Oh absolutely. I never said it was right, more that the money coming into farming was welcome. I'm happier with that than I am with sending lots of our money to French and German electricity companies. Or Canada for that matter. So.... Canadian oil tar sands or Canadian wood? What about that question?
What do we think of Drax?
- Thread starter Ffermer Bach
- Start date
Global warming would seem to be happening the problem we have is we also have completely stupid politicians using crack pot ideas which they criminally pretend offer a solution instead of addressing the problem head on, to start with we need far more nuclear power stations to produce the electric we will need instead they pretend that cutting down millions of trees to burn for power will help the earth whilst at the same time criticising Brazilian farmers for cutting down trees to produce food.
The time has come that we need real world leaders to solve problems not the absolute rubbish that’s now in charge!
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
As I understand the experts are saying we might not need nuclear in 100 years but we do need it in the short to medium term, if we are going to make any real difference. None of the politicians or greens seem to be saying a word about it though and its getting to be too late.
Burning all the trees to make power seems stupid to me.
Not going to disagree about stupid politicians!
There is a difference between burning plantation, new growth timber vs clearing the Amazon. The Amazon clearances damage the soil and destroy habitat, releasing lots of CO2 now and into the future. Whereas plantation timber can be viewed as a different way to use solar energy (trees collect sunlight, humans concentrate this energy and released it by burning) and there isn't significant damage to the soil health, since it isn't like ancient rainforest. In the original article they talked about sequestration - if that can be made to work then it would be a negative carbon process in energy production. Big if, but it's worth investigating.
Nuclear energy is a must, but as I understand the financing arrangements make it difficult to build. Rolls Royce's (and others) and developing small modular reactors (SMRs) to try and get around that financing issue. With the safety designs we have now, there's no reason not to use nuclear energy.
Do
Any explanation or excuse is bull shite!!!
Do you n
Do you not realise just how ridiculous any justification for felling mature trees the other side of the world then transporting, chipping, drying, shipping then transporting again simply to then burn all in the name of saving the planet sounds. We are talking of transporting & burning 800,000 trees a day with a subsidy of £800 millions per year to Drax.
Any explanation or excuse is bull shite!!!
The alternative at Drax is coal, no? So you use energy to undertake mining, transport it across land/sea, then release all that fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Energy density of coal is higher, but it is all from fossil carbon and not part of the carbon cycle. This is a net increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Whereas trees suck carbon dioxide out of the air and transform it into cellulose/other sugars. These are then harvested at ground level with relatively simple machinery (compared to mine workings) and transported in the same way. In addition to sawdust waste etc. There is a much smaller net increase in carbon dioxide, with the fossil carbon currently only coming from the harvesting and transportation (which coal also has). All of the carbon from the trees is actively part of the carbon cycle so releasing it doesn't contribute to global warming. If they can capture that as well, result is negative carbon energy production. Like I say, it's basically another form of solar energy, since the sun is powering photosynthesis.
I don't disagree about subsidies - but oil & gas received massive subs in the 80s until things got up and running. It might be a technological dead end but the principles of using wood for energy are sound.
Why is not the daily carbon capture of the 800,000 mature tree felled & lost each day never put into the equation, they pretend every tree lost will be replanted & survive which we all know is absolute rubbish
The carbon has already been removed from the atmosphere at that point. If it's plantation timber then presumably it is replanted up to the same density. Wood plantations are well understood for construction timber uses.
I'm not convinced by the whole thing, but I think it's better than coal - which we'd largely be importing as well (and there's real nasty pollution you get from coal). The principles are easy enough to understand.
I'm not convinced by the whole thing, but I think it's better than coal - which we'd largely be importing as well (and there's real nasty pollution you get from coal). The principles are easy enough to understand.
I disagree completely the principle is not so clear cut, for a start we have our own coal so would be keeping payments in this country, secondly any fool with a fire will tell you the heat & energy you get back from coal is miles ahead of what you get from dried wood chips so far less is used, yet again it is simply smoke & mirrors covering up a massive blunder!
As for the ridiculous notion that the woodland being felled is being replanted is yet more wishful thinking!
But it’s a case of which is worse for the environment, no one will ever persuade me that wood chips from felled trees abroad or anywhere are more environmental beneficial, by all means stop using coal when there is nuclear to take it’s place but until that day blind stupidly is of no benefit.
If you are going to produce electricity by burning something then do it in the most efficient way!
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
Really? The planet has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout it's history. It's not as though burning oil, coal, and gas caused the Medieval Warm Period or the decline of the West Antarctica ice sheet 14,000 years ago.
I don't understand what you don't understand. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, which is only released when it generates electricity. How is it not more environmentally friendly?
I certainly agree nuclear is a better option, but no way can we convert Drax to nuclear!
Argue that one with the IPCC. I wouldn't trust a climate scientist to farm, but equally, I don't trust a farmer on climate science...
- Location
- Carmarthenshire, West Wales
Have no fear, I am sure, important people like Emma Thompson have planted lots of trees, to make up for their flying across the Atlantic, I wouldn't mind betting Prince Harry also planted a few, after flying home in a private jet from his vital Polo match. I am so pleased these important people are telling me, how crucial it is to cut my Carbon emissions and plant trees! We are so lucky having people like that keeping us informed.
Then and now: Why deforestation is such a hot topic
Trees are part of the solution for climate change, but are we felling more than we are planting?www.bbc.com
Love to know how the government squares this report with it’s paying Drax £800m a year to burn 800,000 trees a day through it’s power station, to me this is criminal!
“Trees absorb carbon dioxide “ You seem to have a very eco blinkered view of things, fully grown trees in the US still alive are continuing to absorb carbon, you are claiming that cutting them down, clearing vast forests, transporting & preparing them for burning is more efficient carbon wise than burning local coal to produce electric, you obviously have never had a fire place in your house!
- Location
- Carmarthenshire, West Wales
we need to factor in that trees are a vital part of the water cycle, and water vapour is green house gas, global warming is not just Carbon (although we have become fixated on it at the moment), tree cover also modifies climate and rainfall, bacteria "plumes" above trees act as seeds for raincloud formation and cause rainfall, lack of rainfall leads to desertification and carbon being lost from the soil. Old forests have a completely different soil biology to new growth, so one thing we should never do is cut down old forests. But we also have to remember, grazed pasture also sequesters Carbon, so shouldn't really try to plant new forests on regeneratively grazed pastures either. Much as I hate to say it, maybe agro forestry is the answer.
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
I am neither a farmer nor a climate scientist. I do, however, deal with vast amounts of data on a daily basis.
The idea that if were not for fossil fuels there would have been no climate change is asinine, hence the examples I provided earlier.
Yes I am absolutely claiming that. Because the carbon that is in the cellulose molecules in this biomass has certainly come from atmospheric carbon dioxide. For it to be sustainable, the timber should be from plantation forests and not old growth forests.
(Also - wood burners were the only source of heat in my old for quite a while! Also have a multi-fuel so do know that coal pumps out more heat)
Coal is more energy dense - but it is 100% fossil carbon. That doesn't alter the source of the carbon though, does it? Biomass could be 1% efficient but it'd still contribute less to global warming because the source of the carbon is from the atmosphere, rather than fossilised.
I just looked at some scientific papers on the whole life cycle carbon cost. It reckoned 95% of carbon from biomass is part of the carbon cycle (so doesn't contribute to global warming) vs 0% for coal, since none of it is part of the carbon cycle.
I totally get there are arguments around efficiency, but coal isn't an option anymore if we are going to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce.
As I understand it, it is the speed of the current climate changing, which humans have caused. Again, I don't pretend to have the education or knowledge to disregard what the likes of the IPCC and climate scientists are saying. Dealing with vast amount of data might make you more qualified, but it's not enough for me to overturn the IPCC et al in my mind.
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
Rapid changes are far from unprecedented. https://www.temperaturerecord.org/ is a useful little website. Click the button in the top left of the page to see temps for the last 750,000 or so yrs.
I'd have a bit more time for the IPCC if it 1: wasn't so politicised 2: full of so many who are the gravy train 3: wasn't being (mis)used by certain types (Monbiot, for example) for axe-grinding purposes.
I'd have a bit more time for the IPCC if it 1: wasn't so politicised 2: full of so many who are the gravy train 3: wasn't being (mis)used by certain types (Monbiot, for example) for axe-grinding purposes.
Isn’t it the case that coal comes from fossilised trees so it is part of the carbon cycle over time assuming you agree they must have been alive at some time, coal is basically concentrated wood so must be more efficient to burn.
By cutting down living trees you are reducing the amount of carbon being absorbed whilst still emitting carbon as the green wood is burned