Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[denso13]

A "little bit" would not apply when the whole of the UK sits under a deep depression keeping the atmosphere stationary for days maybe weeks on end.

We are doing just fine.

Fossil fuel power generation hits record lows as UK says farewell to old king coal - Drax Global

Electricity generation from fossil fuels reached its lowest-ever monthly average in the third quarter of 2024, falling below 5 gigawatts (GW) in August, according to the latest data from Drax Electric Insights.

www.drax.com

 

[MNW67]

A "little bit" would not apply when the whole of the UK sits under a deep depression keeping the atmosphere stationary for days maybe weeks on end.

In that case we would have to use them more during those times. But still a lot less overall than without the green energy options. Isn't that just logical.

 

[Scally-Ho]

In my experience of life, logic rarely rears its head when profit and dividends are a prime consideration.

 

[MNW67]

In my experience of life, logic rarely rears its head when profit and dividends are a prime consideration.

Look at the Drax biomass power station. Some people think that is a con. It is actually really confusing trying to work out whether that fuel source is a renewable or not.

 

[Notch7]

In my experience of life, logic rarely rears its head when profit and dividends are a prime consideration.

Why do you think fossil fuel money funds Reform Party, GBnews, right wing lobby groups, Conservative Party.

Revealed: Brexit donor behind net-zero backlash has $130m in fossil fuels​

Jeremy Hosking, who is bankrolling campaigns to scrap UK emissions targets, has given millions to parties led by Nigel Farage and Laurence Fox

Brexiteer behind net-zero backlash has $130m in fossil fuel

Jeremy Hosking, who is bankrolling campaigns to scrap UK emissions targets, has given millions to parties led by Nigel Farage and Laurence Fox

www.opendemocracy.net

GB News Owner’s Hedge Fund Has $2.2 Billion Fossil Fuel Investments​

The broadcaster has regularly platformed climate science denial and attacks on net zero since it launched in 2021.

GB News Owner’s Hedge Fund Has $2.2 Billion Fossil Fuel Investments

One of the owners of GB News runs a hedge fund that has a major financial stake in more than 100 oil and gas firms, DeSmog can reveal. This news comes after former prime minister Boris Johnson was announced as a new presenter on the television broadcaster on Friday. An investigation by DeSmog...

www.desmog.com

 

[Scally-Ho]

Biomass generation? Oh yeah, really green with over 90% of the fuel sourced from USA and Canada? Very green if the huge transportation involved is ignored.

 

[MNW67]

Biomass generation? Oh yeah, really green with over 90% of the fuel sourced from USA and Canada? Very green if the huge transportation involved is ignored.

There is also an issue about whether burning wood is actually better or worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels. It gets very complicated depending on the source of the wood and other factors.

 

[Brigadier]

Look at the Drax biomass power station. Some people think that is a con. It is actually really confusing trying to work out whether that fuel source is a renewable or not.

Whereas coal and oil are indisputably not.

 

[Scally-Ho]

There is also an issue about whether burning wood is actually better or worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels. It gets very complicated depending on the source of the wood and other factors.

Ya gottit in one. Why else are they seeking to ban/limit wood burning stoves. If they think I'm getting shot of my two, they can go and copulate with themselves.

 

[Brigadier]

There is also an issue about whether burning wood is actually better or worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels. It gets very complicated depending on the source of the wood and other factors.

At first glance, doubtful.
Unless you want to transport said wood halfway around the world on ships burning bunker fuel, just to make a point.

I would be interested in seeing the source though.

 

[MNW67]

At first glance, doubtful.
Unless you want to transport said wood halfway around the world on ships burning bunker fuel, just to make a point.

I would be interested in seeing the source though.

I've posted this a couple of times before:

Is Biomass Really Renewable?

Ninety percent of all existing biomass power plants use wood residue and there are currently 115 power plants in development that will burn biomass to generate electricity. But just how renewable is biomass energy?

news.climate.columbia.edu

This is probably the most useful bit:

Biomass is considered a renewable energy source because its inherent energy comes from the sun and because it can regrow in a relatively short time. Trees take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into biomass and when they die, it is released back into the atmosphere. Whether trees are burned or whether they decompose naturally, they release the same amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The idea is that if trees harvested as biomass are replanted as fast as the wood is burned, new trees take up the carbon produced by the combustion, the carbon cycle theoretically remains in balance, and no extra carbon is added to the atmospheric balance sheet—so biomass is arguably considered “carbon neutral.” Since nothing offsets the CO2 that fossil fuel burning produces, replacing fossil fuels with biomass theoretically results in reduced carbon emissions.

In fact, the reality is a lot more complicated. In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that “carbon neutrality cannot be assumed for all biomass energy a priori.” Whether or not biomass is truly carbon neutral depends on the time frame being studied, what type of biomass is used, the combustion technology, which fossil fuel is being replaced (since the combustion of both fossil fuels and biomass produces carbon dioxide), and what forest management techniques are employed in the areas where the biomass is harvested.

In 2010, a group of prominent scientists wrote to Congress explaining that the notion that all biomass results in a 100 percent reduction of carbon emissions is wrong. Biomass can reduce carbon dioxide if fast growing crops are grown on otherwise unproductive land; in this case, the regrowth of the plants offsets the carbon produced by the combustion of the crops. But cutting or clearing forests for energy, either to burn trees or to plant energy crops, releases carbon into the atmosphere that would have been sequestered had the trees remained untouched, and the regrowing and thus recapture of carbon can take decades or even a century. Moreover, carbon is emitted in the combustion process, resulting in a net increase of CO2.

 

[Brigadier]

I've posted this a couple of times before:

Is Biomass Really Renewable?

Ninety percent of all existing biomass power plants use wood residue and there are currently 115 power plants in development that will burn biomass to generate electricity. But just how renewable is biomass energy?

news.climate.columbia.edu

This is probably the most useful bit:

Which is completely different to your post that I questioned you on

There is also an issue about whether burning wood is actually better or worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels. It gets very complicated depending on the source of the wood and other factors.

Unless you have bought into the idea that burning something that can be regrown before your eyes can be worse than burning something that took millions of years years to form.

 

[MNW67]

Which is completely different to your post that I questioned you on

Unless you have bought into the idea that burning something that can be regrown before your eyes can be worse than burning something that took millions of years years to form.

It is much more complex than that.

Biomass is fine if done in the best ways. But most of it isn't done that way.

There is a massive and immediate carbon debt from harvesting virgin forests. And even if in a hundred years time, that carbon debt is finally paid back - and that is a big if - we may not have a hundred years to fix global warming. And all this is before we even begin to consider the enormous environmental damage caused by cutting down huge tracts of virgin forests and replanting them with crappy homogenous pine trees.

 

[Brigadier]

It is much more complex than that.

Biomass is fine if done in the best ways. But most of it isn't done that way.

There is a massive and immediate carbon debt from harvesting virgin forests. And even if in a hundred years time, that carbon debt is finally paid back - and that is a big if - we may not have a hundred years to fix global warming. And all this is before we even begin to consider the enormous environmental damage caused by cutting down huge tracts of virgin forests and replanting them with crappy homogenous pine trees.

Which again is all completely different from your original post.


Furthermore, the evidence is pretty clear that if we carry on as we are - burning fossil fuels - it'll get worse for life here as we know it.
So

And even if in a hundred years time, that carbon debt is finally paid back - and that is a big if - we may not have a hundred years to fix global warming

will be moot anyway.

 

[MNW67]

Which again is all completely different from your original post.

I am happy for you to believe that. I have no interest in winning arguments. These are complex issues and the important thing is to have the discussion.

Biomass wood pellets release two and half times more carbon dioxide than natural gas for the same amount of energy. But most of our "green" energy is produced this way. The whole policy is insane.