Wood Power Emits More Than Coal

[Eye 0]

A new study has found that wood-burning power plants using trees and other "biomass" from New England forests releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than coal over time.Environmental officials found biomass-fired electricity would result in a 3 percent increase in carbon emissions compared to coal-fired electricity by 2050.Researchers arrived at the figure by comparing how much carbon is emitted into the atmosphere through the burning of wood - what they termed "carbon debt" - with the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere from the regrowth of forests, or "carbon dividends."

The report found that harvesting trees for biomass facilities could have "significant localized impacts on the landscape, including aesthetic impacts of locally heavy harvesting as well as potential impacts on recreation and tourism."

[Baniboy 3]

Let's put things into perspective here, let's imagine if we could use ONLY WOOD for all energy we needed. Since the tree's burning and regrowth gives a neutral, if not positive effect, let's assume that using would would save from global warming and compare the consequences:Climate change: you know the consequencesFarming trees: Landscape and tourism fail(?)So is that a joke you have up there or were those researchers from a coal mine?Oh yes and stop copying and pasting content without using quote tags.

[The Simpleton 2]

Burning wood and coal are both bad, although the former has a more devastating effect on the environment (no trees = no life in the long term) Instead of using these two, alternative sources of energy should be encouraged more. Coal is called black gold but it is in danger of becoming rarer than gold.

 

 

Oh, and it appears that our new member hasn't posted the whole article. Here's what copyscape.com had to say:

 

The comparison below was created by Copyscape, which searched for copies of this page:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/topic/72348-wood-power-emits-more-than-coal/

 

The page below has 127 words matching 26% of the page:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[Baniboy 3]

Burning wood and coal are both bad, although the former has a more devastating effect on the environment (no trees = no life in the long term)

umm... no trees no life? We aren't talking about chopping the rainforests here, although they do that stuff already, but in the 21st century if wood is going to be used for producing electricity in this world, they ?would start farming it, not chop down existing forests unless they're going to grow more on that land because obviously they would run out of trees soon. So the effects would be mass-production of wood.

[sheepdog 10]

It is my understanding that if a tree dies and falls and rots, the rotting process gives off more emmissions than if the tree was burned. So harvesting mature trees to use as lumber or burn as firewood doesn't really hurt the enviornment as this articule would suggest. Then there is the added bonus that for those of us who are property owners and have it available, we are not subject to the price gouging habits of the gas/oil/electric companys for our heat.

[k_nitin_r 8]

A common argument that biomass promoters mention is that burning biomass is carbon neutral whereas burning fossil fuels is not. Now, that does not really make sense because fossil fuels were once living breathing beings that were turned into fuel due to the natural heat and pressure so for the fuels to have been formed, there would have been plants that were eaten by animals, which in turn were buried in the earth for hundreds of years till they were acted upon by heat and pressure and were turned into fuels. If algae were to trap the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and we were to burn them to obtain energy thus releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, what makes them any more carbon neutral than any other fossil fuels? Sure, they help us get around the shortage of fossil fuels and would enable nations that do not have oil reserves to produce their own fuel, in a much cheaper manner than by growing crops, and without affecting the economy. A strong opposition by people in the use of crops as fuel is that it inflates fuel prices due to the perceived shortage of the crop in the food market. There may not be a genuine shortage but due to the increased demand for the crop, farmers would raise their prices. In addition, as farmers choose to grow the fuel crop (either corn or certain kinds of seeds), fewer farmers would want to grow crops with a low demand. Besides, many industries pay farmers before the crop is sowed with a contract to be given a preference over other buyers to acquire the crop while taking the risk of a failed crop - as a farmer, who would be able to refuse such a deal?The shortage of fossil fuels and rising fuel prices is a genuine reason for pursuing research and development of biofuels, but the argument that bio fuels are carbon neutral does not really seem like a valid idea because fossil fuels can be termed as carbon neutral too, and so can the burning of wood by cutting down forests, but the point is that we want to keep the carbon sinks (opposite of carbon sources) around to continue to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in an attempt to reduce global warming. If you want to look for ways to obtain fuel without affecting the carbon release into the environment, consider the use of solar energy or wind energy, and possibly even hydel power and geo thermal energy. All of these sources provide us with energy without releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or taking away the green organisms that fix the carbon from the atmosphere into other compounds.

[Baniboy 3]

A common argument that biomass promoters mention is that burning biomass is carbon neutral whereas burning fossil fuels is not. Now, that does not really make sense because fossil fuels were once living breathing beings that were turned into fuel due to the natural heat and pressure so for the fuels to have been formed, there would have been plants that were eaten by animals, which in turn were buried in the earth for hundreds of years till they were acted upon by heat and pressure and were turned into fuels. If algae were to trap the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and we were to burn them to obtain energy thus releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, what makes them any more carbon neutral than any other fossil fuels? Sure, they help us get around the shortage of fossil fuels and would enable nations that do not have oil reserves to produce their own fuel, in a much cheaper manner than by growing crops, and without affecting the economy. A strong opposition by people in the use of crops as fuel is that it inflates fuel prices due to the perceived shortage of the crop in the food market. There may not be a genuine shortage but due to the increased demand for the crop, farmers would raise their prices. In addition, as farmers choose to grow the fuel crop (either corn or certain kinds of seeds), fewer farmers would want to grow crops with a low demand. Besides, many industries pay farmers before the crop is sowed with a contract to be given a preference over other buyers to acquire the crop while taking the risk of a failed crop - as a farmer, who would be able to refuse such a deal?
The shortage of fossil fuels and rising fuel prices is a genuine reason for pursuing research and development of biofuels, but the argument that bio fuels are carbon neutral does not really seem like a valid idea because fossil fuels can be termed as carbon neutral too, and so can the burning of wood by cutting down forests, but the point is that we want to keep the carbon sinks (opposite of carbon sources) around to continue to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in an attempt to reduce global warming. If you want to look for ways to obtain fuel without affecting the carbon release into the environment, consider the use of solar energy or wind energy, and possibly even hydel power and geo thermal energy. All of these sources provide us with energy without releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or taking away the green organisms that fix the carbon from the atmosphere into other compounds.

Well that is the case, but see, we have some kind of deadline here, you know. Burning fossil fuels is like burning wood faster than it grows. The effects are negative (as in negative from the standpoint that we want to save ourselves). If you could wait for a few million years for the carbon and hydrogen to go back to being fossil fuels, yea it would be equal to wood. Which one do you think neutralizes the bad effects of burning first; 1 kg of carbon in wood or 1 kg of carbon in oil? So using the wood is more advantageous. You have to add TIME as a variable into your argument before you start saying something doesn't make sense.

It is my understanding that if a tree dies and falls and rots, the rotting process gives off more emmissions than if the tree was burned.

How does it give more emissions directly? Same amount of carbon, same amount of hydrogen. Creatures that cause it to rot burn the same amount of carbon and hydrogen as the wood contained. The same amount of oxygen is required to burn the nutrients as it's required to burn the lumber by man. The only way I can imagine your argument was not as false at it is, is that by maintaining the life of the decomposers by letting the tree rot the creatures will continue to live and breathe out carbon dioxide.

So harvesting mature trees to use as lumber or burn as firewood doesn't really hurt the enviornment as this articule would suggest.

The contents of the tree is part of the cycle of the ecosystem. Now by taking away the nutrients that the land provided the tree by burning it somewhere else, you ensure that most of it doesn't go back to the ecosystem it was going to go to if it had fell and rotten.
Edited June 25, 2010 by Baniboy (see edit history)

[sheepdog 10]

The contents of the tree is part of the cycle of the ecosystem. Now by taking away the nutrients that the land provided the tree by burning it somewhere else, you ensure that most of it doesn't go back to the ecosystem it was going to go to if it had fell and rotten.

Well, it would seem that way at first thought, but do you have any idea how long it takes a tree to rott? The main trunk will lay on the ground for many many years. And as long as it is laying there, nothing else will grow to take it's place. No baby trees can sprout, or grass, or anything else, except maybe some funguses, which are generally of no value as they are inedible to anything else in the eco system, like the wildlife that may forage in the forest.

[Harlot 2]

I don't think that is a big surprise. I don't know anyone, as in corporations, who use wood as their main source of energy. In all honestly, I simply don't see the current alternative energies that are in existence as feasible. Solar energy, in my opinion, is the only clean form of energy that I believe has great potential.

[sheepdog 10]

I really like solar myself, especially since no one can claim ownership of the sun and charge us for it's shining. The problem as I'm sure you know, is that it is dark at least half of the time, and until we have a good way to store the energy that it makes during the daylight hours, it is not going to be a reliable sourse, sad to say.

[Baniboy 3]

Well, it would seem that way at first thought, but do you have any idea how long it takes a tree to rott? The main trunk will lay on the ground for many many years. And as long as it is laying there, nothing else will grow to take it's place. No baby trees can sprout, or grass, or anything else, except maybe some funguses, which are generally of no value as they are inedible to anything else in the eco system, like the wildlife that may forage in the forest.

Burned or left to rot, the tree has the same amount of carbon, don't you agree? The same amount of carbon generates the same amount of carbon dioxide. At the end, the SAME amount of carbon dioxide is released from that one tree, regardless of it being burned or left to rot. A: the materials the tree contains are needed in the cycle to produce new material, if you take that away and burn it... won't take long till no baby trees can sprout either. B: Fungi are decomposers. They are a part of the ecosystem just like plants and animals. And insects use mushrooms to lay eggs in. Fungi also live in symbiosis with the trees.

Solar energy, in my opinion, is the only clean form of energy that I believe has great potential.

Solar panels use materials that, obviously, will run out at some stage. It's the same as oil. Things run out if we use them up faster than they're produced. The fact that we jump from material to material for making electricity doesn't change that it will run out some day. Uranium usable for nuclear reactors is going to run out in 300 years, they're developing technology to use thorium next. And what will happen then? Thorium runs out. My point, the laws of thermodynamics prevent us from making "clean" energy, there is no such thing as a free meal.