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.”
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
Can’t believe I am replying to a dailmail link, but …
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?
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.
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
Are you serious?
Are you seeking attention, yet again. ???
I thought the unfcccp was one of your idles.
Seb is well qualified to ask, “Are you serious”.
He has been asked that question more than anyone else.
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)?
Why not address what the peer-reviewed scientific paper actually says about biofuels not being carbon neutral, but a net source of emissions worse than coal (because coal is more efficient in turning combustion into energy)?
Sterman et al., 2018: “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”
Are the authors of the paper wrong?
“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.
Hmm, reply vanished?
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.
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:
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.
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? 😉
Are the authors of the paper wrong?
The authors of the paper are staunch supporters of CO2 emissions mitigation because they believe it causes dangerous climate change. It’s shocking these authors would be so wrong and publish a paper on it in the same journal that John Cook published his notorious “97 percent consensus” paper. How can we be assured that you are right, and these authors are wrong, SebastianH?
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. !
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
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: https://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.”?
*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.
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.
Sustainability.
The authors of the paper are staunch supporters of CO2 emissions mitigation because they believe it causes dangerous climate change.
I read what they wrote in the paper. Sample quotes:
“Limiting global warming to no more than 2◦C requires large, rapid cuts in fossil fuel consumption by midcentury (Figueres et al 2017, IPCC 2014).”
“Assuming biofuels are carbon neutral may worsen irreversible impacts of climate change”
“…fossil fuels inject carbon sequestered in geological reservoirs for millions of years into the atmosphere, where it accumulates and causes global warming” (IPCC2013).
Why is the lead author’s occupation more indicative of where he stands on CO2 mitigation and the importance of addressing AGW than what he/they actually wrote in the paper? Or is this just another distraction you’re pursuing because you know that these authors are on your side, and not skeptics’ side? It’s ironic that you are here trying to find fault in us for citing Environmental Research Letters authors who agree with you about the need to dramatically decrease CO2 emissions. You can’t even get believers in dangerous global warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions to agree with you about the effectiveness of bioenergy in reducing CO2!
“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…
“… 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.
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.
In what way is biomass burning a progressive practice when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions and deforestation? Both CO2 emissions and deforestation rise with expansion of biomass burning.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Biomass-Burning-65-Percent-More-Emissions-Than-Coal-Fanous-Moomaw-2018.jpg
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.
Wind, solar, boimess are NOT progress.
They are a step back to UNRELIABILITY and environmentally destructive practices.
A mindless, anti-science fad. !
“when you take all 27000 square kilometers of forest “
roflmao …
And seb does a MASSIVE faceplant !!
massive habitat destruction.
“biomass burning a progressive practice “
But it is progressive, K.
Progressively destroying forests, habitats, and food crop production around the world.
AndyG55:
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?
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 …
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*
“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.
“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.
“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 !
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.
Oh the irony …
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).
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.
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.
DNFTT
Not your call. !!
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.
Practicality is NOT their sting suit.
“strong” not “sting”
I hate this stupid “smart” phone!
Biofuels aren’t meant to completely replace fossil fuels. They never can as you noticed …
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.
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.
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
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) 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.
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.
Seb,
Answer the question, please.
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 …
seb,
You wrote, “Your thought experiment is flawed” yet you failed to explain how you came to that conclusion.
Maybe one day you will experiment with having a thought, seb.
Any prior attempts have been a massive failure for you.
“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.
DNFTT was
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.
cement,
Thank you for your observations. What’s your point?
“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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
And you’ll find equally large stacks of wood across much of rural France as well!
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
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?
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”.
I would be unsustainable if it would not be allowed to regrow.
You wrote:
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?
It’s not. It’s worse than coal. Same carbon intensity, but far less energy efficiency. (Perhaps you should read the paper.)
“…although wood has approximately the same carbon intensity as coal (0.027 vs. 0.025 tC GJ−1 of primary energy; see supplementary material), combustion efficiency of wood and wood pellets is lower [than coal] (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 (supplementary table S5 available at stacks.iop.org/ ERL/13/015007/mmedia).”
Actually, this isn’t novel.
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-biofuels-decrease-heat-trapping-carbon-dioxide.html
“Biofuels increase, rather than decrease, heat-trapping carbon dioxide … The researchers conclude that rising biofuel use has been associated with a net increase—rather than a net decrease, as many have claimed—in the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.”
I will repeat my question since you didn’t answer it: 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?
Then I will reply to what you just wrote here …
Biofuels are much less efficient than coal upon combustion in generating energy even though they have the same carbon intensity. Therefore, using biofuels increases CO2 emissions more than coal increases CO2 emissions based on the amount of fuel that must be burned to create the same energy.
That wasn’t an answer to my question. My question was if you understand (or not) that building a biofuel power plant that doesn’t replace a coal power plant increases CO2 emissions as there now is one additional power plant that only has a carbon neutral fuel source, but harvesting, transport, etc is not carbon neutral.
There is only one scenario where biofuel results in more CO2 emissions than burning coal: when you don’t regrow the burned biomass. Why do you completely ignore this? Always leaving out half of the equation, just like with those cloud cover forcings …
To your original comment:
Yes, when you only consider the burning itself. But what happens when you don’t ignore the fact that biofuels are grown? Perhaps you should read the paper again 😉
From the paper:
“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.”
It would be unsustainable (as is using up coal faster than it “regrows”) if we would burn more biomass than is regrown. That’s also the reason why biofuels can’t replace all of our fossil fuel usages.
Why not link to the original study instead of a sensationalist article about the study? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1764-4
That study somehow doesn’t manage to explain how it’s possible to emit CO2 from a fuel source that regrows and only have the fuel source absorb 37% of the CO2 from the atmosphere as is later released when it gets burned.
Those two tables do a better job at explaining the production vs. the consumption:
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10_7.pdf
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10_8.pdf
Nope, the U.S. isn’t consuming much more fuel than it produces.
P.S.: Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe biofuels are the solution to our problems. But they are better than using fossil fuels! I just have a problem with you misinterpreting papers like this one to claim that it’s worse than coal by leaving out half of the equation 😉
” the solution to our problems.”
What problems?
The only problem is the anti-science, anti-CO2 anti-life AGW-cult religion and the people pushing such idiocy.
The devastation in many areas, caused by the clearing of land for biofuels is, of course, ignored completely by seb and his ilk.
https://offshoringtbos.com/air-industry-looking-forward-to-biofuel-phase-out-by-2020/
“Figures show that this, rather than cutting the overall CO2 emissions (which was the intention by the EU) in practice ends in higher lifecycle emissions than fossil based fuels. “
DNFTT
@Kenneth Richard 14. May 2018 at 6:56 PM
It is plainly obvious that coal is the better fuel for electricity generation.
It’s an abundant, concentrated energy source, that which with the application of the minimum of technical resources can supply electricity 24/7 for decades with little maintenance overheads.
Increasingly the world is seeing that coal as the better option for social, environmental, and industrial progress and development, with the beneficial side-effect of improving the world with it’s exhaust of CO2 greening the planet.
No need to clear rainforests or pristine landscapes of their trees and destroying habitats and ecosystems for the sake of increasing emissions 65% per kWh with less-efficient biofuels.
That is not what’s happening … you likely are confused about what scenario 1 and 2 are in their paper.
The paper of this Professor of management is also only looking at what happens after you harvested an existing forest to different extents and then wait a few decades. Nothing about continuous farming of wood.
Do you really think energy from biomass increases emission 65% per kWh over burning coal?
Nearly every source I can find has the emissions from biomass at 200-300 gCO2/kWh and coal at around 1000 gCO2/kWh. And you are trying to tell us now that biomass produces 1650 gCO2/kWh? 😉
increasing emissions 65% per kWh with less-efficient biofuels.
No, you’re confused. I’m citing yet another 2018 paper (published by a coordinating lead author of IPCC reports [Dr. William Moomaw]) that quantifies the difference in CO2 emissions per kWh for biomass burning vs. coal burning. See the updated citation in the article…and the graph. There is no “scenario 1 and 2” in this paper.
Do try and keep up, SebastianH. You’re looking more and more uninformed here.
Fanous and Moomaw, 2018
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/ClimatePolicyBrief8.pdf
Of course if you have $9 billion in change and the space equivalent to Paris, you to could do it with solar, and join Morocco’s Noor project which will generate over 500MW of electricity. Maybe it’s better than biofuels too.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/160mw-capacity-solar-power-plant-unveiled-morocco-1542349
Interesting to note that Europe is among those funding it.
All that glass, concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, etc., all from fossil fuel powered industrial refinement plants worldwide.
“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”.
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? 😉
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. !
“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 !!
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.
You don’t need to write like this … you outed yourself as dailymail reader already …
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.
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 😉
“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.
+1
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!
“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 …
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!
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.
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 !!
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!
Excellent and very accurate reply!
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.
The skeptic’s community lives of these interpretations. Highlighting when they are wrong involves arguing their interpretations, not the papers they refer to.
I replied because you asserted that this blog would “put a light on true science”, which is certainly not the case.
Look at the article for this comment thread again. Notice that nothing in the article is subject to a “skeptic’s” interpretation, but instead it is a direct quotation of TWO scientific papers. All that’s been done is copy/paste from the papers themselves. It’s the authors of these papers who don’t agree with you, SebastianH. And they’re on your side, not ours, with regard to what they believe about dangerous global warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions! You’re disagreeing with those who wish to mitigate climate change by reducing CO2 emissions. We’re just citing what they wrote! So your claim above is baseless.
For you, SebastianH, “true science” = conclusions that you agree with. If you don’t agree with what the authors write, it ceases to be “true science”. That’s pretty much what it comes down to. It’s not as if you’ve offered scientific justification for your belief that biofuels are carbon neutral.
In addition to the two papers in the article, here’s yet another one published in the same pro-AGW/pro-CO2-mitigation journal. Look at the title of the paper, even!
Booth, 2018
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac88
Not carbon neutral: Assessing the net emissions impact of residues burned for bioenergy
“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.
“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
In the end (after wasting hundreds of billions of dollars) people will realise that burning coal is not a problem.
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.!!
This whole article and its comments should make anyone accidentally stumbling upon it a skeptic of “skeptics” … just wow!
“This whole article” is simply a direct copy/paste of a peer-reviewed paper published in Environmental Research Letters whose authors have a strong allegiance to mitigating CO2 emissions and the AGW paradigm. So what, specifically, do you have a problem with regarding what these authors wrote? Because this isn’t “skeptic” commentary. It’s believer commentary. Your side disagrees with you that biofuel burning is carbon-neutral. That’s what the paper clearly says (if you take the time to read it).
Dear Kenneth, you are forgetting your personal conclusion that you put at the top of the article and what you guys are writing in the comments here.
I’ve read the paper. It assumes that plants aren’t regrown as fast as they are burned. Something which would be highly unsustainable. Do you think this is really the case?
“It assumes that plants aren’t regrown as fast as they are burned.”
Which they aren’t.. No assumption needed.
How long does it take to grow a decent tree (especially decent hardwood).
How long does it take to burn it?
Even someone as mathematically challenged as you should be able to figure it out !!
Or you could just keep raping the landscape for more and more partially grown trees… just denude the place, like a good little AGW operative.
What I wrote: “…the projected rapid growth in biofuel use will only serve to ‘increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century’.”
What the authors wrote: “[P]rojected growth in wood harvest for bioenergy would increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century because new carbon debt continuously exceeds NPP.”
They aren’t. The “assumption” is reality.
Exactly. But that’s what the EU is doing.
https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/908/eu-destroys-700000-hectares-of-rainforest-for-biofuels
Last year, 1.9 million tons of palm oil were added to diesel fuel in the EU – in addition to millions of tons of equally harmful rapeseed and soybean oils.
The plantations needed to satisfy Europes’s demand for palm oil cover an area of 700,000 hectares – land that until recently was still rainforest and the habitat of 5,000 endangered orangutans. Despite the clear-cutting, the EU has classified palm oil as sustainably produced.
This policy has now blown up in the legislators’ faces, with scientists confirming what environmentalists and development experts have long asserted: biofuels help neither people nor the environment – and they are most certainly not climate-neutral, as even studies commissioned by the EU show
–
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/02/why-biofuels-are-rainforests-worst-enemy/
Why Biofuels Are the Rainforest’s Worst Enemy
–
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2010/broken-biofuel-policies-still/
Greenpeace EU forest policy director Sebastien Risso said: “Dirty biofuels exacerbate climate change and lead to the destruction of rainforests. Under the current scheme, Europeans wanting to cut their carbon footprint could actually make the problem worse by using biofuels. The worst biofuels are actually more polluting than petrol and there is a very real risk that Europe’s cars will run on forest destruction and animal extinction”
The reality where? If a country does it unsustainably then it should change its policy towards producing biofuels. The US seems to be producing biofuels in a sustainable way (see EIA links somewhere here in the comments).
The EU import threshold for biofuels is 50% GHG saving compared to fossil fuels. From 2018 on it will be 60%. That only happens when being produced in a sustainable way.
For EU imports you can read this document to find out the percentage of the imports on total production/consumption of biofuels (Table 2 and 5): https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_The%20Hague_EU-28_6-19-2017.pdf
They aren’t. The “assumption” is reality.
Fanous and Moomaw, 2018
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/ClimatePolicyBrief8.pdf
“In 2015, North American wood pellet exports reached a record high of 6.1 million tons, equivalent to removing all the trees on approximately 60,000 hectares of forested land, representing a 2 percent increase from 2014, and 4-times the 2010 amount. This has had severe impacts on U.S. forests, with the greatest impact in the Southeastern region of the U.S. Bioenergy companies such as Enviva have clear-cut thousands of acres of forestland to produce bioenergy, while insisting that their forestry management is sustainable. Additionally, there is no assurance that a forest can regrow on the harvested land. It takes decades to centuries for a mature forest to return to its prior carbon stock. Globally, most hardwood forests do not fully grow back after a clear-cut. For example, between 2000 and 2013 the Oregon forest aggregate rate of loss reached 45 percent, meaning the forest loss due to clear-cutting (which requires replanting) exceeded regrowth by nearly half.”
Fanous and Moomaw, 2018
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/ClimatePolicyBrief8.pdf
The Argument for Forest Bioenergy [What SebastianH Believes]
“Supporters point to the renewable nature of wood, arguing that biomass is carbon neutral because plants and trees absorb carbon as they grow, and when they die, they release carbon. Thus, when they are used as a fuel, the carbon released during combustion is reabsorbed when new trees grow to replace them. Additionally, the Forest Solutions Group has argued that since global net forest growth exceeds emissions from biomass burning, bioenergy is carbon neutral. These arguments are faulty and omit major components of the bioenergy life cycle. The biomass industry also argues that wood pellet manufacturers are not using whole trees and only using wood waste products including sawdust, wood thinning, and residues. This argument has been debunked by local environmental organizations, such as the Dogwood Alliance, which has documented companies harvesting whole hardwood trees.”
The Science Against Forest Bioenergy [What Science/Observation Actually Reveals]
“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.”
“meaning the forest loss due to clear-cutting (which requires replanting) exceeded regrowth by nearly half.””
OUCH !!
That’s one heck of a big LOSS. !!
And of course that just keeps on compounding.
I hope the US puts a stop to this really soon !
And 4 times as much forest-clearing in 2015 than in 2010 in the U.S….all for the sake of increasing the CO2 emissions by 65% over coal emissions per kWh!
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Biomass-Burning-65-Percent-More-Emissions-Than-Coal-Fanous-Moomaw-2018.jpg
And yet SebastianH thinks this is not only sustainable, but carbon neutral.
And again, you are leaving out half of the equation and ignore the links I posted …
Comment vanished …
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 !!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.”
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.
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/
“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.
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
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.
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.
Yep, plenty … but a lot less than it used to be. The rate of increase in coal power plant capacity is shrinking fast.
Yes, they will for quite some time.
… *sigh* you just can’t help yourself, can you?
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.
” 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
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.
SebH not very good with thinking. He wrong as the EMISSIONS, clearly increase!
You see?
*sigh* no, they don’t increase when a biomass power plant replaces a coal power plant.
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.
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!
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.
“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.
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:
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:
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?
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.
Basic math
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.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Biomass-Burning-65-Percent-More-Emissions-Than-Coal-Fanous-Moomaw-2018.jpg
“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.”
Fanous and Moomaw, 2018
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/ClimatePolicyBrief8.pdf
“In 2015, North American wood pellet exports reached a record high of 6.1 million tons, equivalent to removing all the trees on approximately 60,000 hectares of forested land, representing a 2 percent increase from 2014, and 4-times the 2010 amount. This has had severe impacts on U.S. forests, with the greatest impact in the Southeastern region of the U.S. Bioenergy companies such as Enviva have clear-cut thousands of acres of forestland to produce bioenergy, while insisting that their forestry management is sustainable. Additionally, there is no assurance that a forest can regrow on the harvested land. It takes decades to centuries for a mature forest to return to its prior carbon stock. Globally, most hardwood forests do not fully grow back after a clear-cut. For example, between 2000 and 2013 the Oregon forest aggregate rate of loss reached 45 percent, meaning the forest loss due to clear-cutting (which requires replanting) exceeded regrowth by nearly half.”
“The rapid adoption of such a dubious renewable energy source raises concerns – primarily that governments and organizations assume bioenergy is sustainable and a carbon neutral form of energy. The term renewable encourages governing bodies such as the European Union (EU) to promote the use of wood burning for electricity and heat. Nearly two-thirds of the EU’s rapidly growing renewable energy sector consists of bioenergy, which they consider as zero carbon emissions. Of the many global climate leaders, the UK has been the most aggressive adopter of modern bioenergy. This pressure is in response to the country’s climate goals to derive 20 percent of all energy from renewable sources. The government has awarded generous subsidies, converted several coal power plants to burn wooden pellets, and imported millions of tons of wooden pellets annually. Currently, Drax (a major UK power plant) produces 70 percent of its electricity from biomass which is enough to power four major cities in the UK (Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, and Liverpool). This amount of electricity requires over 18 million tons of wooden pellets annually, equivalent to approximately 174,824 hectares of forest land.”
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 🙂
“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. 🙂
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.
Wow, the more you comment, the worse it gets for you. So now you’re referring to a paper published by a coordinating lead author of multiple IPCC reports “fake and propaganda”?!
“Dr. William Moomaw is the co-director of GDAE and lead author or coordinating lead author of multiple IPCC reports”
Fanous and Moomaw, 2018
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/ClimatePolicyBrief8.pdf
“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.”
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?
“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/
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo 😉
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?
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).
“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.
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.
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.
“We need to make direct use of solar energy “
seb’s little anti-physics fantasy, yet again.
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.
“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.
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?
… and how do you do the italics?
I tried the html tags but those got filtered.
Hope you can follow anyway 😎
Italics:text text
Bold:
(remove all the dots)
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.
Thanks tom0mason
I was doing ans
Hope this looks better
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)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.
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.
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.
To quote someone you can use the html tag “blockquote”. At least that is what I am using.
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.
+10!!
Good point Andy!
Same as wind mills. They already failed somehow…
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 >
I note that more countries are signing up for a BETTER FUTURE WITH COAL —
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/05/15/countries-around-middle-east-are-adding-44gw-of-coal-power-over-next-decade/
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
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.
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. !
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
[…] h/t NoTricksZone […]