[Closed] Seems that burning wood for power “is misguided”

Good article that, thanks for posting.

Could someone explain to me please why it is that the UK hasn't and doesn't invest in tidal HEP?

Seems a lot more reliable than Solar and to a large degree, wind power. The Solent gets 4 high waters' each day ( okay, pedant alert), the Bristol Channel, Western Isles are but three area where tidal flows are significant.

Could someone explain to me please why it is that the UK hasn't and doesn't invest in tidal HEP?

Hmmmm, thanks but I was hoping for an explanation using words with 2 syllables or less 😀

I'd think it obvious that wood burning isn't a scale-able option.

I don't get it?

The carbon intensity of the fuel is irrelevant as long as the same amount of trees are planted as are burnt?

If we are using up existing "stocks" of trees without replacing them, then yes, of course the net carbon release is higher than it otherwise would (wood?) be.

It's also worth noting that the building, and maintenance of other renewables, such as off shore wind, is also carbon intensive. For example, i watched a program where two techs were helicoptered to the top of an off-shore turbine to change the bearing greasers! Hardly zero carbon eh!

As coal was all formed millions of years ago, then replacing it with short term wood is directionally correct. Is it as good as replacing it with other renewables, probably not, but it's still much better than burning the coal in the same power station. The real answer is to limit our consumption of energy, perhaps Prof John Beddington should have cold baths from now on, and go to bed at 5.30pm when it gets dark to save energy? No? Thought not......

Ultimately, we need a mix of nuclear (base load) and renewable (with storage) but that will take 50 years to put in place. In the meantime, swapping our coal plants to wood (an easy change) is the right thing to do.

slackalice
Could someone explain to me please why it is that the UK hasn't and doesn't invest in tidal HEP?

Just off the top of my head:

1) Massive infrastructure costs
2) Relatively low energy density
3) Environmental concerns (loss of habitat, esp. marine bird population (mud flats lost etc)
4) Unknown effects on wider ecosystem (rivers silting up etc)
5) Barrier to shipping (requires locks to access our tidal river ports)

https://www.mottmac.com/article/2282/stevens-croft-biomass-power-station-uk

http://www.awjenkinson.co.uk/about/fp/lockerbie.php

https://www.cips.org/supply-management/news/2016/december/uk-facing-timber-shortages/

Fell vast areas of forests and plant a wind turbine ❓

Sorry maxtorque, it's not as simple as that. Firstly, unless you replace the tree you chopped down for power immediately with one containing the same carbon content, then you've a gap of the lifetime of the tree that needs filling. Then, you need to think about what you needed to grow that tree: fertiliser. There's only so much phosphorus on the planet, and whilst we can fix N, it's exceedingly energy intensive, and requires methane. After that, you need to consider the fact that far from all the carbon fixed by a tree ends up in its biomass: quite a lot ends up in the soil, where although a chunk may stay put, there's increasing evidence that in a warming and eCO2 will lead to more loss of C stored in the soil, exacerbated by fresh inputs.

But, more obviously, there simply isn't the space to grow energy: we need as much as we can for food. There was a reason we turned to coal in the first place, remember 😉

So, that's the problem outlined, how about a solution?

Well, number 1 is to use less energy. After that, renewables, backed up with pumped storage and batteries gets you a surprisingly long way, and these options are far more C neutral than conventional biomass energy. I accept in the UK that nuclear has a place, given the existing infrastructure and expertise, but it's a stop-gap, not a solution.

1) Massive infrastructure costs
2) Relatively low energy density
3) Environmental concerns (loss of habitat, esp. marine bird population (mud flats lost etc)
4) Unknown effects on wider ecosystem (rivers silting up etc)
5) Barrier to shipping (requires locks to access our tidal river ports)

My (albeit, limited ) understanding of hydro-electric is that it's one of the more efficient means by which to produce electrical energy. I'm happy to have my understanding corrected on this. So, taking my existing understanding and in response to above:

1) More massive than offshore windmills? I'm sceptical on that assertion.
2) ICBA to look up what relative energy density means, but sounds like it's not as efficient as I thought.
3) Loss of habitat? Check out some of the underwater hydro turbines, not sure their impact is that massive compared to the foundations required for the offshore windmills
4) Only unknown because we're not investing and thereby not undertaking any research.
5) Nope, St Malo doesn't have any restrictions to shipping AFAIAA

Next please. 😀

1) More massive than offshore windmills? I'm sceptical on that assertion.

I wouldn't be. Hydro requires vast amounts of concrete, which is hugely energy intensive.

One of the other issues with tidal is that whilst it's endlessly predictable, it's not always there when you need it. A big tide at 2am isn't much use to anyone.

But all that said, these discussions are as usual lacking a systems approach. We can pick each of these technologies off one at a time. Truth is we'll probably need all of them in some form or other.

For the same energy, You produce 4 times as much co2 burning biomass as gas.

The point these guys make in the article is that yes, in theory (if you ignore imbued energy cost such as transport and handling) biomass is co2 neautralbut it take approx 40 years for the equivalent co2 to be reduced by new biomass, and we're using it quicker than it can grow, thereby increasing the total atmospheric co2 anyway, whilst filling ourselves it's sustainable.

As an environmental scientist myself, I've been shaking my head about biomass for the last 15 years. It's in the same bracket as nuclear power not including the costs of is waste in its viability analysis. Just stupid.

I was at a conference and the ceo of draw power station was giving a talk. All their biomass was coming in from Canada/ America on ships. it used the existing docks/ rail link to draw that was used for coal to get the stuff in.

They couldn't rely on biomass from the uk as they needed such a massive volume.

oh - Zokes - its unlikely you'd be fertilising if you're growing conifers on the second rotation. Nutrient recycling and all that. Very few places need fertiliser in the first rotation apart from very impoverished ground.

oh - Zokes - its unlikely you'd be fertilising if you're growing conifers on the second rotation. Nutrient recycling and all that. Very few places need fertiliser in the first rotation apart from very impoverished ground.

You can't recycle the nutrients you remove, and most of them will be in the above ground biomass. If you don't fertilise, the trees will strip them from the soil, probably losing you more C from previously stable organic matter than in the biomass itself in the long term. (Quick hint, soil is a far greater store of C than plants)

As an environmental scientist myself, I've been shaking my head about biomass for the last 15 years. It's in the same bracket as nuclear power not including the costs of is waste in its viability analysis.

Couldn't agree more & also not to mention all the biomass boiler systems that are installed to get the eco points & are never actually used, or decommissioned due to fumes & faffage vs using the "standby/top up" gas boilers

why it is that the UK hasn't and doesn't invest in tidal HEP

Because they want a quick return on the money. Or like someone I know who sells online but refuses to fund an OpenReach survey to correct a line fault that kills his broadband, they want someone else to pay.

As an environmental scientist myself, I've been shaking my head about biomass for the last 15 years. It's in the same bracket as nuclear power not including the costs of is waste in its viability analysis.

We need to turn Mars into a solar panel planet with cables linking the power back to Earth, via cables or wirelessly. 😉

We could power the planet with PV panels covering a fraction of the Sahara. Bit more practical than mars

But think of the poor scorpions and Sidewinders! 😈

Many of the smaller biomass plants in the UK burn waste wood (that in the past would have gone to landfill) and generate both power into the distribution network and capture the heat for something useful.

That model has always made more sense than the Drax model of importing virgin wood by ship from across the Atlantic.

Tidal power is still in its infancy in the UK. It's expensive and risky and needs scarce Govt support to make it economically viable. Details of the Meygen demonstration project here:

https://www.atlantisresourcesltd.com/projects/meygen/

Thanks for the link curto it's good to see that at least something along the tidal power generation route is being done and feasibility studies to extend further south too.

As curto suggests, small local use of WASTE wood is surely good. Problem comes with a central and massive consumer like Drax which creates a demand and suddenly wood other than waste is being used.... And the numbers show that is bad.

We need to stop looking for the silver bullet, and exploit a wide range of solutions, making use of local resources, local waste and being sensitive to local issues as well as the wider global picture. Trouble is.... It's hard for the government to make large changes they way, easier to try with change to national infrastructure.

well know China has banned imports of waste plastic we will either drown in it or burn it. that's got help

As curto suggests, small local use of WASTE wood is surely good

It's still burning stuff though 😕

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that biomass is going to be a one stop green generation solution for more than a small proportion of our near future energy needs to be fair!

As the infrastructure exists (ie Drax already exists, so lets use it, rather than knock it down before it's worn out an build alternative generation infrastructure) and we can move to biomass on it (and similar plants) today that seems sensible to me. Better than coal, not as good as pure renewables, but accessible today, for a relatively low cost (both in terms of ££ and pollution)

It's worth remembering that all woods release there CO2 eventually. In fact, for a fast growing evergreen, something like a 50 to 100 year carbon cycle is typical (tree grows, tree dies, tree rots) so that amount of carbon is cycling quickly anyway.

Coal, oil and gas are all releasing CO2 that was sequestered millions of years ago by mother nature. Carbon that has been locked out of the atmosphere for all that time, and being released at a rate too fast for the natural balance of mother nature to respond to (more co2 in the atmosphere slowly drives extra absorption to remove that extra co2, by plants, and critically sea algae.

As long as we aren't burning old oak trees (that have spent 100's of years growing) then we are only releasing recently sequestered Co2, and critically the system is self limiting (ie you cannot burn more trees than you can grow)

It's worth remembering that all woods release there CO2 eventually. In fact, for a fast growing evergreen, something like a 50 to 100 year carbon cycle is typical (tree grows, tree dies, tree rots) so that amount of carbon is cycling quickly anyway.

That's not at all true. You might not be able to see much of the rotted tree, but a lot of it will still be there in the soil, and unless you mess about with it, it'll stay there for a lot longer than 50-100 years

zokes - Still not a customer
That's not at all true. You might not be able to see much of the rotted tree, but a lot of it will still be there in the soil, and unless you mess about with it, it'll stay there for a lot longer than 50-100 years

Canny mind, just remember seeing something yonks ago that if there were no mushrooms and the like then we'd be knee deep in dead trees! I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will be able to explain!

Anyhow, I think the general point might be(I dunno, I'm speculating) that a tree rotting doesn't equate to a tree being burned, in atmospheric terms.

And how many saplings are required to fix the same amount of carbon on a daily basis as a felled adult tree?

Dickyboy - Member
It's still burning stuff though

true, but if you have wood waste, and we do, making use of it as we dispose of it seems good. open to consider other uses though.`

as for saplings vs adult tree, no idea, although younger trees in a managed forest grow and absorb more carbon than older trees apparently.

zokes - Still not a customer

Sorry maxtorque, it's not as simple as that. Firstly, unless you replace the tree you chopped down for power immediately with one containing the same carbon content, then you've a gap of the lifetime of the tree that needs filling

Well, no, because you "replace" the tree you cut today, with the tree that was planted the day after it was planted- it's a rolling cycle, thinking about it it in terms of direct replacement doesn't work.

Well, no, because you "replace" the tree you cut today, with the tree that was planted the day after it was planted- it's a rolling cycle, thinking about it it in terms of direct replacement doesn't work.

You miss the point, you have to think about it in terms of direct replacement as that's what the atmosphere sees. The (say) 20 tonnes of carbon liberated when you burned the tree remains there contributing to climate change until the new tree eventually over decades absorbs an equivalent amount.

Yep, I think I said earlier the better idea is to plant trees and not burn them. Though not sure how to make that one well enough incentivised.
Burning things for fuel is bad as it releases CO2, no matter what you do it will still be a negative impact. We need methods that don't include burning stuff to generate power.

zokes - Still not a customer

You miss the point, you have to think about it in terms of direct replacement as that's what the atmosphere sees. The (say) 20 tonnes of carbon liberated when you burned the tree remains there contributing to climate change until the new tree eventually over decades absorbs an equivalent amount.

No, it just doesn't work like that- the trees have a lifespan and have already been planted, replacements are planted daily and have been for decades, and they get bigger by themselves. Stop thinking about the tree and think about the forest as a resource

That's assuming you're cutting managed forestry of course but since that's the only way it makes any sense I think it's a fair assumption. Cutting virgin forest for power is pretty much criminal- but here we have a pretty high volume of pretty shitty trees, in manmade tree factories that are already on a sustainable replacement loop. FC forests were created as a strategic resource- not for this job but they can do it.

The issues are that as Mike says, it's better not to cut them- because just being closed loop neutral isn't enough, we want carbon sinks not carbon neutral. And if you cut them, it's best to do something non-burny with them. And also that large scale generation isn't feasible on a closed loop. But that doesn't stop it from being a useful part of generation.

No, northwind, it works exactly like that. If you put 20 tonnes of C into the atmosphere as CO2, then you need to offset that immediately with 20 tonnes of C being sequestered [u]at the same time[/u]. It doesn't matter whether you burn a tree, coal, or your gran's undies, inputs to the atmosphere need to be offset simultaneously and that offset needs to be of an equivalent longevity to be carbon neutral. If not, you're effectively taking a 'loan' on the atmosphere for the life of the tree that's replacing the one you just burned.

Whilst it doesn't solve the immediacy requirement, biochar in conjunction with biogas or bio-oil production has the possibility to at least produce a residue with greater stability than what went in.

The idea of planting forest as a carbon sink just doesn't work. The planet isn't big enough and there isn't enough farmland to sacrifice. The oceans do a good job and so long as we don't disturb the balance between silca and carbonate organisms in favour of (which we are doing) will continue to mop up the carbon from volcanicity and possibly a bit of man-released carbon as well. Climbers and cavers will be familiar with limestone rocks - that's the planet's major carbon sink.

As for forests, think about it, for the carbon sink idea to work you'd have to stock the same amout of carbon in wood as is released from the fossil fuel you burn - you'd be better to just burn the wood and replant as you go. But that's not possible because we use too much.

Man started buring fossil fuels because he ran out of wood. By the Napoleonic wars Europe had run out of wood for building and burning. Wood had become a rare, expensive commodity and a cheap alternative to burn was needed: coal, then oil.

The only way to slow climatic change is stop burning fossil fuels. Burning wood from managed woodland is carbon neutral and has it's place in the energy mix. Wood should preferably be burned close to the point of production to reduce the use of fossil fuels in harvesting and transport. Burning the waste from wood yards to produce energy is a very good idea, burning wood grown specifically for burning not such a good idea. Burning windfall, wood from tree surgery, dried garden waste etc. an excellent idea.

Burning wood from managed woodland is carbon neutral

No it's not.

I agree that it's better than burning fossil fuels, but any process that emits more CO2 than whatever would have happened to that C had we not got involved is not neutral. As I've said already, don't dismiss inputs that would have made their way into the soil as "free" CO2. They're not. A good chunk of them, around 40-50%, would contribute to increasing soil organic matter levels, which can be much more stable than the wood was originally. Further, they contribute to a more healthy soil than can sustain greater ecosystem function and potentially greater plant production, in turn inputting more C to the soil.

Sure can be.

Local wood, cut with an electric chain saw, slpit with an electric splitter (both powered by solar panels that produce a lot more than we use). All barrowed by hand to the point of use. No I don't use an axe made from wood-smelted iron and forged in a wood-fired forge - I could.

"carbon neutral" is true for the wood burning in many parts of the world. One forester in France has gone back to using horses to get wood out of his forest - carbon neutral transport and less damage to the soil so the forest is more productive. In much of the developing world wood really is carbon neutral fuel - hand cut and transported to the point of use. And even with fossil fuel powered harvesting it's as close to carbon neutral as any alternative energy in terms of embedded energy.

Ultimately the objective is produce so much alternative energy that oil is only used for things where there is no natural alternative; pharma, plastics etc. where bio-oils don't contain the necessary molecules.

Some of the carbon in plants goes into the soil when they rot. That's what makes soil.

As for forests - I've also read that outside the tropics the climate stabilising effect of the carbon sequestration of forest is more than cancelled out by the reduced albedo of forest covered land - so forests actually make the earth warmer. In the tropics growth is so vigorous and so much carbon is sequestered that it still works.

Local wood, cut with an electric chain saw, slpit with an electric splitter (both powered by solar panels that produce a lot more than we use). All barrowed by hand to the point of use. No I don't use an axe made from wood-smelted iron and forged in a wood-fired forge - I could.

Low carbon, certainly. But it's not carbon neutral.

Biochar seems interesting, I was looking at stuff about that recently. Potential to improve soil greatly and sequester carbon for the long term, but could it be viable on a large scale? Seems almost hobbiest scale currently.

At present it's a carbon sink, Ransos.

I'm pretty sure that there's more carbon stocked in my wood piles than in the embedded carbon in the tools used. As the wood has all grown back the bit of the planet that my wood comes from is stocking more wood than it was when I started harvesting.

You wanna be a dick about it so can I. You're falling into the trap laid by the climatic skeptics who denigrate any form of alternative energy as having huge amounts of embedded carbon while minimising the damage caused by fossil fuels. People want a western lifestyle and in the long term the best way to achieve that without turning the planet into a Devonian desert.

The onjective should be energy froms that have low forms of embedded carbon. Reforesting part of a tropical island to provide fuel for the locals is better than carbon neutral as it provides a sink at the same time as properly carbon neutral fuel.

In Europe machanisation means that doesn't happen but when you compare with the embedded energy in solar panels, wind turbines, tidal or any other high tech solution then burning wood, especially waste wood, is still very low carbon and a valid part of a sustainable energy supply mix.

You wanna be a dick about it so can I.

No, I was pointing out your mistake. But I see that once again you've turned this discussion into one all about you. Congratulations.

And one thing for the pontificating do-nothings on this thread. I've noted that the bigger the car, the less-well insulated the house, the more ridiculous that flash keosene burning holiday, the pig eaten - the more of an arse people are when talking about climatic chnage so for the record:

Electricity positive house (even with an electric car)
No gas, wood for heating but about 2.5 m3/year as house is
Well-insulated house
Solar water heater
triple glazing
Madame walks to work
7500km a year by electric car
We use bikes for shopping and many local journeys
We use the bus and train for holidays
I've flown less than once per ten years (mainly because I dislike flying)
Local produce bought in preference and where possible

But we ski and I have some flash music kit and we live well.

So rather than joining in with the dicks criticising laudable attempts to do something because there's a tiny proportion of embedded carbon rejoice in the fact taht someone is trying to do something and succeeding rather than pissing in their shoes whislt sitting with the gas central heating set at whatever it's set at (too high).

But I see that once again you've turned this discussion into one all about you.

Electricity positive house (even with an electric car)
No gas, wood for heating but about 2.5 m3/year as house is
Well-insulated house
Solar water heater
triple glazing
Madame walks to work
7500km a year by electric car
We use bikes for shopping and many local journeys
We use the bus and train for holidays
I've flown less than once per ten years (mainly because I dislike flying)
Local produce bought in preference and where possible

My case reclines upon the divan.

No, I was pointing out your mistake.

No mistake my wood management has currently reduced the level of atmosheric carbon whichever way you look at it including the manufature of the tools (the wood slitter was bought between three of us)

Go on admit that you were wrong and apologise, Ransos.

It's induviduals who contribute most to CO2 emissions and who can do the most to limit climatic change. To those who say nothing can be done, I say it can, I have and you can do the same.

That annoys people because this isn't the governments fault, it's your fault, it's my fault, but I'm doing what I can to make it less my fault and so should you. Jealous? Visibly so and so you should be, feeling guilty too when you buy that flash gadjet rather than some insulating materials. It's individual choices and you're making bad ones for your children, grandchildren and anyone who follows you.

No mistake my wood management has currently reduced the level of atmosheric carbon whichever way you look at it including the manufature of the tools (the wood slitter was bought between three of us)

Go on admit that you were wrong and apologise, Ransos.

You don't seem to understand how the carbon cycle works. As I said, your approach is low carbon but it's not neutral. It's also not particularly interesting as a solution because it's not remotely scalable and requires the use of a [s]cancer[/s] wood burning stove.

You don't seem to understand how the carbon cycle works.

Read my first contribution to this thread. And my carbon sink. I really do understand.

requires the use of a cancer wood burning stove.

I've been waiting for that. People get more wound up about wood-buring stoves in low popultaion areas than they do about diesels in cities. They're generally the ones like you who find fault with any alternative energy inititave whilst doing everything they can to poison people on an individual levels themselves.

The cancer case is weak against wood burning in high temperature stoves beyond start up. Crude oil contains benzine ring chemicals which are proven carcinogens, diesel soot is a high risk carcinogen if you consult medical papers and yet the car-lobby minimises the risk, while at the same time pointing their fingers at wood burning form which there is little evidence that the risk is especially high. It's smoke, smoke isn't good for asthma sufferers, it's not healthy. But to demonise it is not helpful either. If you have a wood-burner use it as little as possible (insulate the house), don't light it when it's likely to annoy neighbour, and don't install one at all if you live in an area with air pollution issues.

If you really want to improve air quality then get rid of your ICE car and stop chucking stuff in the bin, because it gets incinerated and it's highly inlikely that you local incinertor runs hot enough to illiminate the carcinogens all the time.

Read my first contribution to this thread. And my carbon sink. I really do understand.

I did. Zokes has it.

I've been waiting for that. People get more wound up about wood-buring stoves in low popultaion areas than they do about diesels in cities.

It seems that you're the one getting wound up, when anyone points out that your lifestyle (which you never fail to mention) is not perfect. And as I said before, not very interesting, as it doesn't provide solutions at scale.

Stop trolling, edukator. I know you're bright enough to understand what I've written, so please do so rather than picking pointless arguments.

You are describing a low carbon fuel, a very admirable one given some of the lengths you're describing in your virtue signalling, but it's more incorrect than just semantics to pretend that it's carbon neutral.

It seems that you're the one getting wound up,

Do you want Skype as I type? Or are you going to type three posts implying I'm lying if I point out you're the one being provoked into provoding the predictable climatic skeptic, anti-wood as fuel, alternative-energies-pollute-just-as-much-as-oil Trump propaganda?

Stop trolling, edukator.

OK
Stop burning fossil fuels if you want to stop climatic change, thinking beyond that is a waste of thought waves.

Biochar seems interesting, I was looking at stuff about that recently. Potential to improve soil greatly and sequester carbon for the long term, but could it be viable on a large scale? Seems almost hobbiest scale currently.

It needs integrating. Using "waste" organics in pyrolysis or gasification systems produces it, but the soil side of the research really disappeared up its own backside for the last decade and sadly a lot of missed opportunities have occurred where more research could have linked its production, energy production, and use in soils.

There's a surprising amount of biomass out there that could be useful, and stuff that's been through anaerobic digestion first could then be pyrolised to produce bio-oil and char. More broadly than the UK, a lot of alternative plants could be grown in places where they don't displace food crops, so there's big potential.

Gents, you are turning an interesting discussion into name calling posturing. Would it be possible to draw a line under that and get back to discussion in a polite and interesting way?

Anyone got links to stuff on how rotting wood etc gets into the soil and what happens over time? Does soil carbon content just get higher and higher or does a forest reach an equilibrium?

Stop burning fossil fuels if you want to stop climatic change, thinking beyond that is a waste of thought waves.

Now you're just being childish. As it happens, whilst in direct terms I definitely live a less virtuous lifestyle than you, my work directly contributes to getting this right at the global scale. As a consequence, your high horse seems a little incapacitated.

@neil: Given this is my day job (the terrestrial carbon cycle, not arguing with internet trolls), and it's late at night here, I'll dig out some stuff in the morning if you'd like. I'm aware of some well written articles for the general audience that I can probably link to, but can also email some pdfs of scientific papers if you've got the will.

Or are you going to type three posts implying I'm lying if I point out you're the one being provoked into provoding the predictable climatic skeptic, anti-wood as fuel, alternative-energies-pollute-just-as-much-as-oil Trump propaganda?

Sigh. I understand the issues very well, academically and professionally. Now, if we agree to give you three house points, will you promise to be a good boy and stop the praise-seeking?

Thanks zokes, well written papers for the general audience first please, ta.

The problem is, Neil, that whilst you worry yourself about how much carbon can be tied up in soil you're fogetting that however much that is it's insignficant because you don't have enough soil.

I did a few sums on how much land would have to be forested in SW France to stock the fossil fuel emissions from my local town even on an optimistic for a forest as a carbon sink (see Molgrips doubts for perspective). The result came out at ten to twenty time the urabn area per years. Whcih when I loke at the map meant that within a 100 years there wouldn't be much farm land or vinyards left.

The scale of the CO2 realease is such that carbon sinks as a solution are insufficient. Bigcorporation love to talk about the maount of forests they've planted as part of their green washing but it isn't an answer.

You're tinkering around with a tiny percentage of the carbon being released which was stored up in sediment over millions of years. You can't increase atmospheric carbon levels to Cretacieous or Devonian levels and expect the planet to cope - because it didn't cope back then. In the Devonian it became a green-housed desert until the presumably volcanic excess carbon was absorbed by marine organisms at converted into limstone and oil.

Cutting CO2 emission is the only solution and if carbon neutral/low carbon wood burning (depending on where and how) is part of the energy mix that allows that then article such as the Guardian article really aren't helpful in a world with x million automobiles running on diesel and petrol and in a country heated with gas.

The problem is, Neil, that whilst you worry yourself about how much carbon can be tied up in soil you're fogetting that however much that is it's insignficant because you don't have enough soil.

Sorry, now you're really just talking bollocks. Soil is the largest terrestrial pool of C. This is pretty basic stuff Edukator. You're starting to make me realise what Brian Cox must feel like having to deal with cretins like [url= http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-16/professor-brian-cox-vs.-senator-malcolm-roberts/7746576 ]Malcolm Roberts[/url].

Just accept that you don't know quite as much about this as at least two others on this thread, shut up, and you might even learn something.

No educator, m not worrying, I'm just interested. I know nothing about it but my gut feel is it isn't scalable.

I actually agree with most of your points, but your not making them very well now.

Oh good grief, more name calling and bad language. It doesn't help

As I said, I'm done working for the day. But given the level of inaccuracy, bollocks is probably the most scientific term to describe it. And Malcolm Roberts is definitely a cretin.

I did find a decent starting point for some of this by the way: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/soil-carbon-storage-84223790

Ed. Settle down. You are making this into a personal fight, and if there's one thing guaranteed to do nothing for climate change, it's that. No-one changes their mind because you've pissed them off.

The thread is about things that can be done. And yes, stopping burning fossil fuels is one of them. You've made that point. Now leave the slanging match alone - it pisses people off, it makes the thread unreadable, and it actually turns people off the 'green' message.

Let's debate the science and the solutions without insulting each other please.

Cutting CO2 emission is the only solution

It's the main one yes, but we still need to figure out how to do that on a national scale. Now if I were in charge I'd be in charge of a left-wing big government and I'd invest in making alternatives work and then discourage high CO2 activities with tax...

Didn't Blue Planet 2 have Sir David saying that far more carbon is fixed by plankton in our oceans, than by plants and trees on land?

~30 years ago while at school, GCSE Geography was raving about how we had all these new renewable and eco-friendly power sources becoming a possibility, to replace fossil and nuclear fuels. Yet here we are, decades later, with this newer technology seeming to still be quite a minor percentage of our power sources. While the likes of China are bellowing out quantities of smoke akin to the UK's industrial revolution in the mid 19th century.

Didn't Blue Planet 2 have Sir David saying that far more carbon is fixed by plankton in our oceans, than by plants and trees on land?

It is (hence why I was careful to state I was talking about terrestrial stocks). The trick is keeping it there as the oceans warm and acidify.

with this newer technology seeming to still be quite a minor percentage of our power sources. While the likes of China are bellowing out quantities of smoke akin to the UK's industrial revolution in the mid 19th century.

On the other hand, renewable usage is increasing very quickly and China is passing environmental legislation all the time... So we might be doing it - question is, are we already too late?

zokes - Still not a customer

No, northwind, it works exactly like that. If you put 20 tonnes of C into the atmosphere as CO2, then you need to offset that immediately with 20 tonnes of C being sequestered at the same time.

That, sorry, but it's a completely ridiculous way to think about growing trees- maybe one that comes from a manufacturing or lab based viewpoint? You only have to replace it immediately with an equal sized tree if you only had one tree, or if trees didn't grow. In the real world, you aren't replacing it immediately- you're replacing it about 20 years [i]before[/i] you burned it. You can't just discount planning ahead and the growth cycle from your thinking.

I'm not saying that the general thrust of your argument is wrong, you realise, but this part of your description doesn't survive contact with an actual forest. And it's a logical error that biases the argument against wood burning by insisting on the impossible while dismissing the real.

That, sorry, but it's a completely ridiculous way to think about growing trees- maybe one that comes from a manufacturing or lab based viewpoint? You only have to replace it immediately with an equal sized tree if you only had one tree, or if trees didn't grow. In the real world, you aren't replacing it immediately- you're replacing it about 20 years before you burned it. You can't just discount planning ahead and the growth cycle from your thinking.

Ultimately, burning wood now increases CO2 now.

ransos - Member

Ultimately, burning wood now increases CO2 now.

Of course, but only because it was sequestered in the past. It doesn't matter why a sustainable forest was planted- it doesn't require prescience.

What does make a difference, as you say, is burn vs not burn. But that's aside from the point I'm making about how to think (or not think) of that cycle.

Zokes, I'm a geologist, soil profile - water chemistry was on of my specialities at Welsh Water. On a worldwide basis one of the problems we are facing is soil erosion. The idea that you can stock any signifacnt amount of man-released CO2 in soil on a planet with intensive agriculture, an ever increasing population, growing desert... Just deson't hold up. The potential is orders of magnitude too low and decreasing. At best we can hope to reduce the trend. As your post is in contradiction with the conclusions of the paper you link I'll quote the conclusion for you to read:

CONCLUSION - SOC is a vital component of soil with important effects on the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. Storage of SOC results from interactions among the dynamic ecological processes of photosynthesis, decomposition, and soil respiration. Human activities over the course of the last 150 years have led to changes in these processes and consequently to the depletion of SOC and the exacerbation of global climate change. But these human activities also now provide an opportunity for sequestering carbon back into soil. Future warming and elevated CO2, patterns of past land use, and land management strategies, along with the physical heterogeneity of landscapes are expected to produce complex patterns of SOC capacity in soil.

Of course, but only because it was sequestered in the past. It doesn't matter why a sustainable forest was planted- it doesn't require prescience.

What does make a difference, as you say, is burn vs not burn. But that's aside from the point I'm making about how to think (or not think) of that cycle.

There is a reasonable argument for supporting the burning of forestry residues, mill wastes and consumer wastes (because short-term carbon release would probably happen anyway) but I'm very far from convinced there is significant scope for expansion.

Expansion depends on how you wish to see the landscape in future. Do you like wild moorland Scotland or would you like to see the Caledonian forest back again? The conifer plantations in Wales have been an ecological failure IMO because:

Surface water acidification due to scrubbing
Reduced habitat due to monocultures
Increased downstream flooding due to drainage
Acidification of surface waters due to draining and aeration of peaty gleyed podsols with aeration and acidification of the orgainc layer.

I put together a paper for Welsh Water and successfully oposed planning permission for a conifer forest on the basis of the above, however the Forestry commission swamped us with applications knowing we didn't have the resources to contest all the applications.

However the planting of a diverse deciduous woodland would avoid most of those problems whilst providing an ever increasing carbon sink (insignificant in the greater scheme of things but still a positive) and a source of wood as both a building material and fuel.

a source of wood as both a building material and fuel

Hmm.

Broadleaf species take a lot longer to grow, right? So wouldn't that make the timber much more expensive? And therefore make it difficult to sell as building material?

Going on German prices then a German stem of pine is about 80e and reaches maturity at 60-80 years, Beech is a low as 40e and reaches maturity at around 100 years, Oak is 150e or more and won't be harvested at less than 150 years. The fastest and highest financial return is on pine so that's what's grown most rather than the Beech which forms the natural landscape. In Wales legislation is needed to prevent planting exclusively pine because without legislation that is what commercial foresters will plant.

Diversity creates more habitat, reduces disease and when combined with selective felling (rather than clear felling) better maintains the soil profile.

ransos - Member

I'm not quite sure what your point is? Zokes is arguing that the problem is one of the immediacy of combustion, and I tend to agree. Put another way, what would happen to our forests if there were no biomass burning?

Fair enough, the thread's wandered around a bit- my point's just about the forest lifecycle, and the simple fact that you don't have to replace a grown tree instantly with another grown tree to have a sustainable cycle. Zokes seems to want to discount the lifecycle of trees completely, which is irrational- it's farming not building. If you applied the same mindset elsewhere nobody would ever harvest a crop because they'd have to replace it instantly with another crop ready to harvest.

ransos - Member

Yes, but the only reason it doesn't stay sequestered is because of choices we are now making to release it back into the atmosphere. If you make the timescale long enough, you could argue the same about coal.

That's not really true- trees aren't immortal. If you abandon a managed forest, the trees will still die and release their captured carbon (over a longer timescale, but still relatively short), and the trees in managed forestry tend to have fairly short mean lifespans (because of the species we plant, the way we plant them, and the shitty ground we tend to plant them in) Coal may return its carbon to the atmosphere over geological time, trees will do it in human time.

The broader point is that thinking of trees as a simple manufactured product doesn't work, not just in this specific way but in a bunch of others. For instance- wood that goes for burning or biomass isn't the same wood as goes for construction. The former isn't suitable for the latter, and the latter is too valuable to waste on the former. You don't turn a mature dougie into pellets and you don't build a house with a stunted sitka. A managed forest produces trees that are fit for all sorts of different purposes and you can't just say "use it all for X".

Down my way in Sussex, there is a lot of replanting away from pine on F.C. land. One wood has @5000 oak saplings planted, and a lot of chestnut/birch is grown/harvested/coppiced.

The difference in vegetation under those canopies compared to the dead pine forests is immense.

When trees are felled at maturity then the main trunk goes to the mill and is used for construction wood, the off-cuts and branches unsuitable for that go to the splitter for firewood and the rest of the wood removed goes for pellets. The stump remains in the ground as habitat and to preserve the soil (which unrooting would damage) and stripped smaller branches and twigs are left in place to decay as habitat and compost for the next trees planted.

Exceptions include wood grown for paper pulp, usually pine or Eucalyptus which are harvested at the age prodctivity is maximal and fire wood. (there are probably other exceptions)

Edit: that's excellent, dants'.

I thought Zokes was arguing that burning wood now as carbon neutral is not sustainable, which it's not at scale due to competing land uses, food production being the largest.

Ego massaging ecologically sustainable small holdings are vanity projects that are not relevant at scale, because there isn't enough land for all of humanity to exist like this.

Zokes entire point is that demand is moving towards outstripping current supply capacity and creating a leading edge bulge in emissions that isn't currently being catered for by sustainable planning, and won't be unless planting is stepped up. It's been moving this way for some time.

You're both correct, because you're talking about different things.

Separately, the FC also has a remit for conservation and recreation as well as strategic wood reserve, hence the deciduous planting. They've been underperforming in habitat diversity for ooh, all of their existence.

Separately again, some of the statements spouted re emissions from combustion in this thread are somewhat lacking in depth of knowledge, but given the amount of deviation and handbag slapping already, it's probably best to leave that for another day.

Edukator - Reformed Troll

When trees are felled at maturity

Which in a lot of cases is the minority of the forest. Maturity's a hazy concept of course, and one that can change- a lot of the scottish forestry was planted to produce a lot of smaller trees, relatively quickly, for paper pulp and is now being thinned to produce a smaller, bulkier final crop. Which produces a huge amount of wood that's very suitable for burning

IIRC only 2/3ds of harvested sitka goes to sawmills/processing for poles- I think that includes pre-maturity thinning harvests. And I think it's correct to say that even with green timber a minority of it comes out as the finished product- the rest is offcuts, failed cuts and particles.

So that all ties into the wider point about oversimplification, sitkas don't all grow til they're 50 metres tall then get turned into planks, the whole "don't burn it, do something else with it" doesn't often stand up. The coproducts that go for burning or panels weren't ever going to be a house or a rocking chair and they can't be left in the ground.

That's all for commercial forestry, of course- it's totally reasonable to suggest we just stop harvesting, and use them solely as a carbon sink, but that has a huge commercial impact and a lot of these forests aren't that well suited to it.