It is interesting that the Daily Mail is admitting that wood pellets are filthier than coal.
The original quote was “global warming is producing larger trees and faster-growing forests.”
But by “global warming” they really mean CO2.
“Carbon dioxide’s logarithmic heating effect is weak at 100 ppm, tuckered out well and truly at 200 ppm and beyond 300 ppm – well never mind. We are now above 400 ppm from which it is a monotonic 0.1°C for each 100 ppm increase. That doesn’t explain anything and in turn leaves the Sun as the only possible causative agent for the Modern Warm Period.”
The EU is behind the biomass scam where coal is replaced with wood and wood produces more CO2 than coal.
The EU was also behind the diesel scam which has made the air filthier.
“The British government pushed to weaken EU controls on biomass energy in December, even though the technology will undermine efforts to contain global warming for up to half a century, according to research released today.
Despite its imminent Brexit, the UK successfully rewrote a proposal to almost quadruple the potential size of wood burning plants before they had to meet efficiency criteria, according to documents obtained by Unearthed, and shared exclusively with Climate Home News.
The win for Whitehall’s lobby offensive – in alliance with Poland and Spain – was pushed through in a ministerial revision to the renewable energy directive in December.
Shortly before it was approved, a group of high profile climate scientists warned the directive’s biomass articles were “a critical flaw” in the proposal, and would accelerate climate change.
This was because the proposal tolerated the cutting down and burning of whole trees, a process that releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than replanted trees can absorb for decades, if not centuries.”
“Because burned pellets emit carbon at a faster speed than decomposing forest material, the paper finds that burning them creates more net emissions – when measured against their “alternative fate” as decomposing twigs and branches.
Mary Booth, the report’s author and director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, a campaign group opposed to biomass, told CHN that counting biomass smokestack emissions – which tend to be greater than coal per megawatt-hour – was a more representative way of tallying net emissions than current assumptions of carbon neutrality.
“Scenarios that hold down greenhouse gas emissions to avoiding dangerous temperature rise require CO2 emissions to peak in the next ten to twenty years,” she said. “However, this analysis shows that wood-burning power plants burning green chips and wood pellets will inject a lot of extra CO2 into the atmosphere just in [that] period when it is most urgent to reduce emissions.”
The paper finds that cumulative net emissions from residue pellet-burning will also increase over a 40–50 year period, though less steeply.”
“At the end of last year, Sir John Beddington, a former chief scientific adviser to the British government, lifted the lid on the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies. According to Sir John, since the EU’s first renewables directive in 2008, the growth of bioenergy — much of it sourced from North American woods and forests — has provided around half the expansion of renewable energy. To supply even one third of the additional renewable energy needed to meet Europe’s new 2030 target will require an amount of wood roughly equivalent to the combined harvest in the U.S. and Canada. The fiction currently being peddled is that Europe is only burning wood residues — the bits of trees left over from other uses — but new EU rules agreed to last week by the European Parliament will expand the definition of bioenergy to include trees specifically harvested to be burnt in power stations.”
They love CO2 in Europe.
This paper is a pdf.
Biofules, biomass , wood pellets et al are a disaster if you believe more CO2 will cause Global Warming.
Does replacing coal with wood lower CO2 emissions?
Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy
John D. Sterman1
Juliette N. Rooney-Varga3
In sum, although bioenergy from wood can lower long-run CO2 concentrations compared to
fossil fuels, its first impact is an increase in CO2, worsening global warming over the critical
period through 2100 even if the wood offsets coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel.
Declaring that biofuels are carbon neutral as the EU and others have done, erroneously
assumes forest regrowth quickly and fully offsets the emissions from biofuel production and
combustion. The neutrality assumption is not valid because it ignores the transient, but
decades to centuries long, increase in CO2 caused by biofuels.
“In the Netherlands, CO2 from industries operating in the port of Rotterdam is transported to the nearby Westland area, where it is used as a literal greenhouse gas, to help stimulate the growth of vegetables.” — https://euobserver.com/environment/139726