New Paper: CO2 Emissions From Biofuels Are Worse Than Coal, Yet EU Says Biofuels Are ‘Carbon Neutral’

Governments promote biofuels as renewable, carbon-neutral resources that serve to reduce CO2 emissions.  Meanwhile, scientists have determined that biomass burning generates more CO2 emissions per kWh than burning coal does, and the projected rapid growth in biofuel use will only serve to ‘increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century’. 

Sterman et al., 2018

[G]overnments around the world are promoting biomass to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The European Union declared biofuels to be carbon-neutral to help meet its goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020, triggering a surge in use of wood for heat and electricity (European Commission 2003, Leturcq 2014, Stupak et al 2007). … But do biofuels actually reduce GHG emissions?”

“[A]lthough wood has approximately the same carbon intensity as coal (0.027 vs. 0.025 tC GJ−1 of primary energy […]), combustion efficiency of wood and wood pellets is lower (Netherlands Enterprise Agency; IEA 2016). Estimates also suggest higher processing losses in the wood supply chain (Roder et al 2015). Consequently, wood-fired power plants generate more CO2 per kWh than coal. Burning wood instead of coal therefore creates a carbon debt—an immediate increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to fossil energy—that can be repaid over time only as—and if— NPP [net primary production] rises above the flux of carbon from biomass and soils to the atmosphere on the harvested lands.”

Growth in wood supply causes steady growth in atmospheric CO2 because more CO2 is added to the atmosphere every year in initial carbon debt than is paid back by regrowth, worsening global warming and climate change. The qualitative result that growth in bioenergy raises atmospheric CO2 does not depend on the parameters: as long as bioenergy generates an initial carbon debt, increasing harvests mean more is ‘borrowed’ every year than is paid back. More precisely, atmospheric CO2 rises as long as NPP [net primary production] remains below the initial carbon debt incurred each year plus the fluxes of carbon from biomass and soils to the atmosphere.”

[P]rojected growth in wood harvest for bioenergy would increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century because new carbon debt continuously exceeds NPP.”

[C]ontrary to the policies of the EU and other nations, biomass used to displace fossil fuels injects CO2 into the atmosphere at the point of combustion and during harvest, processing and transport. Reductions in atmospheric CO2 come only later, and only if the harvested land is allowed to regrow.”


Fanous and Moomaw, 2018

“These nations fail to recognize the intensity of CO2 emissions linked to the burning of biomass. The chemical energy stored in wood is converted into heat or electricity by way of combustion and is sometimes used for combined heat and power cogeneration. At the point of combustion, biomass emits more carbon per unit of heat than most fossil fuels. Due to the inefficiencies of biomass energy, bioenergy power plants emit approximately 65 percent more CO2 per MWH than modern coal plants, and approximately 285 percent more than natural gas combined cycle plants.”

Furthermore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that combustion of biomass generates gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions roughly equivalent to the combustion of fossil fuels. In the case of forest timber turned into wood pellets for bioenergy use, the IPCC further indicates that the process produces higher CO2 emissions than fossil fuels for decades to centuries.”

 

161 responses to “New Paper: CO2 Emissions From Biofuels Are Worse Than Coal, Yet EU Says Biofuels Are ‘Carbon Neutral’”

  1. Georg Thomas

    I found this graphic article rather instructive in understanding the wood/pellet side of the biofuel issue: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4255010/Idiocy-replacing-coal-power-stations-burning-wood.html

    1. SebastianH

      Can’t believe I am replying to a dailmail link, but …

      Firstly, it is ludicrous to claim that wood is ‘carbon neutral’ on the grounds that replacement trees would eventually absorb the carbon emitted when a felled tree is burned. The report says it could take a replacement tree hundreds of years to grow to maturity — which would be far too long to have any supposed effect on any climate change.

      Why would a tree to be grown to maturity? Just grow it a few years, then burn, grow a new one a few years, then burn, repeat forever. Why would this cycle not be carbon neutral?

      1. Ed Caryl

        It would not be carbon neutral because the initial mass is never fully replaced, plus the losses in the fossil fuels used in harvesting, replanting, processing and transport of the pellets. Currently, the pellets used in the U.K. are coming from the east coast of North America.

        1. Paul Aubrin

          There is another reason for not being carbon neutral. According to the Bern Model, used by the IPCC, 15.2% of all the burned carbon stays forever in the atmosphere. And 25.3% takes 171 years to leave it.

          http://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html

          1. SebastianH

            Are you serious?

          2. AndyG55

            Are you seeking attention, yet again. ???

            I thought the unfcccp was one of your idles.

          3. toorightmate

            Seb is well qualified to ask, “Are you serious”.
            He has been asked that question more than anyone else.

          4. SebastianH

            So you guys are supporting this claim? I read it this way: Paul claims that it can’t be carbon neutral because of CO2 emissions from burning carbon staying in the atmosphere for a long time. Thus newly grown plants can’t absorb these carbon dioxide molecules.

            Is this really what you guys think too (by way of trying to make fun of me and not Pauls statement)?

          5. AndyG55

            “Thus newly grown plants can’t absorb these carbon dioxide molecules.”

            Where did you get that twisted anti-science thought process from???

            Deliberately twisting what people say, as is his meme.

            Wood is no more carbon neutral than coal. Just less efficient.

            They both are part of the carbon cycle, just at different time periods.

            It is highly beneficial for all life on Earth to release that long sequestered carbon back into the carbon cycle WHERE IT BELONGS.

          6. SebastianH

            Hmm, reply vanished?

            Why not address what the peer-reviewed scientific paper

            You do realize that I was trying to confirm if Paul were serious and if AndyG55 and toorightmate are supporting his claim implicitly. This subthread is not about what the paper says.

            Are the authors of the paper wrong?

            Yes, they are.

            There claim is similar to the claim that wind turbines would need a lot more energy to build them than what they can generate at the same time.

            “Ignoring” the regrowing phase (or in case of wind turbines that they produce electricity for many decades and recoup the invested energy within 1 or 2 years) is what makes the author’s claim wrong. Well, they don’t exactly ignore it, but they make it sound like it would take many decades to regrow what has already been burned. The reality is that – at least the U.S. – produces as much fuel as it consumes. If that weren’t the case the whole business of biofuels would be highly unsustainable (like coal). Don’t you think?

            AndyG55:

            “Thus newly grown plants can’t absorb these carbon dioxide molecules.”

            Where did you get that twisted anti-science thought process from???

            Deliberately twisting what people say, as is his meme.

            Ehm, that is exactly what Paul wrote: “15.2% of all the burned carbon stays forever in the atmosphere.” He claims that wood is not carbon neutral, because the carbon stays in the atmosphere.

            Wood is no more carbon neutral than coal. Just less efficient.

            They both are part of the carbon cycle, just at different time periods.

            Yeah sure, Coal is as carbon neutral as wood. We’ll just “regrow” it as fast as we are using it up and voila we have sustainable coal. Is that what you are trying to say? 😉

          7. AndyG55

            Again with the incredibly stupid misinterpretation of what Paul said.

            You really have fantasy comprehension issues.

            He said NOTHING about plants not being able to use it. That is YOUR fantasy.

            The continued growth of biofuels IS unsustainable. More forest and crop land is used every years..

            .. but who cares, right seb.. not you, for sure.

            Sorry your comprehension skills don’t allow you to understand that coal is just part of the carbon cycle. I can’t help your ignorance. No-one can.

            You are impervious to knowledge and facts.

            And why would we want to make more coal.. the Sun and nature will continue to do that just like they have for billions of years. And there is plenty of it. !

          8. SebastianH

            The authors of the paper are staunch supporters of CO2 emissions mitigation because they believe it causes dangerous climate change.

            Where did you get this from?

            The lead author is a management professor:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sterman

            These are his most cited papers:
            https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=YlOW4Z4AAAAJ&hl=de&oi=sra

            How can we be assured that you are right, and these authors are wrong, SebastianH?

            It should be pretty obvious that growing biofuel to burn it requires enough biofuel to be grown. Otherwise it’s not sustainable. In this comment I linked the relevant tables that should show you production and consumption in the US: http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/14/new-paper-co2-emissions-from-biofuels-are-worse-than-coal-yet-eu-says-biofuels-are-carbon-neutral/comment-page-1/#comment-1262307

            Does that look unsustainable to you?

            The author(s) of that paper however assume that you begin with burning a forrest, then let it regrow, burn the next forrest, let it regrow and so on. Eventually (decades later) the first forrest will have regrown and can be harvested again. Only then the carbon released will be slowly offset.

            Do you think that the biofuel/biomass business works this way?

            @AndyG55:
            Just let it be. What else could Paul possibly have meant by it not being carbon neutral because CO2 stays in the atmosphere? What is your interpretation of his words? Why is it not carbon neutral when “15.2% of all the burned carbon stays forever in the atmosphere. And 25.3% takes 171 years to leave it.”?

            The continued growth of biofuels IS unsustainable. More forest and crop land is used every years..

            .. but who cares, right seb.. not you, for sure.

            *sigh* … why would the forrest and land use not increase when the bio fuel industry grows?

            I do care. Please highlight unsustainable biofuel operations so can check them out and possibly do something against it. If you can’t, then please accept that a sustainable biofuel production (regrowing exactly the amount of biomass that gets burned in the same timespan) and consumption is carbon neutral. Harvesting, transport, etc is not … as should be obvious too.

            Sorry your comprehension skills don’t allow you to understand that coal is just part of the carbon cycle. I can’t help your ignorance. No-one can.

            You are impervious to knowledge and facts.

            You do seem to have a problem with sarcasm, hmm … the natural carbon cycle doesn’t include burning coal. If you’d want to do it sustainably then you could only burn as much coal as you can “regrow” ne coal. That is a common theme with people who care about CO2 emissions. If you could make everyone pay the amount of money for a resource that would be needed to replenish the resource, nobody would ever even think of burning fossil fuels.

            And why would we want to make more coal.. the Sun and nature will continue to do that just like they have for billions of years. And there is plenty of it. !

            Sustainability.

          9. AndyG55

            “Just let it be. What else could Paul possibly have meant by it not being carbon neutral because CO2 stays in the atmosphere?”

            I’ll leave that up to your fevered imagination

            Certainly NOT that plants can’t use it.

            That is your hallucinogenic construct.

            You seem to have a problem with REALITY.

            Sorry you don’t have enough grasp on reality to realise that when something takes a few minutes to burn, and years to produce… it can only work with ever increasing land use.

            The natural carbon cycle used to have FAR MORE carbon in it. Coal is accidentally sequestered carbon, the used to be in the atmosphere.

            The release of that carbon back into the shorter term carbon cycle is highly necessary for the continuation of life on the planet.

            Remain UNAWARE of reality seb. Your unawaremess is your only redeeming quality.

            And you STILL haven’t produce one tiny bit of real evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does anything other than enhance plant growth.. and provide CO2 for biofuel growth.

            Still running away…

          10. AndyG55

            “… the natural carbon cycle doesn’t include burning coal. “

            UNAWARE seb

            There are many natural coal seams burning around the world.

            Also, humans are part of natural carbon cycle. Is natural for humans to burn coal, just as its natural to burn wood..

            Its called progress, and its what lifted humans out of the dark ages into an age of prosperity.

            The prosperity that allows people to exist in a civilised society..

            yes seb .. even you, and every aspect of your life, are totally indebted to coal whether you admit it or like it.

          11. SebastianH

            Well AndyG55, at every point in the past we were “totally indebted” to whatever came before that point. At no point humanity settled down and thought we can’t do better and should forever do what we do now.

            Yes, it is called progress. And progress will gradually lift us away from fossil fuels.

          12. SebastianH

            Sorry you don’t have enough grasp on reality to realise that when something takes a few minutes to burn, and years to produce… it can only work with ever increasing land use.

            You are dead serious with this assertion, aren’t you?

            Math 101:
            If it takes a minute to burn a tree and X years (525600 minutes) to regrow the biomass, then you obviously need to grow X * 525600 trees to make it sustainable.

            Or with real numbers:
            Wood pellet producer Latvia apparently manages to get 52 tonnes per square kilometer per year from regrowing forests. That’s around 250 MWh of heat or at 30% efficiency 75 MWh of electricity. So one square kilometer of forest can be sustainably fed to a power plant with a capacity of 8.56 kW. You can calculate for yourself what that results in when you take all 27000 square kilometers of forest they are using for wood pellet production.

          13. AndyG55

            Wind, solar, boimess are NOT progress.

            They are a step back to UNRELIABILITY and environmentally destructive practices.

            A mindless, anti-science fad. !

          14. AndyG55

            “when you take all 27000 square kilometers of forest “

            roflmao …

            And seb does a MASSIVE faceplant !!

            massive habitat destruction.

          15. AndyG55

            “biomass burning a progressive practice “

            But it is progressive, K.

            Progressively destroying forests, habitats, and food crop production around the world.

          16. SebastianH

            AndyG55:

            massive habitat destruction.

            Are you under the impression that they harvest a forest area of 27000 square kilometers each year and not harvest from the same area each year?

            In what way is biomass burning a progressive practice when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions and deforestation?

            It’s better than a new coal power plant, but I didn’t exactly write that biomass burning is progress, didn’t I? To make it more clear to you, I am not a proponent of biofuels. I am just a strong opponent of you misinterpreting stuff …

            Both CO2 emissions and deforestation rise with expansion of biomass burning.

            Oh please continue to post this graph and claim that this the whole story and you aren’t leaving out half of the equation *sigh*

          17. AndyG55

            “It’s better than a new coal power plant”

            NO its not. Biofuels are debilitating to the environment.

            Just a few biomass power stations are devastating parts of the US forests.

            Biofuels are destroying tropical forest and displacing people from their homes and forcing up corn prices while leading to low stockpiles in many countries
            Its disgusting that anyone can

            It is NEVER an alternative to coal.

            Sorry you are too UNAWARE to realise that.

          18. AndyG55

            “strong opponent of misinterpreting stuff …”

            Yes, we have notice you constantly misinterpreting basically everything to make it fit your AGW-cultism, trying to say you are then an opponent of it.. bizarre lack of self-awareness from you.

            You have a way of doing everything you accuse others of doing, trying to turn your own modus onto others.

            Its quite deceitful you know.

            But that is who you are.

          19. AndyG55

            “please continue to post this graph and claim that this the whole story “

            Oh look poor seb is unable to interpret/accept a simple graph, just because it proves him wrong.

            FACTS and DATA never were your strong point, seb

            I notice you are STILL avoiding posting any proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does anything except to promote enhanced plant growth.

            Could it be that you are EMPTY !

          20. AndyG55

            unfinished sentence…..

            Its disgusting that anyone can even slightly promote this type of anti-environmental industry. It wouldn’t be tolerated if it weren’t part of the anti-CO2 scam/agenda.

            Just like wind turbines wouldn’t be acceptable if not for the lies and anti-science propaganda of the BIG CON that is AGW.

          21. SebastianH

            You have a way of doing everything you accuse others of doing, trying to turn your own modus onto others.

            Oh the irony …

            Oh look poor seb is unable to interpret/accept a simple graph, just because it proves him wrong.

            Why do you need to make up something like this? How does that help you in any way?

            The graph is perfectly fine, Kenneth claim that it would show that biomass is worse than coal is wrong. The graph just shows the amount of CO2 released when burning fuel to get out a kWh of electricity. It completely ignores any offsetting occuring due to regrowing the fuel supply (e.g. the other half of the equation).

            Its disgusting that anyone can even slightly promote this type of anti-environmental industry. It wouldn’t be tolerated if it weren’t part of the anti-CO2 scam/agenda.

            Why am I even replying to you guys if you don’t read anything I write? Where am I promoting this?

            Again, yes biomass/-fuels still emits a lot of CO2 after considering the renewable part of that fuel type. Therefore it is not ideal. Arguing against your nonsense that biomass is worse than coal is not the same as supporting it as a solution for the CO2 emission problem.

          22. AndyG55

            so sad.

            still the mindless trolling for attention

            “supporting it as a solution for the CO2 emission problem.”

            What CO2 emission problem ???????

            IS that one of your brain-hosed fantasies which you have zero evidence for ??

            The only problem with CO2 is that it is still in short supply in the atmosphere, so I guess that biomess is actually helping to solve that problem.

            Constant increase of what is produced vs what is regrown. Pity so much land is degraded to achieve it.

            Anyway, as you are well aware, there is ZERO evidence that CO2 emissions are a problem in any way shape or form.

        2. Bitter&twisted

          DNFTT

          1. AndyG55

            Not your call. !!

      2. MrZ

        It would but you are forgetting the rate you’d had to burn the trees.
        Sweden has 60 billion trees. Those could cover European gas consumptuon for two weeks. Europe use 450 billion m3 gas every year.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          Practicality is NOT their sting suit.

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            “strong” not “sting”

            I hate this stupid “smart” phone!

        2. SebastianH

          Biofuels aren’t meant to completely replace fossil fuels. They never can as you noticed …

          1. AndyG55

            Biomess is “meant” to be just from waste wood product, but old growth trees are being used as well, because the subsidies are so incredibly insanely high !!

            As an ” green environmentalist”, you, of course, condone this waste and destruction.

            “They never can as you noticed …”

            Unreliables can NEVER replace RELIABLE electricity sources, either, seb

            The RELIABLES are ALWAYS needed for the large amount of time the UNRELIABLES live up to their name.

            100% back-up available ON DEMAND.

            And that costs!

            Which is why places with high unreliable s have the highest electricity costs.

            That and the idiotic subsidies and feed-in mandates.

          2. MrZ

            My take is that it really does not matter where the CO2 originates from as long as we burn whatever carbon faster than the nature can take it back.
            Burning trees must be idiotic since younger plants is far less of an effective carbon sink than older trees.
            I would agree though that using trees for constructions is a good compromise. Carbon is then locked for 100ds of years while new plants can act as additional carbon sink.

        3. tom0mason

          Which is why coal offers a better future for everyone.
          Coal ‘s role in electricity generation worldwide

          Modern life is unimaginable without electricity. It lights houses, buildings, streets, provides domestic and industrial heat, and powers most equipment used in homes, offices and machinery in factories. Improving access to electricity worldwide is critical to alleviating poverty.

          Coal plays a vital role in electricity generation worldwide. Coal-fuelled power plants currently fuel 37% of global electricity and, in some countries, coal fuels a higher percentage of electricity.

          https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal/coal-electricity

      3. Kurt in Switzerland

        Seb,

        Try this thought experiment:

        1) grow the forest, harvest / convert to biomass, burn, replant.
        2) grow the forest, harvest / convert the wood to furniture, burning coal instead of the forest.

        In both scenarios, the forest absorbs the same amount of CO2.

        Yet burning the coal has a smaller “Carbon footprint” than burning the “Biofuels”. So why would you (as a rational human being) be in favor of the option resulting in higher specific Carbon emissions?

        1. SebastianH

          1) biofuels will never be able to completely replace fossil fuels.
          2) how many chairs, cupboards, etc do you need in your life?

          Your plan to offset CO2 from burning coal with growing forests doesn’t work.

          So why would you (as a rational human being) be in favor of the option resulting in higher specific Carbon emissions?

          I have a thought experiment for you.
          Scenario A) you burn coal to get amount X of usable energy
          Scenario B) you burn less coal resulting in X-Y of usable energy and instead get Y from growing forests, harvesting them and burning them.

          Getting Y is essentially carbon neutral, only the work that needs to be invested in making this work results in emissions. Getting Y via the coal burning path results in far more emissions, since it can’t be “regrown” as fast as we are using it up.

          If you are trying to offset the emission from burning coal to get Y by growing forests, you will eventually run out of places to plant new forests.

          1. Kurt in Switzerland

            Seb,

            Answer the question, please.

          2. SebastianH

            Answer the question, please. […] So why would you (as a rational human being) be in favor of the option resulting in higher specific Carbon emissions?

            Didn’t that become clear from my reply? Your thought experiment is flawed and therefore your suggestive question is flawed too. Option 1 isn’t the option with higher CO2 emissions …

          3. Kurt in Switzerland

            seb,

            You wrote, “Your thought experiment is flawed” yet you failed to explain how you came to that conclusion.

          4. AndyG55

            Maybe one day you will experiment with having a thought, seb.

            Any prior attempts have been a massive failure for you.

        2. AndyG55

          “So why would you (as a rational human being)”

          roflmao

          Kurt must be starring as a stand-up comedian soon !! 🙂

          seb is certainly NOT rational.

          and there is a big question mark about him actually being human.

          1. Bitter&twisted

            DNFTT was

        3. cementafriend

          Kurt, Sweden and as i recall Switzerland has mainly softwoods such as Pines and Firs which grow quickly and not much hardwood. The softwood is OK for making paper and for second rate furniture such as that from the swedish company Ikea. The raw wood has a higher moisture and would not be good for burning. Maybe OK for hot water in central town heating as in some places in Sweden. The fourth Ed of Chemical Engineers Handbook Book has at Table 9-6 heating values of different woods. White Pine is shown to have value by weight to be 0.5 of that of standard coal (13,000 Btu/lb) in the green state and 0.55 in the air dry state (it still has high moisture and also high volatiles of which much is CO2). Hard Woods which are more suitable for fine furniture take much longer to grow but have has higher energy due to having less moisture. White Oak has an equivalence of 0.86 in the green state and 0.92 in the air dried state. Some Australian hard woods such as iron wood used for rail sleepers is poor for burning as it is so dense complete combustion is difficult. It has been used for making charcoal and used for making iron in blast furnaces. Blue Gum, a short fibre Eucalpyt, is grown in Tasmania for paper making and also for furniture (with the wood called Tasmanian Oak). It grows also as quickly as European pines. The offcuts (eg thinnings) were chipped and sent to Japan for paper making. No wood is burnt as it is too valuable. The Paper mill use coal for heat.

          1. Kurt in Switzerland

            cement,

            Thank you for your observations. What’s your point?

        4. AndyG55

          “2) grow the forest, harvest / convert the wood to furniture, burning coal instead of the forest. ”

          And building construction.. furniture is a tiny amount compared

          I don’t know what they use elsewhere, but down here we still use one heck of amount of timber for building: framework, floors, benchwork skirting and architrave… etc

          Other alternatives for framework is steel, which obviously uses large amounts of coal in its manufacture.

          Or you could use brick or cement blocks.. which also require large amounts of fossil fuel.

          1. Kurt in Switzerland

            Of course wood has multiple uses apart from furniture and firewood. You could use it as landfill, an additive for construction, etc. Burning coal will still be more efficient and release less CO2.

    2. Henning Nielsen

      Thank you,very instructive. What total madness this is! It just goes to show that the government has no real faith in the CAGW myth, or concern about climate change, it only makes the appropriate moves to show willing.

    3. John Brown

      Very telling.

      I just stumbled across a rather political essay from Sir Monbiot but with reference to the Top Post.

      http://www.monbiot.com/2017/09/21/the-smog-chancellor/

  2. MIG

    I know this post is primarily talking wood pellets used in commercial power generation, but residential burning of wood also seems to be quite high in Germany.

    I can’t find any stats, but I recently traveled to Bavaria and noticed in smaller towns nearly every home had massive wood piles out back. I’m assuming this is used to fire a boiler for heat and hot water.

    1. Newminster

      And you’ll find equally large stacks of wood across much of rural France as well!

    2. tom0mason

      And a problem with residential burning of wood is particulates. This paper identifies this problem and quantifies it from actual measurements.

      http://www.ieabcc.nl/publications/Nussbaumer_et_al_IEA_Report_PM10_Jan_2008.pdf

      1. SebastianH

        That is actually true. Except this report is about small scale biomass combustion, isn’t it? Aren’t we talking about biofuels in regular gasoline and generating electricity from biomass?

  3. SebastianH

    that can be repaid over time only as—and if— NPP [net primary production] rises above the flux of carbon from biomass and soils to the atmosphere on the harvested lands.”

    Isn’t this why biofuels are considered carbon neutral? We grow plants specifically to burn them. The released carbon was extracted from the atmosphere before, thus it’s neutral. Planting and harvesting has its own emissions on top of that, but it never can be as bad as coal, where the carbon debt can never be “repaid” because we certainly don’t “regrow coal”.

    Reductions in atmospheric CO2 come only later, and only if the harvested land is allowed to regrow.”

    I would be unsustainable if it would not be allowed to regrow.

    You wrote:

    “the projected rapid growth in biofuel use will only serve to ‘increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century’. “

    Do you think that using biofuels instead of coal increases the CO2 emissions or do you understand that this is only the case when biofuels aren’t replacing coal?

    1. Paul Aubrin

      “Planting and harvesting has its own emissions on top of that, but it never can be as bad as coal, where the carbon debt can never be “repaid” because we certainly don’t “regrow coal”.”

      Forests, and more generally vegetation, if not harvested, end “growing coal”.

      1. SebastianH

        How long does it take for vegetation to become coal and how fast are we using up coal? Do you think we are “regrowing coal” at any rate that could offset the use of coal? 😉

        1. AndyG55

          The biosphere is luving it, seb

          10-15% increase by all accounts.

          That’s a real large amount of biological matter.

          And seriously… why would we ever want to sequester more carbon, its in short supply in the atmosphere already. !

    2. AndyG55

      “but it never can be as bad as coal,”

      Only if you are dumb and gullible enough to believe the unproven fantasy that atmospheric CO2 does anything except enhance plant growth.

      Coal and gas powered electricity REPLACED wood-burning because it reduced real pollution in urban areas.

      With electricity priced skyrocketing because of unreliables, people are going back to their old wood burning, high polluting ways of smog creation.

      And the idiocy of raping US forests to provide electricity for the UK ——- DOH !!!

      I hope POTUS soon puts a stop to it.

      Always BACKWARDS.. the “green???” agenda !!

  4. Georg Thomas

    There may be other and rather subtle aspects involved, such as the following which underscores, to my mind, how the sacralisation of environmentalism is apt to destroy genuine ecological awareness, a perversion achieved on a monumental scale in Germany.

    One way of creating (merely apparent) reality is liturgical repetition. Repeating the tenets of the faith over and over again is what drives the bolts of dogma irretrievably into the mind. In this manner concepts and their causal relationships can be made to appear as if indubitably real, when they’re not. If you have established a sufficient number of stereotypes that are intensely believed in, it is possible to create entire false worlds with arbitrary causal relationships that are perfectly in sync with one’s preferred convictions. Philosophically speaking, this is idealism, a way of thinking that does not admit the entire spectrum of means of corroboration, including rigorous empirical testing.

    Carefull empirically oriented vetting is thought to be redundant as the faith-based intuition seems to establish indubitability.

    I suspect, burning wood to putatively save CO2 is a case in point. It can be made to sound green (see above) and it makes some people rather a lot of money.

    What makes the green turn so discomforting is its reliance on runaway idealism that always finds new applications when old ones have been refuted, an attitude capable of terrible tyranny.

    1. SebastianH

      You don’t need to write like this … you outed yourself as dailymail reader already …

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Very nicely summarized, Georg. You not only correctly call it a religion (cult), but clearly show how it is one.

      So naturally the resident activist has to attack you personally (ad hom) by accusing you of not thinking for yourself. And you obviously get your ideas from an unreliable source (guilt by association).

      So, we should dismiss your words, not because he can show how they are wrong, but because they aren’t really your ideas, and you got them from a source that’s wrong, but he can’t sow why. An echo chamber of self validating false assertions.

      Rude, boorish and logically fallacious arguments are all they have.

      So, thanks again for a breath of fresh air.

      1. SebastianH

        Just saying he doesn’t need to write this fancy to sound more knowledgeable. We know now what kind of sources he gets his “knowledge” from.

        You should not dismiss his words, Yonason. Take it as an example how someone completely misjudges reality and makes up his own story to justify whatever he believes in.

        Besides, how can one show that it’s wrong to call it a religion capable of terrible tyranny? Can you show that skepticism isn’t exactly that? It’s an opinion and you guys are certainly entitled to have one. Just don’t expect that others won’t tell you how ridiculous it is 😉

        1. AndyG55

          “Take it as an example how someone completely misjudges reality and makes up his own story to justify whatever he believes in”

          So, just like a typical seb post, then.

          Except Georg was pretty much correct in every comment….

          … while seb’s grasp on reality is extremely tenuous at best, and his pseudo-knowledge comes from some sort of manic fantasy realm.

          Seb is also totally unable to justify even the most basic farce of his AGW-cult “belief”, that of CO2 warming.

          The anti-CO2 AGW farce IS a religion, and has ALREADY caused great tyranny and misery for many in the third world, and threatens many countries civilised world.

          We all know how ridiculous your comments are, seb.

          No need to keep highlighting the fact.

      2. tom0mason

        +1

    3. John Brown

      Thanks Georg,

      This is a very good description of what is going on. If the media just repeat 1000 times that CO2 causes Global Warming, the gullible will have to believe it at some point.
      They do not even realise that Global Warming was replaced by Climate Change, which is more subtle, since it includes the cooling, that takes place here and there or the warming, that does not take place.

      The fatal issue is that the tyranny is driven by those that have no other option, than to believe or do want that humans are bad for this planet. Its a fundamentalist religious system coming out of that idealism. The rift in society this has created is dangerous.
      I love this site that puts the light on the true science.

      Keep going Pierre and Ken and again well written Georg!

      1. SebastianH

        “The true science” is not highlighted here, John. You need to look elsewhere to get that kind of information. Maybe enlist in a university and study climate science or something similar. This is in an opinion site/blog like nearly every website about climate science. You’ll get a very biased view of “the science” if you only read blogs like this one …

        1. John Brown

          SebH,

          the science is in the papers. Only you seam to miss the point of actually reading and trying to understand them.

          If you always want to go off on what is being said about them by attacking the messengers, then you truly missing the point of this site.

          Sorry no joy!

          So long!

          1. SebastianH

            This website is not just a paper respository. It interprets the available science in a certain way and leaves out important parts to paint a picture that has little to do with reality.

            The point of this website is to make skeptics feel better by catering to their conviction that human emissions can’t possibly have something to do with climate change in modern times. It’s certainly not putting a light on “true science” as you claimed.

          2. AndyG55

            Only person not dealing with scientific REALITY is you, seb

            Your twisted interpretations and lack of comprehension of basic science are a wonder to behold!

            You wouldn’t have the vaguest clue what “true science” was. It is totally absent from nearly all your comments.

            You have ZERO purpose here, except as comic relief. !

            You want “true science” then produce some that proves enhanced atmospheric CO2 does anything except enhance plant growth

            You are DEVOID of even the science to support the most basic “belief” of the AGW -cult religion.

            Now we can all sit back and watch as you yet again totally avoid producing anything !!

          3. John Brown

            Science lives with different interpretations. If you come up with your own, do so. The science papers presented here with the site owners interpretations are still science.

            As I say, stop arguing about the interpretation, read the papers, understand them and come up with your own interpretation as a basis for discussion.

            I do not know why you even answered my post, that was not directed at you.

            You are a true waste of time!

          4. tom0mason

            Excellent and very accurate reply!

          5. tom0mason

            My comment above was obviously aimed at John Brown 15. May 2018 at 10:47 AM above, and not the illogical anti-science, anti-progress waste of space that also comments here.

          6. SebastianH

            As I say, stop arguing about the interpretation, read the papers, understand them and come up with your own interpretation as a basis for discussion.

            The skeptic’s community lives of these interpretations. Highlighting when they are wrong involves arguing their interpretations, not the papers they refer to.

            I do not know why you even answered my post, that was not directed at you.

            I replied because you asserted that this blog would “put a light on true science”, which is certainly not the case.

          7. AndyG55

            “The skeptic’s community lives of these interpretations”

            The AGW-cult community lives on so much non-science and downright fantasy fabrication its ridiculous.

            Its not a matter of interpretation, its a matter of the TOTAL LACK OF REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

            You, yourself have CONTINUALLY highlighted that EMPTY body of proof. ZERO proof of even the most basic parts of the AGW fantasy.

            “Highlighting when they are wrong involves arguing their interpretations”

            Yet you have NEVER been able to highlight anything wrong with any interpretations because you DO NOT have the capability to see passed your manic brain-washed AGW belief to get through to any part of the real science.

            Your own interpretations of papers is smeared with wilful ignorance and an obvious lack of any real science or physics education, combined with a weird FANTASY make-believe sort of anti-science cult mania.

        2. AndyG55

          “You’ll get a very biased view of “the science””

          Unlike the totally “balanced” view you have, right seb 😉

          SURLY you MUST be joking !!

          If you were CAPABLE of presenting any science here, you would at least try.

          But you just KEEP RUNNING AWAY from even the slightest attempt at putting forward any real scientific evidence for basically anything you rant about.

          We are still all waiting for some sort of evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has any effect on climate, anywhere, anyhow, any time

  5. Steve

    In the end (after wasting hundreds of billions of dollars) people will realise that burning coal is not a problem.

  6. AndyG55

    Burning coal is FAR “greener” than burning wood because it releases accidentally sequestered carbon back into the shorter term carbon cycle….

    WHERE IT BELONGS.

    Chopping down trees does NOT make anything “greener”.

    Releasing EXTRA carbon most certainly does.. measurably.!!

    1. SebastianH

      This whole article and its comments should make anyone accidentally stumbling upon it a skeptic of “skeptics” … just wow!

      1. AndyG55

        Poor attention-seeking seb…

        YOUR every comments makes anyone who reads them think,..

        “Seriously ??? Can anyone REALLY be that DUMB” ???????

        Just WOW !!

        And yes, seb really is !!!

    2. AndyG55

      Glad to see you have ZERO argument against what I posted.

      Just more mindless, attention-seeking yapping.

      I’ll repeat it just for you.

      “Burning coal is FAR “greener” than burning wood because it releases accidentally sequestered carbon back into the shorter term carbon cycle….

      WHERE IT BELONGS.

      Chopping down trees does NOT make anything “greener”.

      Releasing EXTRA carbon most certainly does.. measurably.!!

      Thems the facts.. which you have never been able to give any rational rebuttal to.

  7. toorightmate

    It is important to realize that there is good CO2 and bad CO2.
    The good CO2 comes out of aircraft which transport delegates and freeloaders to climate conference.
    The bad CO2 comes from coal fired power stations.

    THE CO2 HORSESH*T HAS TO STOP.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Just a slight addition, TRM…

      “The bad CO2 comes from coal fired power stations.” [that provide the masses with affordable energy that transforms drudgery into health and comfort.]

      THAT’S what they hate about it, as I’m sure you know, but I think it helps to emphasize it more than we sometimes do.

      1. SebastianH

        Coal power plants aren’t affordable energy. You do live in the U.S., right? How much new coal capacity was added in the last years or is being added right now?

        Natural gas and renewables are the affordable options in the U.S. … not coal.

        1. AndyG55

          Renewables are NOT affordable. They are waste of time because the HAVE to have total back-up. They also require massive subsidies and idiotic feed-in rules to even exist.

          You are still in a brain-hosed fantasy world, seb.

          1600+ new coal fired power stations being built around the world seb.

          BECAUSE THEY ARE CHEAP and RELIABLE

          These will provide magnitudes more electricity and actual progress than renewables will ever do.

          1. SebastianH

            1600+ new coal fired power stations being built around the world seb.

            No, there aren’t. But feel free to keep repeating that number 😉

            “Will the U.S. ever build another big coal plant?”

            The number of new coal plants worldwide is shrinking

            Factcheck: Are Chinese companies really leading a new global coal power boom?

          2. AndyG55

            https://climatechangedispatch.com/1600-new-coal-power-plants-being-built-around-the-world/

            https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/despite-paris-agreement-china-india-continue-build-coal-plants/

            Plenty of extra CO2 for the world’s plant life, seb.

            And once people realise they have been conned by the anti-CO2 brigade, and all the punitive measures against coal are dropped, that will only increase.

          3. AndyG55

            “Planned coal-fired capacity additions from a number of countries in and around the Middle East will add 41 gigawatts (GW) of new electric generating capacity over the next decade, based on announced projects and projects currently in the permitting process.”

            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/image_thumb29.png

            more here….

            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/05/15/countries-around-middle-east-are-adding-44gw-of-coal-power-over-next-decade/

            As Geery says..

            “The Chinese are cleverly filling the void left by western stupidity.”

          4. AndyG55

            And of course, with many wind turbines reaching their use-by date, the scammers want MORE subsidies to “replace” them

            https://www.thegwpf.com/wind-farm-lifetime-extensions-and-repowering-managing-the-death-spiral/

            How much does Drax Power get paid to rape US forests???

            Subsidy sucking. !!!!

            The only way so-called “renewables” can exist.

          5. SebastianH

            And once people realise […]

            Let’s hope that one day you will realize that you’ve been wrong and feel a bit bad about being a disinformer …

            It’s almost like you didn’t click on a single link I provided 😉

            Maybe you should look at the endcoal global coal plant tracker (that’s where the original source got the 1600 figure from) to get an idea how man plants are being constructed and how many are announced: https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/

        2. AndyG55

          “Let’s hope that one day you will realize that you’ve been wrong “

          ROFLMAO.

          Were you preening in the mirror when you said that, seb

          Getting your info from MANIC ANTI-COAL PROPAGANDA sites.

          dearie me….

          You are such a GULLIBLE little AGW-cultist.

          1. SebastianH

            Getting your info from MANIC ANTI-COAL PROPAGANDA sites.

            Didn’t you know that the 1600 figure comes from this database? And now you declare it as propaganda?

            Weird …

            You also don’t seem to know that on average only 34% of planned/announced coal power plants actually get built. (timeframe of the report: 2010-2017)

            https://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BoomAndBust_2018_r6.pdf

          2. AndyG55

            Poor seb, a realist uses the propaganda site to get information, and seb doesn’t realise the difference. DUMB. !!

            Plenty of new coal going up, seb

            SE Asia, Middle East, Africa.

            World CO2 emission will continue to rise, probably even accelerate as more and more countries ignore the anti-CO2 scam. 🙂

            Atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase, much to the benefit of all life on Earth.

            And seb and his ilk will continue to yap mindlessly about how bad CO2 and fossil fuels are, while continuing to rely totally on fossil fuel energy in every part of their life.

          3. SebastianH

            Poor seb, a realist uses the propaganda site to get information, and seb doesn’t realise the difference. DUMB. !!

            This is getting weirder with every reply of yours. The source everyone was citing back in July 2017 was https://urgewald.org/ … not what you call a realist usually.

            Plenty of new coal going up, seb

            Yep, plenty … but a lot less than it used to be. The rate of increase in coal power plant capacity is shrinking fast.

            World CO2 emission will continue to rise,

            Yes, they will for quite some time.

            And seb and his ilk will continue to yap mindlessly

            … *sigh* you just can’t help yourself, can you?

          4. AndyG55

            Yep, we know you can’t help yourself in your manic attention seeking…

            Nor can you help your self in you continued use of fossil fuels in every part of your life..

            *SIGH* !!!!(do you know how childishly petty and defeated that makes you sound)

            “Yep, plenty … but a lot less than it used to be. The rate of increase in coal power plant capacity is shrinking fast.”

            China has slowed down in its own country, but elsewhere its taking off like a rocket.

            Only thing slowing coal expansion down is the spite of the main EU banks refusing to fund new coal in third world countries, Holding them back from progress.

  8. Penelope

    ” biomass burning generates more CO2 emissions per kWh than burning coal ”

    Quite so. But then we know the object of the hoax isn’t to decrease CO2. I forget the total CO2 continuously released by the worldwide out-of-control natural gas burns. Seems these torches that no one cares about produce something like half of the US annual CO2 emission. Don’t quote me; it may not be quite so much.

    Thank you, Pierre, for the relentless proofs of the falsity of every aspect of AGW.

    Thank you

    1. SebastianH

      Quite so. But then we know the object of the hoax isn’t to decrease CO2.

      Nope, not quite so. The burning process releases more CO2 emissions per kWh, sure … but there is no regrowing coal and biofuels are regrown otherwise it would not be a sustainable way to generate kWhs. It decreases CO2 emissions if it replaces fossil fuel sources.

      1. John Brown

        SebH not very good with thinking. He wrong as the EMISSIONS, clearly increase!

        You see?

        1. SebastianH

          *sigh* no, they don’t increase when a biomass power plant replaces a coal power plant.

          1. AndyG55

            Less efficiency… emissions rise for biofuel.

            Basic maths seb, still probably beyond you.

            The CO2 released doesn’t know if it from biofuel or CO2.

            Its all just part of the CARBON CYCLE.

            CO2 from coal is absorbed by plants just as easily as CO2 from biofuels. There is no “selection” process.

            And since the total world-wide amount CO2 from coal is vastly higher than from biofuels, and will continue to climb….

            …. that means that the re-growth of biofuel crops is mostly from COAL SOURCED CO2.

            About time the producers of CO2 from coal got there fair share of the income from biofuels..

            … wouldn’t you agree, seb.

          2. John Brown

            SebH hides behind his own wrong thinking. The Emissions increase for each KWh from Wood chips versus coal.
            He no see that?
            Its not how much later sink in plant growth.
            Its just EMISSIONS.
            He no see?

            What burn when no trees anymore? SebH no see?

            You know what we will burn when no trees are left, coal!

          3. MrZ

            Seb, I agree bio does not add CO2 in the loop but it really does not matter when you are burning faster than what is taken back by nature. Your side is also arguing CO2 stays in atmosphere 100ds of years. That is quite a queue… Then as we burn or destroy good CO2 sinks the queue will get longer because uptake is less. Look at palm oil plantations for example.

          4. AndyG55

            “You know what we will burn when no trees are left, coal!”

            That is exactly why coal started to be used in the first place, that and its energy output.

            People were running out of wood to burn.

            It was NOT regrowing fast enough, and that was back when the world population was much smaller and energy requirements much, much lower.

            Coal built the civilised world, and STILL provides the bulk of the world’s energy, except in third world countries that have never had the luxury of plenty, RELIABLE electricity 24/7.

          5. SebastianH

            Basic math

            Indeed AndyG55, basic math. Burning coal for a kWh results in CO2 emissions of X, burning wood for the same amount of kWh results in emissions X+Y. A biofuel “farm” regrows what it burns or ends up being a combustion product (biodiesel, bioethanol). Are you seriously trying to tell me that this offsets less than Y CO2 emissions?

            John:

            SebH hides behind his own wrong thinking. The Emissions increase for each KWh from Wood chips versus coal.
            He no see that?

            Sure, and we all conveniently forget that trees (and the crops that are used for biofuels) are regrown at the same time and largely in a sustainable way.

            MrZ:

            but it really does not matter when you are burning faster than what is taken back by nature.

            Is that the case? And how much faster do we need to burn to get to the level of coal? Let’s say wood causes 20% more CO2 emissions than coal when burned. Basic math – as AndyG55 would tell us – says: if we can remove those additional 20% from the atmosphere we will have less CO2 emissions than from burning coal, right?

            Do you think that we burn about sixtimes more biomass than we manage to regrow?

            Your side is also arguing CO2 stays in atmosphere 100ds of years. That is quite a queue… Then as we burn or destroy good CO2 sinks the queue will get longer because uptake is less. Look at palm oil plantations for example.

            Except that is not the case if done in a sustainable way. U.S. biofuel production pretty much covers biofuel consumption. The EU imports very small amounts of biofuels.

            AndyG55 (2nd time):
            We get it, coal is better than wood. But it is still an unsustainable way to produce electricity and by now not even the most affordable one.

          6. AndyG55

            So 65% more emissions, only 50% mass regrowth, and all the fossil fuels used to harvest, process, transport, etc

            Sounds like a really good bargain.. NOT 😉

            Still, so long as those CO2 emissions keep going up and atmospheric CO2 levels keep climbing, the world is sitting pretty 🙂

          7. AndyG55

            “But it is still an unsustainable way to produce electricity “

            Very sustainable for hundreds of years… known reserves keep climbing.

            Cost is only going up because of inefficiencies and regulations brought about by the anti-CO2 scam.

            Wind and solar are the unsustainable ones, requiring massive subsidies, producing erratic, unreliable power, relying on political whim to support it.

            UNSUSTAINABLE for a modern society.

            Will be fun watching what happens to all the aging wind junk in places like Denmark, Spain and Germany when there are no subsidies to replace it. 🙂

          8. SebastianH

            Considering bioenergy plants — considered renewables/carbon neutral — emit approximately 285 percent more CO2 than natural gas (fossil fuels) plants do, which do you think lowers emissions more, the renewable/carbon neutral bioenergy plants, or the fossil fuels-based natural gas plants? Use basic math.

            My “basic math” tells me the biofuel life-cycle emission are about half that of natural gas. Of course, you will dispute it with a link to some paper that leaves out half of the equation and whatever I link to is naturally fake and propaganda.

            Basic math says you guys can’t be convinced ever and whatever number look like they are supporting your cause get repeated and embraced without checking them (or what other would call “being skeptic”).

            Believe whatever you have to believe while the rest of us hopes that you guys will come to your senses.

            @AndyG55:
            I expect subsidies to be quite low to non-existent by the time old wind turbines need replacement in significant numbers. It was the whole point of subsidizing this industry so the price would come down. The price is coming down, so it’s working.

          9. AndyG55

            “I expect subsidies to be quite low to non-existent by the time old wind turbines need replacement in “

            Ah so you agree that they won’t get replaced.

            Nice to see a glimpse of reality from you for once.

            https://www.thegwpf.com/wind-farm-lifetime-extensions-and-repowering-managing-the-death-spiral/

          10. MrZ

            Seb “And how much faster do we need to burn to get to the level of coal?”
            You are obviously trapped in your thinking, blocking you from understanding what I say..

            How about a bathtub example. As long as you pore more water than escapes from its drain the water level will increase. It does not matter if the water comes from the tap or a bucket. You are saying no buckets allowed because that water is not in the cycle.

            When you stop filling the drain decide how long it will take to empty it, not if the water came from the tap or a bucket.

            If you believe in the CO2 threat you should argue we have to adapt our burning rate to the drain size. That means cutting back some 90%. As long as you don’t do that the carbon source is irrelevant and what is stated here in terms of bio’s less efficiency etc is 100% true.

            I think cutting back 90% has a more profound impacts on human life than any modelled risks that climate change might bring.

          11. AndyG55

            “Sites with existing wind farms are often impossible to repower due to lack of availability of the site, legal consent, changes in subsidies, environmental protection, public acceptance, or insufficient wind conditions”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo 😉

          12. SebastianH

            So now you’re referring to a paper published by a coordinating lead author of multiple IPCC reports “fake and propaganda”?!

            Wow … please re-read what I actually wrote. It’s not what you re-interpreted it into. Or did you do this on purpose to troll me?

            You didn’t answer the question. Considering biomass burning plants emit 285 percent more CO2 than natural gas plants, which is more likely to reduce overall CO2 emissions, the fossil fuel plant (gas) or the “carbon-neutral” and “renewable” biomass plant?

            The biomass power plant, since you are forgetting half of the equation. You are making essentially the same mistake as with SMB when you use it to claim that ice mass/volume would actually be growing by leaving out half of the equation.

            So please include the amount of CO2 that is being offset by reforestation and if possible not for scenario that just the initial harvest of a forest and then the wait time for it to regrow. Realistically a sustainable wood burning business would burn at the same rate as the plants regrow (as is largely happening with biodiesel and bioethanol in the EU and the US). So look at time period of say 60 years with multiple harvest of the same forest area that has been regrown multiple times.

            Last but not least, you are elevating a “climate policy brief” written by a research assistant and co-signed by a retired (in 2013) professor to “a paper published by a coordinating lead author of multiple IPCC”. Why?

            P.S.: You seem to be under the false impression that I like biofuel and biomass power plants and want them to replace 100% of the fossil fuel power plants. That is not the case. I am just arguing here against your wrong intepretations of what other people wrote on the topic. Replacing coal with a less carbon intensive solution that still emits significant amounts of CO2 can’t be the final solution. As Mr. Moomaw wrote here, it would be far better to deploy solar/wind instead of biomass to replace coal than doing it with biogas (or natural gas).

          13. AndyG55

            “says you guys can’t be convinced ever”

            You have been given chance after chance after chance to convince us that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

            You have FAILED MISERABLY to produce one single bit of empirical evidence.

            There is NOTHING to convince anyone of, if you can’t even cover the most basic of AGW myths.

          14. SebastianH

            Seb “And how much faster do we need to burn to get to the level of coal?”
            You are obviously trapped in your thinking, blocking you from understanding what I say..

            Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote?

            You wrote that it doesn’t matter as long as we burn faster than the resource regenerates. That is untrue since the difference between both using coal is magnitudes higher than using wood or other biofuels. The drain for coal in your bathtub example is much smaller than the the drain for regrowing wood.

            If you believe in the CO2 threat you should argue we have to adapt our burning rate to the drain size.

            That is indeed what I am arguing all the time. Biofuel is only a stopgap, as is natural gas. We need to make direct use of solar energy and abandon inefficient combustion (whether it be biomass with about 200-300 gCO2/kWh or natural gas with 500 gCO2/kWh or coal with 1000 gCO2/kWh) whereever it is possible.

          15. AndyG55

            “We need to make direct use of solar energy “

            seb’s little anti-physics fantasy, yet again.

          16. AndyG55

            There is absolutely NO NEED to abandon combustion, especially coal and gas. It is becoming more and more efficient all the time.

            It is RELIABLE and DEPENDABLE.

            It can deliver ON-DEMAND.

            It helps FEED THE WORLD’s plant life.

            Solar can do NONE of these things.

            It requires fossil fuels in every aspect of its manufacture, it is intermittent and does not work at times when many countries have their peak demand, and requires 100% back-up for 60-80% of the day. Its a NON-ENTITY when it comes to electricity supply.

            And if you think “batteries” are going to help, that just shows how monumentally ignorant you are about storage densities for energy etc.

          17. AndyG55

            “Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote?”

            Nobody misunderstands what you write seb.

            Its just that mostly its anti-science gibberish, divorced from any sense of rational thought or reality.

          18. MrZ

            Seb almost…
            You wrote that it doesn’t matter as long as we burn faster than the resource regenerates
            Not really. We burn faster than the uptake. This is an important distinction. What is not taken up by photosynthesis or the oceans stays queued in the atmosphere. CO2 source does not matter.

            The drain for coal in your bathtub example is much smaller than the the drain for regrowing wood
            There is only one drain, nature does not care where the CO2 originated from.

            You got my burning rate point but put it in view of those two clarifications. What is your estimate how much we’d have to cut back? Would you like it in that world?

          19. MrZ

            … and how do you do the italics?
            I tried the html tags but those got filtered.
            Hope you can follow anyway 😎

          20. tom0mason

            MrZ

            Italics are also call emphasized <em > and closed with </em >
            (And that is an odd thing to try and type)
            Note that bold is <strong > and closed with </strong >
            to get bold type message

            It would work better if I could use it better and stop missing the closing tag.

          21. MrZ

            Thanks tom0mason
            I was doing ans

            Hope this looks better

          22. tom0mason

            MrZ,

            That worked.

            BTW if I have a particularly long, or multi-formatted, or I’m just feeling lazy but wish to comment, I write it here but then cut and paste it to a comment box at http://joannenova.com.au/ and use the formatting buttons on that site. The formatting is so simple there, just highlight the section of text that requires the formatting, and hit the appropriate button above the text box. PLUS you can preview the comment! After that just cut and paste back over here complete with all the correct tags!

            IT WOULD BE SO NICE IF ALL BLOG SITES MADE IT THAT EASY (Pierre)

          23. SebastianH

            Not really. We burn faster than the uptake. This is an important distinction. What is not taken up by photosynthesis or the oceans stays queued in the atmosphere. CO2 source does not matter.

            I am not disputing you on this. For the CO2 concentration to become stable the uptake needs to completely take care of our emissions. Either increase the uptake or decrease the emissions.

            There is only one drain, nature does not care where the CO2 originated from.

            Then think of it as two bathtubs. The coal bathtub has a very small drain that is the rate at which atmospheric CO2 becomes coal, the wood bathtub has a drain that is much much larger and if done in a sustainable way has almost the size of the intake.

            As Kenneth likes to point out, the wood intake seems to be about 65% larger than the coal intake though. But this gets more than compensated by the much larger drain.

            That’s my point. My point is not that biomass combustion is a good way to reduce CO2 emissions as some here like to imagine.

            What is your estimate how much we’d have to cut back? Would you like it in that world?

            We don’t have to cut back. All our energy needs will eventually be covered by renewables, not necessarily including (unsustainable) biomass. Maybe fusion and fission can play a part too. Who knows.

            … and how do you do the italics?
            I tried the html tags but those got filtered.
            Hope you can follow anyway 😎

            To quote someone you can use the html tag “blockquote”. At least that is what I am using.

          24. MrZ

            I now C Seb.
            Nobody will be able to change your mindset.
            I just want to politely point out one last time where you go wrong.

            1. There is only ONE common drain.
            2. The earth does not get hungrier for CO2 just because you cut down all tries or change forests or grass land to corn fields. In fact the opposite happens.

            Talk more on next subject.

        2. tom0mason

          +10!!

  9. MrZ

    Good point Andy!
    Same as wind mills. They already failed somehow…

    1. tom0mason

      Italics are also call emphasized <em > and closed with </em >
      (And that is an odd thing to try and type)
      Note that bold is <strong > and closed with </strong >

  10. tom0mason
    1. AndyG55

      Add all the new coal in SE Asia.

      And many parts of Africa.

      A wonderful lot of NEW CO2 release for the world’s plant life.

      Makes all the tiny, destructive, ineffective, unreliable, but highly expensive wind and solar schemes look like tiny pimples on the arse of an elephant

      1. SebastianH

        New coal plants vs. retired coal plants (in MW):

        2014: 71398 vs. 19996
        2015: 101624 vs. 40488
        2016: 83785 vs. 31515
        2017: 60195 vs. 25902

        Results in a net change of:
        2014: 51402
        2015: 61136
        2016: 52270
        2017: 34293

        The net growth of coal power plant has been as low as never before in 2017. The overall trend from 2006 to 2017 is a reduction of 3500 MW per year. Total coal capacity would reach it’s peak in about 10 to 15 years if this continues.

        1. AndyG55

          Yes China has slowed down construction at home, has enough already.. for now.

          India has slowed because of distribution issues.

          Next few year, MASSIVE increase of new coal plants in SE Asia, Middle East and Africa

          Get over it seb.

          There is NOTHING you and your ilk can do about it now that China has taken over the reins.

          Only a complete mathematical imbecile would take a one year dip as a trend. !

  11. AndyG55

    Ahhh. the benefits of biomass

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/05/16/23bn-goes-up-in-smoke-chris-huhnes-pet-scheme-to-fit-green-energy-boilers-is-open-to-fraud-and-makes-pollution-worse/#more-33679

    Over the past four years, just 60,000 new renewable boilers have been installed in homes compared to 6.2million gas systems. The MPs found that the take-up under the RHI was much lower than expected because of the hassle factor and huge upfront installation cost, which is much higher than conventional gas boilers.

  12. Burn coal not wood if you care about the climate

    […] h/t NoTricksZone […]

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close