Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumEurope is burning our forests for “renewable” energy. Wait, what?
Europe is burning our forests for renewable energy. Wait, what?
In March 2007, the E.U. adopted climate and energy goals for 2010 to 2020. The 27 member countries set a goal of reducing carbon emissions 20 percent by 2020 and increasing renewables to 20 percent of their energy portfolio. Unfortunately, they underestimated the carbon intensity of burning wood (a.k.a. biomass) for electricity, and they categorized wood as a renewable fuel.
The E.U.s initial rationale was not totally crazy it just turned out to be totally wrong. Citing research that suggested that young trees consume more CO2 than older trees, policymakers figured that burning a tree for energy could be carbon neutral if you planted a replacement tree.
More recent studies, however, have shown that to be much too optimistic. Not all young trees consume more CO2 than older trees it depends on the species and various other conditions. The process of chopping trees into wood pellets and shipping it across the Atlantic, and the energy involved in burning it all, add to the total carbon intensity.
Burning very few wood fuels shows any carbon benefit over coal, says Scot Quaranda a spokesperson for the Dogwood Alliance, an anti-deforestation group in Asheville, N.C. In most cases its actually worse than coal or natural gas.
In March 2007, the E.U. adopted climate and energy goals for 2010 to 2020. The 27 member countries set a goal of reducing carbon emissions 20 percent by 2020 and increasing renewables to 20 percent of their energy portfolio. Unfortunately, they underestimated the carbon intensity of burning wood (a.k.a. biomass) for electricity, and they categorized wood as a renewable fuel.
The E.U.s initial rationale was not totally crazy it just turned out to be totally wrong. Citing research that suggested that young trees consume more CO2 than older trees, policymakers figured that burning a tree for energy could be carbon neutral if you planted a replacement tree.
More recent studies, however, have shown that to be much too optimistic. Not all young trees consume more CO2 than older trees it depends on the species and various other conditions. The process of chopping trees into wood pellets and shipping it across the Atlantic, and the energy involved in burning it all, add to the total carbon intensity.
Burning very few wood fuels shows any carbon benefit over coal, says Scot Quaranda a spokesperson for the Dogwood Alliance, an anti-deforestation group in Asheville, N.C. In most cases its actually worse than coal or natural gas.
Everything we try to do these days regarding energy comes with an "Oops" attached. Remember algal biofuels? From a recent MIT press release:
How to count methane emissions
More accurate comparisons of the effects of methane and CO2 can also be important when evaluating other technologies that produce emissions of more than one type of gas. For example, the study found that algae-based biofuels that incorporate a biodigester may leak enough methane to outweigh the emissions benefits over corn ethanol a consideration that may weigh on decisions about which technology designs should be invested in and how they should be regulated, she says.
More accurate comparisons of the effects of methane and CO2 can also be important when evaluating other technologies that produce emissions of more than one type of gas. For example, the study found that algae-based biofuels that incorporate a biodigester may leak enough methane to outweigh the emissions benefits over corn ethanol a consideration that may weigh on decisions about which technology designs should be invested in and how they should be regulated, she says.
Oops.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 884 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Europe is burning our forests for “renewable” energy. Wait, what? (Original Post)
GliderGuider
Aug 2014
OP
Cleita
(75,480 posts)1. Turning trees into fuel and labeling it as renewable energy is
as disingenuous as the clean coal label.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)2. Good analogy! nt
jwirr
(39,215 posts)3. This is not sustainable energy. Also why don't they plant their own forrests so they can eliminate
the transportation costs? Why aren't they using a species of tree that does not produce more CO2?