Climate Change

[noseall]

They were talking about it on the news this morning

You need to turn your hearing aid up boyo, or listen more intently.

June 2023.

 

[pete01]

You need to turn your hearing aid up boyo, or listen more intently.

June 2023.

Ya what?

 

[pete01]

You need to turn your hearing aid up boyo, or listen more intently.

June 2023.

Bet it was hotter before records began...

 

[MNW67]

Drax the bio masse power station

CO2: The Greatest ScientificScandal of Our Time

I still struggle to get my head around the benefits of biomass and end up going back and forth. I would really appreciate a proper discussion. This is a simplified model I started thinking about this afternoon. I have been panned by several posters including @Brigadier and @noseall for questioning the benefits of biomass. So, I would be interested in contributions from all sides.

I have read that a newly planted oak tree takes one hundred years to reach its full carbon sequestrating ability. So, let's assume that over those first hundred years it averages 50% of its ability. Which means that, in those first hundred years, a new oak tree will only absorb fifty years worth of carbon.

If we look at a single healthy oak tree in a forest in Canada. It is 200 years old. For the first hundred years of its life it absorbed fifty years worth of carbon. And in the second half of its life it absorbed the full hundred. So, it has 150 years worth of carbon stored.

We then cut it down and burn it at Drax. This releases 150 years worth of stored carbon into the atmosphere.

If a new oak tree is planted to replace it, then it will slowly start to grow and begin absorbing carbon. After 100 years, it will have absorbed 50 years worth of carbon from the atmosphere.

But when we burnt the tree in the first place, we released 150 years worth of carbon. And if we had left the tree alone, by this point, it would have absorbed another 100 years worth of carbon.

So, it seems to me that by cutting the tree down and burning it, at a point 100 years later, we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 250 years worth. And the new tree has only reduced that by 50 years worth. That means overall there is an increase of 200 years worth of carbon in the atmosphere from the burning of this healthy mature tree.

Does my reasoning appear sound?

 

[transam]

You need to turn your hearing aid up boyo, or listen more intently.

June 2023.

You need to wind yer neck in boyo ( noseall)

You can jog on now

 

[Brigadier]

I still struggle to get my head around the benefits of biomass and end up going back and forth. I would really appreciate a proper discussion. This is a simplified model I started thinking about this afternoon. I have been panned by several posters including @Brigadier and @noseall for questioning the benefits of biomass. So, I would be interested in contributions from all sides.

I have read that a newly planted oak tree takes one hundred years to reach its full carbon sequestrating ability. So, let's assume that over those first hundred years it averages 50% of its ability. Which means that, in those first hundred years, a new oak tree will only absorb fifty years worth of carbon.

If we look at a single healthy oak tree in a forest in Canada. It is 200 years old. For the first hundred years of its life it absorbed fifty years worth of carbon. And in the second half of its life it absorbed the full hundred. So, it has 150 years worth of carbon stored.

We then cut it down and burn it at Drax. This releases 150 years worth of stored carbon into the atmosphere.

If a new oak tree is planted to replace it, then it will slowly start to grow and begin absorbing carbon. After 100 years, it will have absorbed 50 years worth of carbon from the atmosphere.

But when we burnt the tree in the first place, we released 150 years worth of carbon. And if we had left the tree alone, by this point, it would have absorbed another 100 years worth of carbon.

So, it seems to me that by cutting the tree down and burning it, at a point 100 years later, we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 250 years worth. And the new tree has only reduced that by 50 years worth. That means overall there is an increase of 200 years worth of carbon in the atmosphere from the burning of this healthy mature tree.

Does my reasoning appear sound?

And what is the [resequestration?] interval for fossil fuels?

"Cycling" trees is feasible (regardless of any other considerations).
Cycling fossil fuels is not.

 

[transam]

I see Odds is up to his old self altering quotes

As said before the bloke cannot be trusted

Any thing he quotes or posts up is generally altered / edited etc etc porkie pies

He probably use to forge sick notes at school to weasle out of activity’s

Doubt they were that good

“ dear teacher Ods cannot do games today as he has been up all night with a sore b*** end”



Teachers / schools response

“ dear parent that explains odds condition of brain fade “

 

[MNW67]

And what is the [resequestration?] interval for fossil fuels?

"Cycling" trees is feasible (regardless of any other considerations).
Cycling fossil fuels is not.

Millions of years I would guess.

I understand the point about biomass potentially being positive. I am just trying to get my head round the scale of the benefits. At the moment it is classed as 100% carbon neutral. But in my scenario, it would only be 20% carbon neutral. And that is only after 100 years.

Did my reasoning make sense to you? I am trying hard to understand all this.

 

[gas112]

I see Odds is up to his old self altering quotes

As said before the bloke cannot be trusted

Any thing he quotes or posts up is generally altered / edited etc etc porkie pies

He probably use to forge sick notes at school to weasle out of activity’s

Doubt they were that good

“ dear teacher Ods cannot do games today as he has been up all night with a sore b*** end”



Teachers / schools response

“ dear parent that explains odds condition of brain fade “

Cant do games as its that time of the month

 

[pete01]

Cant do games as its that time of the month

OMG is odds on the blob

 

[Brigadier]

Millions of years I would guess.

I understand the point about biomass potentially being positive. I am just trying to get my head round the scale of the benefits. At the moment it is classed as 100% carbon neutral. But in my scenario, it would only be 20% carbon neutral. And that is only after 100 years.

Did my reasoning make sense to you? I am trying hard to understand all this.

Depends how many trees you burn.
In both absolute terms, and as a percentage of all energy generation.

As the phrase goes "The solution to pollution is dilution", so the effect of any one energy source is dependent on the its contribution to the whole.

 

[MNW67]

Depends how many trees you burn.
In both absolute terms, and as a percentage of all energy generation.

As the phrase goes "The solution to pollution is dilution", so the effect of any one energy source is dependent on the its contribution to the whole.

I was hoping that somebody would identify a fatal flaw in my reasoning. Such as double counting. As it stands, I just cannot see how biomass from virgin forests can be anywhere near 100% carbon neutral. But we are currently counting it as if it is 100% carbon neutral. If they just used dead trees, that would make a massive difference to the calculation.

 

[aveatry]

I was hoping that somebody would identify a fatal flaw in my reasoning. Such as double counting. As it stands, I just cannot see how biomass from virgin forests can be anywhere near 100% carbon neutral. But we are currently counting it as if it is 100% carbon neutral. If they just used dead trees, that would make a massive difference to the calculation.

Yep --- scam
One thing though what species do they use, doesn’t make any sense to use one of the slowest growing ones like oak

 

[MNW67]

One thing though what species do they use, doesn’t make any sense to use one of the slowest growing ones like oak

That's a good point. I was keeping it simple by comparing like for like. They are cutting down virgin hardwood forests to supply Drax. But if other trees like pines sequester more carbon over the first decades of their life, then if they planted those instead as the replacements, that would seem to alter the calculation.

I have often thought it would be good to have a discussion with somebody who knows this stuff inside out to answer all the queries I have.

EDIT: It actually looks like willow and poplar are the top choices.

 

[Munroast]

I still struggle to get my head around the benefits of biomass and end up going back and forth. I would really appreciate a proper discussion. This is a simplified model I started thinking about this afternoon. I have been panned by several posters including @Brigadier and @noseall for questioning the benefits of biomass. So, I would be interested in contributions from all sides.

I have read that a newly planted oak tree takes one hundred years to reach its full carbon sequestrating ability. So, let's assume that over those first hundred years it averages 50% of its ability. Which means that, in those first hundred years, a new oak tree will only absorb fifty years worth of carbon.

If we look at a single healthy oak tree in a forest in Canada. It is 200 years old. For the first hundred years of its life it absorbed fifty years worth of carbon. And in the second half of its life it absorbed the full hundred. So, it has 150 years worth of carbon stored.

We then cut it down and burn it at Drax. This releases 150 years worth of stored carbon into the atmosphere.

If a new oak tree is planted to replace it, then it will slowly start to grow and begin absorbing carbon. After 100 years, it will have absorbed 50 years worth of carbon from the atmosphere.

But when we burnt the tree in the first place, we released 150 years worth of carbon. And if we had left the tree alone, by this point, it would have absorbed another 100 years worth of carbon.

So, it seems to me that by cutting the tree down and burning it, at a point 100 years later, we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 250 years worth. And the new tree has only reduced that by 50 years worth. That means overall there is an increase of 200 years worth of carbon in the atmosphere from the burning of this healthy mature tree.

Does my reasoning appear sound?

it doesn't really matter how long it takes to grow,

when ever a plant or animal grows in borrows carbon from the atmosphere to help create its structure - when we burn, or eat it , or that plant or animal simply dies and rots away to nothing all that carbon is released back into the atmosphere

Burning trees to produce energy would be carbon neutral (apart from the harvesting and transportation) providing we were actively replacing them.
The stuff we are getting from canada and burning at draxs seems to be very dubious in that; are they actually replacing them ? and shipping them across the atlantic must be putting a lot of CO2 into the air. It all sounds a bit of a con to me.