Biomass – not a green fuel after all?

[WFWales]

AECB Home Page - AECB News

Any thoughts?

[rowan lee]

'lose, lose, lose'?

Funny how we've evolved this far then?

I reckon we have been burning wood for alot longer then we have been burning coal and gas, let alone nuclear fusion.

 

(and if the wood your burning yourself, is prepared by yourself, it warms you twice!)

[Albedo]

Just gave it a quick scan as its my area of interest.

 

It states correctly that you can't plant enough trees to solve emission problems and that the phrase 'carbon neutral' gets missused but it overlooks the main point when comparing coal to wood fuel.

 

Coal is locked up for geological time scales unless we dig it up - long cycle carbon.

 

Wood is on a shorter scale - the life of the tree - so when its CO2 is emitted it is deemed (by whom I hear you ask) not to effect the net carbon balance - short cycle carbon.

 

Theres more to it than this but you get the idea. Hope this helps, I know you have an interest from the firewood industry point of view. maybe a bit of googling of short/long cycle carbon will get a better explanation.

 

my initial suspicion is that this research is a fight back on the marketing front from fossil fuel people. I have no axe to grind either way, just find it all interesting.

[Albedo]

AS an afterthought, I see you'e in Machynlleth. Do you have any kind of working relationship with the CAT ? (centre for alternative technology). I bet they'd be a mine of information for you.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Albedo
typo

[renewablejohn]

By their argument then constructing gas pipelines and compressor stations all the way from Russia is an environmentally friendly way of using the earths resources. Obviously the fossil fuel brigade are worried that biomass might put them out of business. It has already happened in Brazil with the use of ethanol.

[Marko]

I only scanned it so may well have misunderstood but, from what I gathered, the paper was happy to pour scorn on the use of biomass as a fuel. I don't think anyone has claimed biomass to be the answer to the ills of the world but at least it keeps a few of us from making the situation any worse.

[WFWales]

Thanks Chaps.

 

The point about the long short carbon cycle is a new consideration for me - I'l get googling!

 

Yes CAT is a good source of info - I worked there for a while - they've also just completed an amazing new education center that is well worth a visit....

 

It's going to be interesting to see how this all pans out for the woodfuel industry. In the mean time Woodfuel Wales will keep promoting the burning of DRY wood and helping producers to improve their business by supplying a quality product.

[Rob Stringer]

Worth noting that the vigorous regrowth from freshly cut coppice absorbs considerably more carbon than coppice woodland that has been neglected for decades (and theres plenty of this about, especially in SE england). If sale of firewood/woodfuel helps support this kind of management i'd say this is a good thing, theres plenty of material not suitable for other uses (fencing,timber etc.) so it makes sense. A good idea to use insulation as well and not turn quality timber into logs but thats obvious isnt it?

[Catweazle]

Does the report take into consideration that when the bio-mass ( I'll call it firewood ) is harvested the trees busily replace it ?

 

I can't see how a coppiced woodland can be anything but very close to carbon neutral. The only carbon "losses" I can see are those involved in processing and transporting the firewood.

 

Firewood takes carbon from the air, uses energy from sunlight, and stores it for me to burn later. The carbon came from the air and is released to the air.

 

Coal releases carbon that was stored in an age when levels were much higher than we can tolerate, when we burn it we add to the net carbon in the air, because coal isn't being formed at anywhere near the rate that we burn it at.

[Albedo]

Does the report take into consideration that when the bio-mass ( I'll call it firewood ) is harvested the trees busily replace it ?

 

I can't see how a coppiced woodland can be anything but very close to carbon neutral. The only carbon "losses" I can see are those involved in processing and transporting the firewood.

 

Firewood takes carbon from the air, uses energy from sunlight, and stores it for me to burn later. The carbon came from the air and is released to the air.

 

Coal releases carbon that was stored in an age when levels were much higher than we can tolerate, when we burn it we add to the net carbon in the air, because coal isn't being formed at anywhere near the rate that we burn it at.

 

Bloody good well thought out post catweazle.

 

 

Edit: my mood may be affected by an hour on the phone to a difficult client and some wine hence the 'bloody' ... needed to swear mildly

Edited September 8, 2010 by Albedo