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

[Paddy1000111]

Just now, Doug Tait said:

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

Maybe, but that calculation is supposed to work out how much co2 is physically stored in the tree. You can do a similar equation for kiln dried building timber to calculate its stored co2 which actually works out to less in weight, i.e. a 150kg timber beam would hold 87kg of co2. So it's more like the bottle holds 750ml but you've filled it with 1000ml? 😂

 

The process of sequestering is a tree absorbing and holding onto that co2, not the process of converting some of it to sugars. A tree at night releases around 50% of the co2 it absorbed in the day in a process of respiration. 

[Stere]

Quote

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

How about the leaf litter created doesn't  that add carbon to the soil?

Edited January 15, 2021 by Stere

[Paddy1000111]

5 minutes ago, Stere said:

How about the leaf litter created doesn't a that add carbon to the soil?

Yea but that is included in the calculation assuming the leaves are still on the tree, as the weight is the whole tree assuming you cut it off at ground level. The 120% factor at the end accounts for the 20% carbon stored in the roots. Soil carbon from leaf drop like you say, isn't included though. I have no idea how you would even start calculating that! 

[richyrich]

Small scale burning of firewood must be preferable to burning fossil fuels. If it's a 20 year old branch you burn then it is only releasing carbon in it's structure captured over 20 years. This is better than releasing carbon that's been stored underground for millions of years- i think. The more i can put on my woodburner the less oil the boiler burns. As for industrial scale burning- i don't think felling whole forests is the future.

Also scientists say the global lockdowns have had little effect on reducing co2 emmissions. Perhaps the sceptics are more right than people think and the planet is doing 'it's own thing' which we have little influence over.- not saying it's true...

[drinksloe]

If love to see real figures for exactly how carbon neutral biomass is.

 

I'm with spudddog and think almost all green energy is 1 massive con.

 

No one has mentioned the carbon footprint to get the trees to burner, most machines will be burning best part off 1000 litres a week, harvesters, forwarders, 360s for ground prep/mounding add in haulage and chipping.

I bet ur better off just burning desiel in the 1st place 

 

The local boimas burner when it was originally built claimed it would only burn waste/residues, sawmill waste, brash matts and stumps +willow and no actual timber produce.

Now burns almost 100% timber produce.

Also the brain boxes behind it it never even thought to use its extra heat by product to heat the neighbouring sawmills kilns.

Too them to years to have that brainwave..

 

In Scandinavia they tended to site them next to hospitals or small towns so everyone could benefit from the heat byproduct with district heating schemes.

 

Wind farms are another big con, great on small-scale for ur own use, but useless at grid level.

Allegedly carbon neutral too, but that's from when the blades start to spin.

Wot about all the carbon building them??? I know 1 site harvesting almost 500,000T of timber, some produce hauled that far wagons only getting 1 load in on a full day, a good day they can empty and almost get back to site, full day driving for 20 odd tonn.

Never mind the extensive road upgrades and quarrying work.

To never include that in the 'carbon' credentials is just the biggest con ever.

 

Some green energies are fairly dependant, tide or hydro are regular and can be fairly well estimated.

Generally hydro is higher throu winter when more energy is required.

If u added in some less intrusive ways to harvest river flows, artisan corkscrew or something

 

[openspaceman]

3 hours ago, Stere said:

How about the leaf litter created doesn't  that add carbon to the soil?

I'm late to the fray so will miss many points but yes leaf litter is valuable, it is how the mycorrhizal association the roots have  to extract mineral is then left to benefit the surface humic layer. I think the reserves of soil organic carbon are huge, especially in peat bogs. Which of course are respiring carbon away as we get warmer drier summers.

 

While I advocate intervening in the photosyntheses-rotting part of the carbon cycle and making some carbon recalcitrant I obviously would not want to see it impacting on soil organic carbon.

[openspaceman]

10 hours ago, Rob_the_Sparky said:

Personally I'd prefer not to have to look after nuclear waste for a few thousand years

I'm fairly sanguine about nuclear energy but this business of committing future generations to managing the waste is why I wouldn't support it because we have built our riches and wealth on fossil fuels and there is no saying future generations are going to enjoy the standards we have had for the last 50 years.

 

I actually believe it could have been done much better but it wasn't and there is already a terrible legacy.

 

I have a reasonable chance of dying within the next five years but I do have grandchildren to consider.

[Watercourse management]

I’m in the middle of installing a 125 kw Gilles woodchip boiler to heat the Farm bought it secondhand for little money after the rhi changed and the hall it was in went for a new model to comply with the new rhi. 

Not intrested in any grants or rhi all I want is to burn my own woodchip rather than oil and save money and utilise a waste product.

Last year I got involved with contract maize carting for the bio digesters, how this is green is beyond me, just chopping it the harvester is burning 1000 litres of diesel a day and tractors carting are burning around 250 litres a day that’s without growing the crop.

 

 

 

[breffni]

10 hours ago, drinksloe said:

If love to see real figures for exactly how carbon neutral biomass is.

 

I'm with spudddog and think almost all green energy is 1 massive con.

 

No one has mentioned the carbon footprint to get the trees to burner, most machines will be burning best part off 1000 litres a week, harvesters, forwarders, 360s for ground prep/mounding add in haulage and chipping.

I bet ur better off just burning desiel in the 1st place 

 

The local boimas burner when it was originally built claimed it would only burn waste/residues, sawmill waste, brash matts and stumps +willow and no actual timber produce.

Now burns almost 100% timber produce.

Also the brain boxes behind it it never even thought to use its extra heat by product to heat the neighbouring sawmills kilns.

Too them to years to have that brainwave..

 

In Scandinavia they tended to site them next to hospitals or small towns so everyone could benefit from the heat byproduct with district heating schemes.

 

Wind farms are another big con, great on small-scale for ur own use, but useless at grid level.

Allegedly carbon neutral too, but that's from when the blades start to spin.

Wot about all the carbon building them??? I know 1 site harvesting almost 500,000T of timber, some produce hauled that far wagons only getting 1 load in on a full day, a good day they can empty and almost get back to site, full day driving for 20 odd tonn.

Never mind the extensive road upgrades and quarrying work.

To never include that in the 'carbon' credentials is just the biggest con ever.

 

Some green energies are fairly dependant, tide or hydro are regular and can be fairly well estimated.

Generally hydro is higher throu winter when more energy is required.

If u added in some less intrusive ways to harvest river flows, artisan corkscrew or something

 

Hydro isn't great when you add in the issues that the dams cause to river ecosystems.

[nepia]

...which is why I enjoy the dam destruction YouTube vids, mostly in the States but some in Spain too.  There it's law that any municipal structure no longer of use must be destroyed.

 

A heck of a science to it too it seems; you'd think that a few well placed sticks of dynamite would do the job but not by a long chalk.