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
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 12:37 PM Aug 2014

Europe 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 it’s 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.

Oops.
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
Turning trees into fuel and labeling it as renewable energy is Cleita Aug 2014 #1
Good analogy! nt GliderGuider Aug 2014 #2
This is not sustainable energy. Also why don't they plant their own forrests so they can eliminate jwirr Aug 2014 #3

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
1. Turning trees into fuel and labeling it as renewable energy is
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 12:43 PM
Aug 2014

as disingenuous as the clean coal label.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
3. This is not sustainable energy. Also why don't they plant their own forrests so they can eliminate
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 12:54 PM
Aug 2014

the transportation costs? Why aren't they using a species of tree that does not produce more CO2?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Europe is burning our for...