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 customerYou 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 customerIf 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 customerIf 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 customerWell, 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 customerIf 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.
Yes, and they would have done so regardless of whether or not you burned one.
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.
The only way it can remain neutral is if you have the same amount of it.
That's exactly what were stating. Or more of it if you extract at less than the biomas than the forest is producing.
This is how the planet's flora has been removing volcanic CO2 from the atmosphere for a couple of billion years. By producing more than a neutral amount of biomass.