Posted on 05/18/2015 1:57:48 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
From the report:
[The modeling shows that it will take approximately 55 years for forest regrowth to recapture enough carbon from the atmosphere to reduce the plant’s cumulative emissions below those of coal. At levels greater than 40 percent, pellets emit more carbon than coal for most of this period. In addition, as the percentage of whole trees increases above 70 percent (not shown in the figures), the level of carbon emissions continues to increase.
When whole trees make up 20 percent of the wood in pellets, emissions are slightly higher than natural gas and slightly lower than coal for a period of approximately 55 years, as shown in Figure 3. Even when whole trees make up as little as 12 percent of pellets, our modeling showed that burning pellets still produces emissions comparable to natural gas trend line for approximately 50 years.]
Put simply: Wood-based power could be carbon neutral at some point down the line, but it will take a heck of a long time to realize, especially if whole trees are used in the process.
Now, whether that sounds like good news or bad news to you in the big scheme of things will depend on your perspective vis a vis the sensitivity of the climate to ongoing carbon pollution. As far as NRDC is concerned, 50 years is a dangerously long time to wait for the presumed beneficial results of any alternative to fossil fuels.
“This 5-decade time period is significant,” Yassa stated in the study. “Climate policy imperatives require dramatic short-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and emissions from these pellets will persist in the atmosphere well past the time when significant reductions are needed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Burning wood is carbon neutral, carbon from trees is not sealed underground like oil, gas, or coal. It naturally turns to CO2 when it burns or decays, no difference.
Unless we check these fanatics they aren’t gonna allow us anything.
Utter bullcrap that most of America doesn't agree with, and even if it does, this ain't a democracy, and majority shouldn't be able to rape the minority.
When dead wood decomposes, CO2 is released. When dead wood is combusted, CO2 is released. Amazingly they are about equal. So, it makes little difference if we let it rot or burn it.
CO2 is plant food, why are they trying to starve the Plants?
The Carbon does not go spinning off into outer space.
Everything stays within the good olde earth and is re-processed, deep within the earth, via heat and pressure
Mothers' milk is a climate threat. Everything is a climate threat.
They will take my Traeger when they pry it from my cold baby backs stained hands.
Expecting something else from The Party Of Death?
The global warming propaganda is just an excuse for globalists to collect taxes and modify the climate to kill off the 80% of the population that the UN Agenda 21 calls for.
Anything that can make one less subservient tot he government is a threat to the government....
Wood Pellet Stoves included...
“Burning wood is carbon neutral, carbon from trees is not sealed underground like oil, gas, or coal. It naturally turns to CO2 when it burns or decays, no difference.”
But, But, But ... we can’t wait the 55 years till the new tree grows. We must act now or we are doomed.
This is the only fact any one needs to defend the use of wood for heat...
Pretty spot on and indisputable...
No....the only difference is who controls the supply....the free markets or the government.
If you think these people actually care about the environment, you are a dullard.
This is all about controlling energy so they can decide who gets it and who does not.
This is no different than healthcare......they do not care about people without insurance or reducing the number of people who need medical care....they only care about control of a resource that every person needs.
That is the basis for all liberal thought....control.
The “sky is falling” group always has these dire predictions that can never be verified.
I forgot to include where the trees get their carbon, they absorb CO2 from the air and store it as wood and leaves (in deciduous trees) . Those leaves quickly give up their carbon as they only have a short life cycle. Pelleting the leaves would be a win-win as the carbon would be put to use instead of going directly back to the atmosphere.
That is true if whole living trees are used. However, if fallen or dead trees are used, it is not true. In this case, the trees would be turned to CO2 by termites and other bugs which eat wood, and to use them instead for useful heat is strongly net-positive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.