Is biomass usage sustainable and as green as it is made out to be?

[Paddy1000111]

21 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Its way more than a tonne of CO2 in hundred years, think  the science of measuring this is quite new but worth following, but as ever its funding to R & D all of it. K

I would have thought that but it seems that every source I can find seems to quote around 1 tonne for a broadleaf. I guess that accounts for the CO2 it releases at night, leaf drop and stuff? The same sources say that a tree absorbs around 21kg a year when it's mature with it only absorbing about 5kg a year as a sapling. The numbers don't seem to make sense! 

 

I agree with you @spuddog0507 This is why I get so F'd off with random sources online for data. I can google "Why biomass is bad for the planet" and give you a load of sources that say it's going to cause the next ice age and then I can google "why biomass is the future of power" and show you how it will reverse climate change by next Tuesday. If I have an opinion on something I want to have facts to make an intelligent decision but all the eco stuff (bit like this virus) is all BS and babble from some 1 scientist who spent too many years getting pissed at uni as they didn't want to get a job so stayed a student forever and managed to get a degree so we all are meant to listen to them. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Paddy1000111

[spuddog0507]

5 minutes ago, Paddy1000111 said:

intelligent decision

How many years do you think it will be before that is reached ??? it wont be in my life time thats for sure, i have said now for many years Man will destroy his self, did we really need to put a man on the moon ?, do we need to know if there is water on mars ? do we really need to keep digging big deep holes on the earths outer shell as the more we do it the weaker it will get and one day we will all end up in space when the earth explodes,, 

[Khriss]

@Paddy1000111 its a convoluted chain. Co2 converted to sugars to drive leaf production girth increase and root development and al the other process involved. On an Oak of ten tonnes over a hundred years  would venture its ten times the mass at the very least, conifers much less but then on a given land area you have many more of them. One for the number crunchers i think.  K

[Stere]

 

Alot of the uncertainty  stuff is just a new type of denialism  by the fossil fuel industry.

 

Guy that made the famous hockey stick graph has just got a new book out about it.

 

The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet by Michael E. Mann

WWW.GOODREADS.COM

---

The New Climate War book. Read 2 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. A renowned climate scientist...

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Stere

[Paddy1000111]

47 minutes ago, Khriss said:

@Paddy1000111 its a convoluted chain. Co2 converted to sugars to drive leaf production girth increase and root development and al the other process involved. On an Oak of ten tonnes over a hundred years  would venture its ten times the mass at the very least, conifers much less but then on a given land area you have many more of them. One for the number crunchers i think.  K

I think like you say it's not easy to calculate.

 

To work out the sequestered CO2 amount the formula is: Tree mass (kg of fresh biomass) x 65% (dry mass) x 50% (carbon %) x 3.67 (carbon multiplication factor) x 120% (root mass inclusion)

 

So in this case 14,313kg of CO2 sequestered by that 10 tonne tree. Assuming this was a 100 year old tree (although a 10 tonne tree is likely to be much older than that), that's 143kg of CO2 a year. A more realistic number (based on case studies of old oaks I found) A 222 year old tree would weigh in at 14.386 tonnes which means it would have sequestered 17158kg of CO2, spread over 222 years that's 77kg of CO2 a year which is a bit more realistic for a mahusive tree like that. 

 

The UK produces roughly 373.2 million tonnes of CO2 a year so we would need just over 4.85 million of these 222 year old 14 tonne oaks. Based on the same tree, it has a crown of 17.8m meaning that if we were able to get all the crown sizes into squares and fit them all together that would be 593 square miles of 222 year old 14 tonne oaks to be roughly carbon neutral on trees alone which is an area roughly covering most of London. 

 

This doesn't actually seem that unrealistic which means that my calculations are garbage. 

To be honest I don't know why I did these calculations. I'm bored as hell stuck indoors! 

[porky]

Well done for trying anyway! 😄

[Paddy1000111]

2 minutes ago, porky said:

Well done for trying anyway! 😄

I'm still trying to work out how a tree weighing 14 tonnes holds 17 tonnes of CO2 😂

[porky]

What weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of Co2?

[Doug Tait]

6 minutes ago, Paddy1000111 said:

I'm still trying to work out how a tree weighing 14 tonnes holds 17 tonnes of CO2 😂

It's like my water bottle, a capacity of 750ml but it's held hundreds of litres 

[Khriss]

@Paddy1000111 that is actually a good estimate and i bet a fvvk sight better that dotGov would have bothered to do @kevinjohnsonmbe  there are many variables but dont forget leaf drop and the nitrogen cycle there, plus O2 output at night. Be good to see wot the hybrid Poplars do on that scale. ( wont ask @Big J wot his lovely Eucalypts score on this 😉 )  K