izentrop wrote:Although scientifically proven that it is disastrous for biodiversity on a global scale to burn forests for electricity, this practice is not not carbon neutral and generating more emissions than coal, ...
What is the source ???
Because such as, roughly stripped, it's simplistic to say the least! I'm not saying monumental bullshit, but I'm getting to it.
Burning wood releases CO
2, CO
2 that trees have withdrawn from the atmosphere during their growth ... That, except to ignore photosynthesis, I do not see how to dispute it?
After that, everything is just a precise definition of cycles and things:
a) Whether the areas where this wood was cut are replanted into trees - or not; generally they are (but not always - Brazil, Philippines, etc); in any case generalizing that to all the extracted wood is not true; the French forest is growing; it stores C ...; you could extract and burn more, on average. I am talking about balance C and not disturbance of biodiversity, where indeed the damage, taking into account the modes of exploitation is real.
b) Yes, this is only neutral over the entire duration of the operating cycle, which obviously depends on the location, the operating mode, the soil, the climate ... But let's say that on an order 100 years old, the new forest will have absorbed what the combustion of the previous one will have released ...
The day after combustion, significant amounts of CO
2 were released. It's clear.
c) For coal, we are over hundreds of millions of years (Carboniferous, the great era of coal formation, goes back 300 million years - it ended there exactly) ...
So the text, such as, is just a monumental bullshit, launched by someone who can only compile the truncation of extracts of reports, handle the amalgamation and of course, is ignorant in geology! Anyway I am suspicious when I read "UN report" - it is often a sign of fakes. The UN would meddle with fuels? I dream ! Perhaps of fire, in the sense of "cease fire". Without much success as we can see.
e) But it is necessary to correct what I just said of the embodied energy consumed to exploit, extract, transport the wood. Then to replant ... For my pellets, made just across the Rhine, the manufacturer announces 7% gray energy (compared to the PCI of the pellets). But there again, pellets from Canada imported into Europe for power plants, the results are no longer the same ... That of coal is not, in this case, no better on this question ... AND I do not not talking about fuel, when it is extracted from oil shales in Canada (we are in 100 to 150% if memory serves - or is it 300%?
So I don't understand this nonsense. If anyone can explain to me ...
But I am not defending pellet plants! On the other hand the individual heating, if!