Carbon Loophole: Why Is Wood Burning Counted as Green Energy?

[rangerrebew]

Carbon Loophole: Why Is Wood Burning Counted as Green Energy?
December 20, 2017


By Paul Homewood
 

Fred Pearce has now also picked up on the biomass scam.
 

From Yale 360:
 

It was once one of Europe’s largest coal-burning power stations. Now, after replacing coal in its boilers with wood pellets shipped from the U.S. South, the Drax Power Station in Britain claims to be the largest carbon-saving project in Europe. About 23 million tons of carbon dioxide goes up its stacks each year. But because new trees will be planted in the cut forests, the company says the Drax plant is carbon-neutral.

There is one problem. Ecologists say that the claims of carbon neutrality, which are accepted by the European Union and the British government, do not stand up to scrutiny. The forests of North Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi — as well as those in Europe — are being destroyed to sustain a European fantasy about renewable energy. And with many power plants in Europe and elsewhere starting to replace coal with wood, the question of who is right is becoming ever more important.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/carbon-loophole-why-is-wood-burning-counted-as-green-energy/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Because Renewables =Green and wood is a renewable.

[Cripplecreek]

Because Renewables =Green and wood is a renewable.

I've got a pellet stove. Not only does it burn waste sawdust, it does so efficiently with very little ash and virtually no smoke produced. From what I've read, a good modern woodstove is still more economical to run than a pellet stove is because the sawdust needs to be processed into pellets which uses more energy.

I've been nickle and diming myself to death buying individual 40lb bags of pellets for anywhere between $3.30 and $4.15 but now that I have the garage cleaned out I have room to order a pallet of 50 bags from the feed mill nearby for about $150. I set the thermostat on it to 65 degrees and get about 20 hours out of a 40lb bag of high quality pellets.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Be ready, burning wood is the next thing they're coming for.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I've got a pellet stove. Not only does it burn waste sawdust, it does so efficiently with very little ash and virtually no smoke produced. From what I've read, a good modern woodstove is still more economical to run than a pellet stove is because the sawdust needs to be processed into pellets which uses more energy.

I've been nickle and diming myself to death buying individual 40lb bags of pellets for anywhere between $3.30 and $4.15 but now that I have the garage cleaned out I have room to order a pallet of 50 bags from the feed mill nearby for about $150. I set the thermostat on it to 65 degrees and get about 20 hours out of a 40lb bag of high quality pellets.

When I lived in New England, I went out and cut down all of my wood, brought it home, split and stacked it, then used it all winter to heat the house with my wood stove.

Last year there I was up to 6 cords of wood per year.

[Joe Wooten]

Don't forget the carbon burned shipping the wood to England. That is not trivial. Also, burning wood in a furnace to make steam is not as efficient as coal, so the "carbon cost" is even higher.

[roamer_1]

Be ready, burning wood is the next thing they're coming for.

Not around here.  Plenty of places hereabouts that don't have any other option.

[bolobaby]

Trees are a crop. I laugh my arse off when eco-nuts want to "save the trees." Why not "save the wheat" or "save the rice" for all the vegans in their ranks?

They are just a longer crop cycle, but they are a CROP. Replant and reap again in the future.

[Joe Wooten]

Trees are a crop. I laugh my arse off when eco-nuts want to "save the trees." Why not "save the wheat" or "save the rice" for all the vegans in their ranks?

They are just a longer crop cycle, but they are a CROP. Replant and reap again in the future.

I know a couple of guys in eastern Tennesssee who are tree farmers. Each field takes about 20 years to mature

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not around here.  Plenty of places hereabouts that don't have any other option.

You think the EPA really cares?

[roamer_1]

You think the EPA really cares?

You think hillbillies really care?

[Cripplecreek]

You think hillbillies really care?

LOL

When my county tried to push a county wide ordinance against burning brush, all the rural county commissioners and township supervisors said no. My township supervisor said there was no point because the people of this township would simply ignore any ordinance against burning brush.

[240B]

EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People


https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/01/29/epas-wood-burning-stove-ban-has-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/#3d1d57b87ee0

I knew all this sounded familiar, so I looked it up. The EPA did ban wood-burning, but I do not know if the ban if still in effect as of now or if anybody ever paid any attention to it.

[Smokin Joe]

Be ready, burning wood is the next thing they're coming for.

They are already after it in places, demanding catalytic converters on new wood stoves. My fireplace is over 100 years old, and I'm going to use it when I want to, EBA be damned!