine assuming you don’t do too much of it, but if that £100 becomes £5000, you have a bit more of an issue. We’ve been borrowing against the environment for about 250 years. Our line of credit is coming to an end.

zokes - Still not a customer

No, it’s not. They’re still there, regardless of whether you cut down and burn the other one or not, all growing a little bit.

Yes. And? This is not a prompt for you to repeat yourself again, it's a prompt for you to think about what you've said means. A growing managed forest is carbon positive not carbon neutral. You can release carbon from it and still be net carbon positive or neutral. Or negative, [i]if[/i] you release too much.

(for clarity, I don't mean "a forest with some trees growing in it", I mean precisely a growing forest, one which is expanding its volume. A natural, wild forest will reach a rough equilibrium, a managed forest doesn't)

zokes - Still not a customer

If you have £10k in the bank and take £100 out, the remaining £9900 might eventually make up the difference in interest.

If you have £10000 in the bank, and it grows via interest by £100, then you take £100 out and burn it, you have £10000 in the bank- money neutral. You've missed the opportunity to add more money but you still have every penny you started with. If you leave the money unburnt you have £10100, money positive. If you burn £200, well then you're probably George Osborne

You say thinking about growing trees is confusing- and yes, it is. What you have to do is deal with that, rather than seeking out a simpler version that doesn't confuse you, at the expense of having it be false. Simple abstracts and metaphors are useful for thought experiments but you can't then demand the reality conforms to your metaphor. There are few things more pragmatic than a tree

You seem to be accusing me of not challenging my own thinking, then not doing so yourself.

If you burn a tree, that C becomes CO2 in the atmosphere. Unless you do something above and beyond what was already happening at that same point to sequester that C there and then (so that discounts existing trees), there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was before you burned the tree.

If your money gree by interest and then you took some out and spent it, do you have more or less money than before you took the money out?

The rest of it is all noise. Stop thinking about growing trees.

The rest of it is all noise. Stop thinking about growing trees.

When discussing carbon cycles impacted by wood burning ignoring growing trees seems rather odd.

Zokes, the 'above and beyond' is the managed forest. It's there before you burn, it's there before you harvest, but it's only there because you decided to manage, to harvest and to burn!

zokes - Still not a customer

You seem to be accusing me of not challenging my own thinking, then not doing so yourself.

Oh I have, but since it's just arithmetic it doesn't take much challenging. Let's stick at it...

zokes - Still not a customer

If your money gree by interest and then you took some out and spent it, do you have more or less money than before you took the money out?

Less, but that is not the question. The question is, if you have the same amount of money that you started with, [i]is it the same amount of money[/i].

I am saying, "yes, I have the same amount of money, therefore I am money neutral. I gained some, I lost some, but it's balanced out" The fact that I could have done better, doesn't mean I'm worse off than I was, it means I'm worse off than I could have been.

And you're saying, "no, I could have had more so I am money negative, even though I have the same amount. The fact that I missed an opportunity to do better means I am worse off than I was at the start" And that's plainly wrong. It's an oppportunity cost only. You might well resent it, but you aren't any worse off than you were at the start, you're just worse off than you could have been at the end.

If the forest sequesters 1kg of carbon per day, that isn't carbon neutral, it's carbon positive. If it sequesters 1kg of carbon per day, and you burn enough to release 1kg of carbon per day, that's not a net release of carbon- that's a net change of zero- carbon neutral.

You've said a few times that it's about what the atmosphere sees, and that's correct. But your examples don't reflect that. You talk about what the atmosphere [i]could[/i] have seen, not what it [i]actually[/i] sees.

And none of that would happen, if you'd think about growing trees. It's the sanity check you're missing.

You talk about what the atmosphere could have seen, not what it actually sees.

Nearly correct. I talk about what the atmosphere would have seen had we not burned that tree. Could implies uncertainty. If we’re certain that the other trees that are growing will continue to grow and appear to offset the burned tree, we can be certain that had we not burned the tree, they would have done that anyway, and so too would the burned tree.

This is the essence of the problem: what do you compare back to? To be carbon neutral or better, you need to be looking at what the end point would have been without an action, rather than just before that action.

Agreed, the comparison is very hard to set a point in time. Ideally every case, every action had to be considered for its own merits, but when then it's hard.

Like educator I burn Arb waste. I'm fairly sure if I didn't and no other person did, it would go to Drax, but not certain. The trees are mainly garden trees. Most individual trees won't be replaced, definitely not like for like but across all the gardens in the area or may be like a managed forest with trees being planted constantly... Or it might not. Lots of unknowns. That's the case with a lot of this stuff. Instead of getting totally hung up on dotting i's and crossing t's of accounting we need to recognise a good action at face value and celebrate it.... And recognise the mistakes (Drax perhaps) and critique, but positively.

Seriously chaps, it's pretty simple:

If you cut down an burn a LIVING tree, the carbon released into the environment must have been removed from the environment for within the lifetime of that tree.

When you burn coal (or gas, or oil) the carbon released was:

1) Sequestered millions of years ago

and due to the high energy density in those energy stores

2) released a a huge rate, far beyond the rate at which a "burn at the same rate it grows" scheme necessarily operates (Mother nature spent hundreds of thousands of years sequestering carbon, and we've pretty much burn the whole lot in just a couple of hundred years!)

So, as long as the wood burnt comes from a sustainable (managed 1 out, 1 in) source, the net carbon increase is small (not as small as for true renewables (solar / wind / wave etc) but still vastly better than burning coal, oil, or gas)

zokes - Still not a customer

If we’re certain that the other trees that are growing will continue to grow and appear to offset the burned tree, we can be certain that had we not burned the tree, they would have done that anyway, and so too would the burned tree.

No, not at all! The purpose of the managed forest is to be harvested and the management is towards that one goal. It doesn't follow that if you stop harvesting it, everything else will continue as before. The nature of the forest will quickly change- and remember that since its purpose is to add volume efficiently, that also means it's adding carbon efficiently. Changing that structure changes the whole assumption. If you don't cut this tree at the most efficient, yes the forest will continue to grow but will it still be tended? Will we plant more to replace windblow and other wastage, will this tree continue to grow til the point it's taking up the space 4 more efficient trees would have, while losing mass to rot? Will it stunt the other trees around it. Will we stop planting entirely new forests (will we import cheap virgin wood from eastern europe while patting ourselves on the back for our virtuous forest). And [i]again[/i] this is where you have to think about growing trees, and unintended consequences.

But that's by the by. You're still arguing that you can call a carbon neutral process negative, because it [i]could[/i] have been positive. That changes absolutely nothing. What matters is what happens not what could have.

Thought experiment for you- Imagine the most perfect outcome for this forest- everything maximising sequestration and minimising loss, working towards the highest possible amount of carbon in the block. Carbon positive, of course.

Now, burn a single twig. (don't do it in front of the trees, that's mean) Is it now not carbon positive, because it could have sequestered more? Or is it just slightly less carbon positive.

If I plan to build 2 coal power plants, then cancel one, is that carbon positive because the amount of carbon released could have been twice as much? Or is it still carbon negative by the net amount emitted.

It's all the same thing- what counts is what is. Unrealised could-have-beens don't change what actually happens, and the absence of perfection doesn't cancel out good or neutral.

So, as long as the wood burnt comes from a sustainable (managed 1 out, 1 in) source, the net carbon increase is small (not as small as for true renewables (solar / wind / wave etc) but still vastly better than burning coal, oil, or gas)

Quite, but lets not kid ourselves that it's carbon neutral (which is what appears to be the crux of this discussion).

What matters is what happens not what could have.

Well, you released a load of CO2 when you burned the tree. That's what happens.

Unrealised could-have-beens don't change what actually happens, and the absence of perfection doesn't cancel out good or neutral.

If you stick with "good", then I think we can leave it there (assuming the wood is sustainably sourced). But you cannot call it "neutral".

@neil

Arb waste I think is a different kettle of fish, as on the assumption it's harvested locally then there's little energy on transport and processing. It's alternative fates are further transport to a central plant (e.g. Drax), or mulching/composting, which might add more stabilised C in the soil than burning it, but the energy for heat still needs to come from somewhere. The main beef I and a few other had with Edukator over it was the claim that his lifestyle was scaleable. If everyone uses arb waste, they all need their own source. I only have one tree in my garden, so I'd probably get cold quite quickly waiting for it to need a substantial prune.

zokes - Still not a customer

Well, you released a load of CO2 when you burned the tree. That's what happened

And the tree's mates sequestered a load of carbon, that's also what happened. Even now that we're getting down to a reality-based argument you still have to ignore inconvenient bits of reality to try and make your model work.

zokes - Still not a customer

If you stick with "good", then I think we can leave it there (assuming the wood is sustainably sourced). But you cannot call it "neutral".

I can, I will, it is. I will leave you to argue with arithmetic I think, but I will gladly return to the thread once you prove that zero plus one minus one doesn't equal zero.

And the tree's mates sequestered a load of carbon, that's also what happened.

I can, I will, it is.

You can, and you probably will, but it isn't

When you burn a tree, does it release CO2? Answer: yes. Loss of CO2 to atmosphere, negative, so -1

If you hadn't burned it, would it? Answer Answer: no. No net change, neutral, so 0

Do other trees absorb and store CO2 [u]regardless of whether or not [/u] you burned that tree? Answer: yes, no net change, neutral, so 0.

-1+0+0 = -1

I'd say what's more important is whether we are sequestering more CO2 than we are releasing and at what rate.

I'd say what's more important is whether we are sequestering more CO2 than we are releasing and at what rate.

Unless we're planting more trees than we're burning, then no, we're not.

I'd say what's more important is whether we are sequestering more CO2 than we are releasing and at what rate.

Sure, and there's a pretty good argument that timber products from well-managed forests fit the criteria, because the carbon is stored. There's also a pretty good argument that burning mill wastes and post-consumer wastes fit the criteria, because they would have most likely released their CO2 in the sort term, even if they hadn't been burnt. The problem comes when you start to burn large pieces of timber and whole trees not deemed suitable for timber products.

Post consumer waste burning is not sustainable, the aim should be to recycle as much as possible after reducing and optimising waste pre consumer. This is counter intuitive if you want to be able to sustain such an enterprise.

As for burning, we need to look at that as part of a bigger picture and not just in isolation. The tipping point isnt necessarily determined by timber stock management as there are other factors.

Take the example of the Landes forest in SW France. More carbon was sequestered in that forest before the 2012 storm than ever before, and that despite the froest having provided bilding materials and fuel since it was planted. That's significantly better than carbon neutral.

Given the area one person with a chain saw could spend his whole life cutting trees and not even keep up with with the growth. On a sunny day in Summer the biomass increases at the equivalent of hundreds if not thousands of trees a day.

If you don't exploit the forest the rate of accumulation will tail off, by constantly producing paper, building wood (and as a by-product fire wood and pellets) the foresters do better than carbon neutral.

As for the comparison with other alternative energies such as wind, tide, wave and solar, wood does pretty well. The embedded energy (very often fossil fuel energy) in those high-tech solutions is higher per kWh produced than than waste wood burned for energy production near to the point exploitation.

If the Landes forest reached maximusm sequestration in 2012 rather than more recently it was because a storm destroyed large areas which were so damgaged the wood was only useful for pulp and pellets. The increased frequency of violent storms which can reasonably be attributed to climatic change is threatening the forests that have there part in the renewable energy mix needed to reduce climatic change.

I hope yous are going to plant a forest to make up for the energy used bickering in this thread

What are you doing, bigjim? Just sniping or something positive? Care to declare your electricty, gas and car fuel bills, and how many trees you've planted because those we can't see whilst your petty sniping is there for all to see so we assume the worst whilst you might be a model eco-citizen.

That nice man Johnny Ball says.....

As for the comparison with other alternative energies such as wind, tide, wave and solar, wood does pretty well. The embedded energy (very often fossil fuel energy) in those high-tech solutions is higher per kWh produced than than waste wood burned for energy production near to the point exploitation.

Even if this is true, (and I strongly suspect that it's not, but am happy to be proven wrong with reliable references) where are we going to put all these forests? Land is already under huge pressure to provide protein and energy as food. Put simply, it's not scaleable. You build a solar panel or wind turbine and for the next 25+ years they will produce energy day in, day out. Burn a tree on one day and you've rather a long time to wait until you burn another one.

Is it? Are farmers still paid to have empty fields?

The problem is more to do with people and economics than land, we have more than enough food resources today but squander them.

And all this talk of scaleability assumes we are talking about a single solution, I dont think anyone is. Everything works in tandem.

You won't find reliable references, Zokes, there are too many variable. However empirical ananlysis is often more usefull than pages fo references.

I'll wager that the embedded energy in the electricity used to heat a scandanavian house in Winter using PV panels is a lot hihger the house heated by a neighbour using a petrol chainsa

Is it? Are farmers still paid to have empty fields?

One man's empty field is another man's ecological restoration. But in any case, on the global scale, no they are not, land clearing is still occurring at a staggering rate.

we have more than enough food resources today but squander them.

This much is true, and can probably be said for energy also. But if you want to talk about impossible solutions, then I'd put global societal change up there at the very top. Frankly I'd start looking for moons on sticks as easier targets.

And all this talk of scaleability assumes we are talking about a single solution,

Only if taken to extremes. But primary bioenergy (i.e burning trees, deriving biodiesel from oil seed rape, etc) can only be at best a small component given the land area they require vs food production.

You won't find reliable references, Zokes, there are too many variable. However empirical ananlysis is often more usefull than pages fo references.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

But actually there are plenty of references out there. [url= http://pubs.rsc.org/-/content/articlehtml/2012/ee/c1ee02728j ]This[/url] is the second hit from a Google Scholar (can't be bothered to VPN to WoS at this time of night) search for the terms '"embedded energy" and renewables'. Only scanned the abstract, but seems promising. Empirical evidence is something that Malcolm Roberts demands a lot of wrt global warming. Don't be like Malcolm Roberts.

I'll wager that the embedded energy in the electricity used to heat a scandanavian house in Winter using PV panels is a lot hihger the house heated by a neighbour using a petrol chainsa

I'd wager you're right. But I'd also wager that the energy taken to cool an Australian home in summer via PV is considerably smaller than that derived from finding enough trees to burn to make some electricity to power an a/c unit. As I said, scaleability (and context) are rather important in this. If you continue to argue in absolutes then you'll just look foolish.

You won't find reliable references, Zokes, there are too many variable. However empirical ananlysis is often more usefull than pages of references.

I'll wager that the embedded energy in the electricity used to heat a Scandanavian house in Winter using a hundred or so PV panels with a life expectancy of say 35 years is a lot higher than the neighbouring house heated using a petrol chainsaw for a few hours a year to harvest trees from sustainable forest. It's bloody obvious.

However, a hyrdo electric scheme in the Alps wil do better than a pellet fired power station using wood transported half way around the world.

The energy mix for every region, country, continent and ultimately the world has to be worked out so that overall the lowest CO2 emissions are achieved. Wood has it's part in the mix.

I find it odd that as an opne-minded scientist you refuse to accept the logical, well-developped explanations by both myself and Northwind of how woodland can be mangaged to be carbon negative, neutral or positive, but most usually positive or neutral in anything other than clear felling without replanting.

The energy mix for every region, country, continent and ultimately the world has to be worked out so that overall the lowest CO2 emissions are achieved. Wood has it's part in the mix.

Yes, agree. It is [u]low[/u] carbon, but it is [u]not no[/u] carbon, and it's certainly not a net sink.

I am an open minded scientist, but the past 15 years of being one makes me rather critical of arguments that fail to follow basic mathematical principles.

-1+0+0 = -1.

The only way it can be positive is to have more of it.

The only way it can remain neutral is if you have the same amount of it.

If you burn some if it, you have less of it. You might have some more of it again at some point in the future, but at that mount in time you have less of it, which means more CO2 in the atmosphere until it's reabsorbed by its replacement.