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.
A broken analog clock is right twice a day. So I’m quoting from the Guardian again.
A few quotes:
“In the middle of the 19th century, wood burning rose to such levels that western Europe was almost completely deforested. Ironically, the rise of coal burning saved the situation”
” carbon emissions will rise by 6% or possibly more if wood is allowed to continue to provide more and more of Europe’s energy output”
“Europe has increased its use of renewable energy sources to provide it with power, and about half of that rise has come from burning biomass. Unfortunately, says Beddington, if that increase continues Europe will soon need to burn an amount of wood greater than its total harvest and would have to seek sources from other continents. Either land for farming would be turned to biomass growing or precious natural habitats will be exploited, most probably the latter”
“In generating exactly the same amount of electricity, wood will release four times as much carbon into the atmosphere as gas would do, and one and half times as much as coal. In addition, energy is used in harvesting and transport while vast stretches of land are needed to create the forests to supply generating stations with the wood they need.”
“A power plant burning wood chips will typically emit one and a half times the carbon dioxide of a plant burning coal and at least three times the carbon dioxide emitted by a power plant burning natural gas.
Although regrowing trees absorb carbon, trees grow slowly, and for some years a regrowing forest absorbs less carbon than if the forest were left unharvested.
Eventually, the new forest grows faster and the carbon it absorbs, plus the reduction in fossil fuels, can pay back the “carbon debt”, but that takes decades to centuries, depending on the forest type and use. We conservatively estimate that using deliberately harvested wood instead of fossil fuels will release at least twice as much carbon dioxide to the air by 2050 per kilowatt hour. Doing so turns a potential reduction in emissions from solar or wind into a large increase.”
Even The Guardian gets it …
Yup. Science is settled.
Scientists astonished to find 600-mile long reef under the muddy water in a site already marked for oil exploration
Scientists were ‘flabbergasted’ to discover the Amazon reef as coral usually thrives in clear, sunlit tropical waters.
A huge 3,600 sq mile (9,300 sq km) coral reef system has been found below the muddy waters off the mouth of the river Amazon, astonishing scientists, governments and oil companies who have started to explore on top of it.
The existence of the 600-mile long reef, which ranges from about 30-120m deep and stretches from French Guiana to Brazil’s Maranhão state, was not suspected because many of the world’s great rivers produce major gaps in reef systems where no corals grow.
In addition, there was little previous evidence because corals mostly thrive in clear, sunlit, salt water, and the equatorial waters near the mouth of the Amazon are some of the muddiest in the world, with vast quantities of sediment washed thousands of miles down the river and swept hundreds of miles out to sea.
But the reef appears to be thriving below the freshwater “plume”, or outflow, of the Amazon. Compared to many other reefs, the scientists say in a paper in Science Advances on Friday, it is is relatively “impoverished”. Nevertheless, they found over 60 species of sponges, 73 species of fish, spiny lobsters, stars and much other reef life.
They try and say the “science is settle”. It never is. Corals adapt. Otherwise they wouldn’t have survived.
Researchers have shown for the first time that some corals surviving bleaching events can acquire and host new types of algae from their environment, which may make the coral more heat-tolerant and enhance their recovery.
The research, published in The ISME Journal, was led by Southern Cross University postgraduate student Ms Nadine Boulotte and included scientists from SCU’s Marine Ecology Research Centre, the University of Melbourne, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the University of Hawai’i.
“This new study will cause a paradigm shift in our understanding of corals that build reefs,” Ms Boulotte said.
“Most corals were previously believed to only acquire microalgae in their juvenile stage, and to house the same algae types for their lifetime.
“Our study shows for the first time that some adult corals can be promiscuous, and swap their algal partners later in life.
“This algae partner-swapping could help corals to better adapt to climate change and survive bleaching events if they can acquire more heat-tolerant microalgae.”
Reading this article on coral reefs makes me wonder if “climate reporters” have a brain in their head.But then I realized you don’t get to keep those jobs unless you vomit up the propaganda.
First it starts in on the doom and gloom stuff about coral bleaching, global warming and El Nino.
As ocean warming continues to trigger widespread destruction of coral reefs, a decade-long study of remote islands in the Central Pacific suggests these biodiversity hot spots may nonetheless be able to thrive.
With many parts of the globe in the grip of a coral reef bleaching event — fueled in part by El Niño-driven ocean warming — scientists and marine conservation advocates have feared many reefs could suffer irreparable damage and fade from existence in coming decades.
Then they get to the good stuff.
The results show that coral reefs surrounding remote islands were dramatically healthier than those in populated areas that were subject to a variety of human impacts.
“There are still coral reefs on this planet that are incredibly healthy and probably look the way they did 1,000 years ago,” said Jennifer Smith, lead author of the study and a professor at Scripps’s Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation.
Teeming with sharks, manta rays, jellyfish and sea turtles, these remote locations contrasted starkly with the heavily populated areas, which were encircled by coral reefs covered in murky seaweed and lacking much of the colorful algae that helps to cement a reef.
It isn’t “global warming” damaging reefs. It is humans and their pollution and rich assholes boats scraping over the reefs!
Interesting paper coming out that may demolish Psychology. And other pseudo sciences like climate science.
“How could hundreds of peer-reviewed studies possibly be so wrong? There may be a way to explain it, and it’s shaking researchers to their cores.
Every time scientists conduct an experiment, there’s a chance they’ll find a false positive. But here’s the scary thing: Psychologists are now realizing their institutions are structured so it’s more likely that false positives will make it through to publication than inconclusive results.
“We’re now learning that there’s so much bias in the published literature that the meta-analyses can’t be trusted,” Simine Vazire, a professor of psychology and the editor in chief of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, tells me.”
I’ve written about DRAX before. Because of loopholes in UK and EU “climate” laws the largest coal power plant is switching from coal to wood pellets sources from the USA.
DRAX has made the news again.
The report says it has found ‘misleading statements by Enviva about its emissions and environmental impacts’ in its prospectus when it was floated on the New York stock exchange last April.
The report says Enviva has claimed that ‘burning wood in power plants reduces carbon emissions compared to coal’. But the study says Drax’s own data shows that while burning coal leads to emissions of 1,901lb of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour (Mwh), the figure for wood is significantly higher – 2,128lb per Mwh.
Enviva’s claim is only possible because of a UK and EU ‘policy loophole’ – which does not apply in America – classing biomass fuel such as wood pellets as ‘zero carbon’.
According to the study, Enviva has not made this clear. Its claim to the SEC that using its pellets ‘reduces’ emissions only applies to making and shipping the pellets, not burning them.
The complaint calls on the SEC to launch an investigation to ‘establish and enforce clear guidelines applicable to companies that may be claiming climate benefits’.
Drax produces eight per cent of the UK’s electricity – enough to power six million homes. Half of its six 650 megawatt (MW) generators have been converted from coal to burn wood pellets from America. Drax spokesman Andrew Brown yesterday confirmed the firm wants to adapt its remaining three furnaces.
I have mapped the February 2014 mean temperature anomalies in the Environment Canada monthly summaries that have “normals”. The anomalies are calculated from selected stations based on the 1971-2000 average.
The size if the dot represents the size of the anomaly. The 5C black dot in the top left hand corner represents 5C difference from “normal”. Red dots are warmer than normal. Blue are cooler. And Green are 0.
Most of the prairies averaged 5C or more below “normal”. Click for bigger.