Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

lstar337

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying burning wood pellets is as bad as coal, or that it isn't a better alternative to coal, but I still think it is a poor choice when we are talking about reducing CO2 output. In the short term, it is increasing CO2 and other pollution in the air.

You might think it will balance out long term, but with the amount we are burning increasing It seems to me like we will be forever chasing out tail, or at least until we hit the tipping point!

Living in the country I can see the boom of wood burning stoves and a return to fashion of the open fire. I can see it when I return home from work and see the chimneys puffing lots of smoke into the sky, and I can smell it when I get out of my car. It isn't very pleasant.

Maybe I just don't like burning trees, and that has clouded my judgement.

silverwhistle

zeupater wrote: »

so we either have reports which have illogical scientific bias being promoted by the fossil fuel sector, lobbyists who are bending the 'truth', or journalists who really don't have a clue .... you decide!

Where do you think Cardew lies in this group, with his strawman arguments?

I must declare an interest in that I do burn wood: some briquettes from forestry waste, untreated pallets and whatever else I can scrounge which may well be fruitful following the current high winds..

I don't think the report advocates burning coal, but it could go further in pointing out wind and solar would be a better option than transporting pellets long distances, and that they're still a better option than coal.

Martyn1981

lstar337 wrote: »

Maybe I just don't like burning trees, and that has clouded my judgement.

I don't think it's clouded. I'm a bit split too and keep hearing that the pollution is greater than first thought.

The CO2 issue is tricky, but so long as it has a relatively fast cycle then I think it's ok, but planting more areas than are cleared would help as a carbon sink rather than be in deficit as you point out. If we planted new areas first, then farmed those, then we'd always be in surplus, so it is an issue but hopefully a far less important one than burning FF.

Perhaps it's better to look at it as burning trees instead of coal, you can grow the trees back, but not the coal, so it's a time limited issue that self fixes within our lifetimes. Later on we stop burning the trees too, perhaps!

Nothing is easy I suppose, roll on PV and batts!

silverwhistle

lstar337 wrote: »

Living in the country I can see the boom of wood burning stoves and a return to fashion of the open fire. I can see it when I return home from work and see the chimneys puffing lots of smoke into the sky, and I can smell it when I get out of my car. It isn't very pleasant.

I can't comment on open fires, but if you're seeing lots of smoke from a wood burner they aren't using them properly and I can understand your dismay. You'd see a little puff of smoke from mine when first lit but otherwise you'd be hard pressed to see if it was alight. Just split and sawn some chestnut but having tested it for moisture I'll have to wait until next winter to burn it.

lstar337

silverwhistle wrote: »

I can't comment on open fires, but if you're seeing lots of smoke from a wood burner they aren't using them properly and I can understand your dismay.

You're likely right. Can we trust everyone with a log burner or open fire to be as responsible and/or knowledgeable as you though?

michaels

I guess the problem with biomass is that currently the carbon is 'stored' in the trees and where it is burned as biomass it is stored in the 'atmosphere' - I guess an analogy might be with a revervoir; start with it full and only use the top few percent and whilst some water is in the pipes or in the sea or in the atmosphere a lot is stored in the reservior; instead start with it full and then run it down to 90% empty and keep it stable at that level, once stable again net water usage is the same but much more of the water spends most of its time in other parts of the cycle.

I think wood burners are a scandal because of the particulates, they are now a big part of the PM problem in London - sure they are nice but if they are damaging people's health are they really so much better than a 'log effect' fire?

EricMears

michaels wrote: »

I think wood burners are a scandal because of the particulates, they are now a big part of the PM problem in London - sure they are nice but if they are damaging people's health are they really so much better than a 'log effect' fire?

I've never understood why anyone in London would fit a wood burner. Surely the 'Clean Air Act' legislation should prohibit them ? Similarly in 'Homes under the Hammer' the presenters are always banging on about how 'attractive' a fireplace is (even in London or other major cities) when my only thoughts are "what a wasted effort".

gefnew

hi all
Here is some news from the house of lords on interfering governments and the cost to you and me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39072476
regards
gefnew

gefnew

Hi All
A piece about wood burning on the bbc.
Using wood pellets to generate low-carbon electricity is a flawed policy that is speeding up not slowing down climate warming.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39053678
see what you all think about this.
gefnew

Martyn1981

Confirmation That Trollhättan/Sweden Working To Attract Next Tesla Gigafactory