NFFN

[thesilentone]

Not sure how many are members (Nature Friendly Farming Network). Just received their ' A Practical Guide ' to net zero carbon. Full of fairly obvious ideas of how to contribute to this goal, however, they are very specific in stating 'try to avoid' Bioenergy and anaerobic digestion.

Anyone know why ?

 

[Suffolk Serf]

Not sure how many are members (Nature Friendly Farming Network). Just received their ' A Practical Guide ' to net zero carbon. Full of fairly obvious ideas of how to contribute to this goal, however, they are very specific in stating 'try to avoid' Bioenergy and anaerobic digestion.

Anyone know why ?

Not particularly nature friendly would be my guess.

 

[MojoEA]

Its to do with the CO2 captured by the fuel for biomass, burning it just releases whatever its captured whilst it was growing so while technically you could argue its carbon neutral, it is very much not zero carbon. again with AD, as well as methane it produces CO2 and N2O during production and when burning. both are a lot better than traditional fossil fuels but still produce green house gases.

 

[renewablejohn]

Its to do with the CO2 captured by the fuel for biomass, burning it just releases whatever its captured whilst it was growing so while technically you could argue its carbon neutral, it is very much not zero carbon. again with AD, as well as methane it produces CO2 and N2O during production and when burning. both are a lot better than traditional fossil fuels but still produce green house gases.

And letting it rot on the ground does not. Get real its the carbon cycle for most trees its probably around 1000 years for it to naturally grow and rot away. You can speed up the cycle by burning the tree at the end of its life or slow the process down by turning the trees into furniture but at the end of the day its still a natural cycle.

 

[MojoEA]

@renewablejohn Thats what i said, its carbon neutral, i.e. it will release the carbon its captured if its burnt or naturally decayed - although natural decay will slow the release and much of the carbon will be transfred to the organisims that are breaking it down even further delaying the eventual release. thats not the same as zero carbon which is what @thesilentone was asking about.

 

[thesilentone]

Its to do with the CO2 captured by the fuel for biomass, burning it just releases whatever its captured whilst it was growing so while technically you could argue its carbon neutral, it is very much not zero carbon. again with AD, as well as methane it produces CO2 and N2O during production and when burning. both are a lot better than traditional fossil fuels but still produce green house gases.

I agree, however compared to what ?

The energy produced has to stand up to be scrutinised, I agree. However at the same time we have to make a balancing of benefit v negatives.

For energy production alone, the only way to do this, is by a fair comparison, and full life cycle assessment v the alternatives.

We then have the chance to compare the environmental negatives v positives, and at the moment their is nothing that compares to AD as the best solution for waste management, energy production and the re-cycling of nutrients.

All emissions are strictly controlled by an Environmental permit, unlike normal fermentation and degradation that happens naturally.