Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 7993
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by simonineaston »

An unintended take away is that, at least in terms of self sufficiency, the UK is over populated.
I still take the view that this is not a problem...as the world is increasingly wrecked by human activity, the conclusion is that it is over-populated in the sense that climatic conditons are affected, whatever the actual numbers. As climatic condiftions deteriorate at least from the pov of human animals, more and more will die. Eventually, perhaps there will be a mass extinction event, most of the humans die out and so the problem is solved. Leaving the trees etc in peace to do what they do best.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Ben@Forest »

Cugel wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 10:30am Given that there are far better renewables now developed and developing than burning wood, it seems a peculiarly inefficient process to continue growing commercial softwoods in biodiversity-reducing swathes just for burning. Whilst fast growth spruce and fir do replace what was felled in a relatively short time, the burning process still produces other detrimental effects besides CO2 production.
I'm not sure what the 'far better' renewables are, every renewable seems to have its Achilles heel, from lack of wind (wind turbines) to scale of installation and lack of sun (solar). I also didn't actually mention 'fast growing' spruce or fir at all in SRC or SRF production - though that's not to say softwood thinnings are not used.

Cugel wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 10:30am
There was talk, some while ago, that forestry managers like Natural Resources Wales were looking to plant more diverse forestry with a longer usage cycle - forests with a greater range of species and associated bio-diversity, as well as better uses for the timber. But the short term economics of grow-fast to sell-quicker still seems in place.
Under the UK Forestry Standard it not been possible for a long time to plant monocultures anywhere; Wales, Scotland, England, or I presume Northern Ireland, though that's the only country in the UK I have not practised forestry, so can't swear to that. Themes around climate change, biodiversity and the protection of water resources are all in the UKFS.

Cugel wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 10:30am
As an amateur woodworker, I'd really like to see more forestry aimed at producing a wide range of hardwoods for feedstock to what are sometimes considered to be rather old-fashioned manufacturing traditions making all sorts of things from wood rather than metal and plastics. Coppice work implements, in particular, were once highly diverse, ubiquitous and extremely useful .... as well as being what we now call "green".
As a country England has been planting more hardwoods than conifer ever since the mid 1980s (this is probably true of all UK countries to about 2010 when Scotland started planting high conifer rates again). The sudden switch to broadleaf was a reaction to the high conifer planting rates ever since WW2 and the tax break scandals which surrounded planting of the Flow Country and other peatlands. The problem was the pendulum swung from one extreme to another - from highly productive conifer to unproductive broadleaf - that's not to say broadleaf is inherently unproductive, but that it was planted at 'wildlife friendly' densities which does not allow for good straight timber or decent volumes. The idea that broadleaves can be planted at productive densities has only been rediscovered in the last ten years or so.

It's always interesting when someone highlights coppice as being green, with some misty-eyed ideal of medieval sustainability. Medieval man worked out thousands of hectares of forest through overworking. The Forests of Craven, of Knaresborough, of Galtres and of Hartforth were all disafforested through unsustainable working - especially the need for industrial levels of charcoal - through coppice production (and those are only forests in North Yorkshire that I chose - there are plenty of others). Coppice can of course be wonderful and produce a plethora of products. It is still, however, agricultural explotation - and decimates, in the true sense of the word, old-growth forests.

And of course the reality on the ground:

https://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/news/ ... g-targets/
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

Ben@Forest wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 6:43pm
Biospace wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 2:34pmChopping down American native forests to fuel British demands for electricity is considered 'green' by governments, which is a great example of how we need to consider our actions a little more carefully.
Do you have actual evidence of the chopping down of whatever native forest is? I think primary forest might be a more used term? I do know there have been accusations of this which have been found to be absolutely baseless.

I do like talking to people about forestry... :wink:
The information which has leaked out regarding environmentally-dubious practices since Britain started burning wood instead of coal to make electricity, including felling primary forests, is significant. I wasn't aware there had been anything to discredit this, but please let us all know if this is so.

A company that has received billions of pounds in green energy subsidies from UK taxpayers is cutting down environmentally-important forests, a BBC Panorama investigation has found.

Drax runs Britain's biggest power station, which burns millions of tonnes of imported wood pellets - which is classed as renewable energy.

The BBC has discovered some of the wood comes from primary forests in Canada.

The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood.

Panorama analysed satellite images, traced logging licences and used drone filming to prove its findings. Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest.

Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348


I'm fully aware the BBC is fallible in many respects when it comes to the accuracy of its news, but the Panorama investigation is echoed by so mnay other sources. And yes, there will be dark players within the energy business keen on spreading things the competition would prefer kept quiet, possibly even exaggerating some facts as a form of industrial sabotage, but I would be surprised if primary forests were not being decimated for this purpose.

https://www.newstatesman.com/environmen ... eenwashing
https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16/ha ... hes-claims
https://theecologist.org/2017/apr/10/no ... ig-biomass
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/01/uk-d ... n-forests/
https://axedrax.uk/press/pinnicle-pellets/
https://www.wired.com/story/how-green-a ... el-source/
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Ben@Forest »

Biospace wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 8:07pm
The information which has leaked out regarding environmentally-dubious practices since Britain started burning wood instead of coal to make electricity, including felling primary forests, is significant. I wasn't aware there had been anything to discredit this, but please let us all know if this is so.

A company that has received billions of pounds in green energy subsidies from UK taxpayers is cutting down environmentally-important forests, a BBC Panorama investigation has found.

Drax runs Britain's biggest power station, which burns millions of tonnes of imported wood pellets - which is classed as renewable energy.

The BBC has discovered some of the wood comes from primary forests in Canada.

The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood.

Panorama analysed satellite images, traced logging licences and used drone filming to prove its findings. Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest.

Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop.
I'm fully aware the BBC is fallible in many respects when it comes to the accuracy of its news, but the Panorama investigation is echoed by so mnay other sources. And yes, there will be dark players within the energy business keen on spreading things the competition would prefer kept quiet, possibly even exaggerating some facts as a form of industrial sabotage, but I would be surprised if primary forests were not being decimated for this purpose.
That's a lot of material that I'm not going to wade through, I would highlight this statement by the CEO of Drax Biomass:

'Drax has not acquired any Canadian licences for forests designated as primary forests under the UN Food and Agriculture Organization definition.'

It is in this response to the programme.

https://www.drax.com/press_release/a-st ... -sourcing/

I have seen how some biomass sourcing works - I can't of course say all - and it is well regulated. It is of course possible that in any international forestry operation corruption can possibly occur somewhere. We (as a nation) buy outdoor garden furniture which is FSC/PEFC certified tropical hardwood - but it is of course possible (actually almost definite) that a percentage will not be from the sustainably managed plantations it purports to be from.
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

Ben@Forest wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 6:43pm
Biospace wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 2:34pmChopping down American native forests to fuel British demands for electricity is considered 'green' by governments, which is a great example of how we need to consider our actions a little more carefully.
Do you have actual evidence of the chopping down of whatever native forest is? I think primary forest might be a more used term? I do know there have been accusations of this which have been found to be absolutely baseless.

I do like talking to people about forestry... :wink:
Ben@Forest wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 8:43pm That's a lot of material that I'm not going to wade through

Ben@Forest wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 6:54pm Burning wood produces CO2, but so does decaying wood. So burning it produces no more or less CO2 than wood in the natural carbon cycle.
The difference being that wood decays where it falls and adds biodiversity to the woodland and beyond as well as precious nutrients to the soil which helps sustain new growth. When $multi-million companies win contracts to supply the UK with wood to burn to make steam to make electricity, they cut roads through forests using huge amounts of diesel, cut down vast numbers of trees using huge amounts of diesel, then transport and process the wood using huge amounts of diesel, package and transport the product to ports, where it's loaded on ships, before being unloaded on the other side of the Atlantic and transported to Drax.

Consider the effects beyond the fossil fuel used for the industrial scale operations, including direct harms caused to soil, insect life, birds and other creatures along the way. Also that 'harvesting' millions of trees removes their ability to remove carbon, that planting millions more uses diesel, that a sapling's ability to capture carbon is small compared with that of a mature tree. Just as trees are beginning to near the point of maximising carbon sequestration, they are harvested, and so the process continues. I'd wager soils steadily lose their qualities.

When wood is burned, it produces 1.5x the greenhouse emissions of coal and 3x that of gas. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06175-4

Put simply, we'd be better off mining coal from the Yorkshire coalfields to burn at Drax and Ferrybridge. To compare this practice with renewable energy is only possible because the politicians have said we won't count the carbons if we burn wood.
Last edited by Biospace on 22 Jan 2023, 10:12pm, edited 1 time in total.
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

Burning coal or gas is burning stuff that could otherwise be left in the ground and never allowed to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Whereas all trees that currently exist, or will ever exist, will one day release greenhouse gases, regardless of whether it is through decomposition or through combustion. And trees grown as a crop will capture carbon before releasing it at combustion. The crucial thing is that the timber source is a sustainable one.

At one time there was a scheme growing short rotation willow in Northern Ireland, which harvested on a very short roation, every seven years or something like that. When the cropping is as short as that you can more easily get your head around the carbon capture component of the system. Capture, release, capture, release...... And a fuel that is there when you need it, not just when the sun is out or the wind is blowing. No need for fancy, expensive batteries that come with their own environmental question marks. There is still something to be said for burning wood, in some situations.
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

pwa wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 10:11pm The crucial thing is that the timber source is a sustainable one.

Is it really sustainable on this level? Are you considering the millions of litres of diesel used, that trees are harvested when still relatively young and so have mostly taken from the soil, the damage caused by heavy equipment to soil and so on?
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

Biospace wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 10:24pm
pwa wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 10:11pm The crucial thing is that the timber source is a sustainable one.

Is it really sustainable on this level? Are you considering the millions of litres of diesel used, that trees are harvested when still relatively young and so have mostly taken from the soil, the damage caused by heavy equipment to soil and so on?
I see tree harvesting when I go for walks in the hills and the diesel use doesn't appear all that great. Some is used, of course, but it can't be as dramatic as you make it sound. It looks much like most agricultural operations that use tractors, milk lorries and so on. I also see the windfarm teams at work when I'm out walking, and they gad about in diesel vehicles too. Toyota Hilux is a favourite with them.

Here in Wales a large chunk of the energy used is down to one facility, the Port Talbot steel works. It is being claimed that Tata, who run the place, want government money to decarbonise production:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64359729
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Ben@Forest »

Biospace wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 9:52pm
Ben@Forest wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 6:54pm Burning wood produces CO2, but so does decaying wood. So burning it produces no more or less CO2 than wood in the natural carbon cycle.
The difference being that wood decays where it falls and adds biodiversity to the woodland and beyond as well as precious nutrients to the soil which helps sustain new growth. When $multi-million companies win contracts to supply the UK with wood to burn to make steam to make electricity, they cut roads through forests using huge amounts of diesel, cut down vast numbers of trees using huge amounts of diesel, then transport and process the wood using huge amounts of diesel, package and transport the product to ports, where it's loaded on ships, before being unloaded on the other side of the Atlantic and transported to Drax.

Consider the effects beyond the fossil fuel used for the industrial scale operations, including direct harms caused to soil, insect life, birds and other creatures along the way. Also that 'harvesting' millions of trees removes their ability to remove carbon, that planting millions more uses diesel, that a sapling's ability to capture carbon is small compared with that of a mature tree. Just as trees are beginning to near the point of maximising carbon sequestration, they are harvested, and so the process continues. I'd wager soils steadily lose their qualities.
Nobody would dispute that old-growth forests are rich in biodiversity, which is part of the reason that much biomass sourcing is from plantation forest or short rotation crops.

In terms of 'effects beyond the fossil fuel used for the industrial scale operations, including direct harms caused to soil, insect life, birds and other creatures along the way' you may as well lay that charge at arable production, it is a far more invasive industry which requires far more ploughing, drainage, fertiliser and pesticide. When experts in this country want to examine old soil structure they go to old woodlands - the least disturbed soils we have.
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

pwa wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 10:35pm I see tree harvesting when I go for walks in the hills and the diesel use doesn't appear all that great.
Well, you seem happy with the whole process but I'm not sure if you're aware of the (increasing) scale of biomass for electricity. I've spent a little time searching for academic research suggesting this is good practice and refuting the large amount of scientific and anecdotal criticism, I can't find any outside the government sponsored spiel, indeed many are openly critical.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/gove ... e-gas/view

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RfAWKrJ2xE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_5sLWhVyI
https://youtu.be/XXu15NlOuGo?t=363
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2LgXHC1T9s
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

Biospace wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 1:34pm
pwa wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 10:35pm I see tree harvesting when I go for walks in the hills and the diesel use doesn't appear all that great.
Well, you seem happy with the whole process but I'm not sure if you're aware of the (increasing) scale of biomass for electricity. I've spent a little time searching for academic research suggesting this is good practice and refuting the large amount of scientific and anecdotal criticism, I can't find any outside the government sponsored spiel, indeed many are openly critical.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/gove ... e-gas/view

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RfAWKrJ2xE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_5sLWhVyI
https://youtu.be/XXu15NlOuGo?t=363
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2LgXHC1T9s
I admit that when it comes to Drax there are some questions that need answering, and the source of timber is the main one. In theory, the carbon capture that happens with sustainable timber production should make burning timber a low carbon option, but we need to know that we do actually have a proper cycle of tree planting, growth and harvesting, with no plundering of reserves that are not being renewed and the correct rate.

The homely and simple example I have in my head, of how things should work when all is done well, is of a home with adjacent coppiced woodland, where timber is used for heating in a sustainable way. The woodland in this model is of the right size to allow a rotation of, say, ten years, during which time the carbon released through combustion is equal to the carbon captured by tree growth. But it becomes complex and opaque when we move on to Drax and the iffy supply chain over thousands of miles. I'd be happier if we were supplying Drax from a UK source where we could do the accounting in a more transparent way.

To the best of my knowledge, this biomass power station at Margam was supplied by Welsh timber, some from very close by. https://www.renewable-technology.com/pr ... ass-wales/
The land on which the timber is grown is of little economic value except for timber production.
However, another source says waste wood is now used: https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/glennm ... ass-plant/ I'd need to know more about that to form an opinion.
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5430
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Cugel »

An interesting Guardian article today, concerning the findings of Mark Jacobson, an American academic of some standing. He argues that the renewable energy technologies associated with wind, solar and water are enough to provide all of the planet's energy needs in a relatively short time, with proposals and work for other energy supply technologies largely a waste of time and money. And many (including use of biomass) not part of any solution to either reduce global warming or serious air pollutions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -the-world

Some extracts from the article:

"We have wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, electric cars … We have 95% of the technologies right now that we need to solve the problem," says Jacobson. The influential academic says renewables alone can halt climate crisis, with technologies such as carbon capture expensive wastes of time. "Combustion is the problem – when you’re continuing to burn something, that’s not solving the problem,” says Prof Mark Jacobson.

The Stanford University academic has a compelling pitch: the world can rapidly get 100% of its energy from renewable sources with, as the title of his new book says, “no miracles needed”.

Wind, water and solar can provide plentiful and cheap power, he argues, ending the carbon emissions driving the climate crisis, slashing deadly air pollution and ensuring energy security. Carbon capture and storage, biofuels, new nuclear and other technologies are expensive wastes of time, he argues.

[A] criticism of a major renewables rollout is the mining required for the metals used. Jacobson says such a rollout would in fact hugely reduce extraction from the earth by ending fossil fuel exploitation: “The total amount of mining that’s going to be needed for wind, water, solar, compared to [the] fossil fuel system, is much less than 1% in terms of the mass of materials.”

Jacobson is scathing about many nascent technologies being promoted as climate solutions. “Carbon capture and storage is solely designed to keep the fossil fuel industry in business,” he says. Only some of the CO2 is captured and buried, he says, and deadly air pollution continues unabated. Blue hydrogen, produced from fossil gas with some CO2 then captured and buried, is far inferior to green hydrogen produced directly from renewable electricity, Jacobson says: “Blue hydrogen is just really convoluted.”

New nuclear plants are too slow to build and too expensive compared with wind and solar, in Jacobson’s view: “You end up waiting 15 to 20 years longer, for a seven to eight times higher electricity price – it just makes no sense. Even if they improve [build times], say to 12 years, that’s still way too long. We have cheaper, faster, safer technologies. Why waste time?”

Biofuels are also dismissed by Jacobson: “The biofuels push was really not helpful. They hold constant, or increase, air pollution and they use a huge amount of land.”


Personally I find these arguments much more convincing than calls for carbon capture, biomass, nuclear and the like, which seem to be either ineffective or far harder to implement and run in terms of time to build, costs of build and cost of energy to (eventual) consumers.

Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

Cugel wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 5:09pm
Biofuels are also dismissed by Jacobson: “The biofuels push was really not helpful. They hold constant, or increase, air pollution and they use a huge amount of land.”[/i]
Just to pick up on that one thing, the land used for forestry where you and I live is of next to no use for anything else, save the wind farms that co-exist with the forestry. Maybe somewhere else he has found biofuel production taking up valuable agricultural land. If not, his point is a dud.

Maybe his book (which he is flogging) is more nuanced, but the excerpts you give make him seem like someone who trying to make a case, and therefore not listing any good points relating to technologies that he has come down against.
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Ben@Forest »

pwa wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 4:41pm However, another source says waste wood is now used: https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/glennm ... ass-plant/ I'd need to know more about that to form an opinion.
I don't think your link links to the article you want. However l don't see that 'waste' wood in itself is a bad feedstock to use. Close to me is Chilton Biomass CHP plant. Its Wiki entry says:

The feedstock for the plant is wood which has reached the end of its useful life such as old shipping pallets, manufacturing offcuts, wood from the construction and demolition industries, and material from civic amenity sites. This wood is collected through a network set up by Dalkia. The fuel would other wise be sent to landfill.

Although l don't live that closely l have been past it many times, including cycling. Someone said earlier that such plants made a bad smell for the locals, l have never smelled anything (and when it was built there was a lot of local support for it).
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

pwa wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 5:25pm
Cugel wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 5:09pm
Biofuels are also dismissed by Jacobson: “The biofuels push was really not helpful. They hold constant, or increase, air pollution and they use a huge amount of land.”[/i]
Just to pick up on that one thing, the land used for forestry where you and I live is of next to no use for anything else, save the wind farms that co-exist with the forestry. Maybe somewhere else he has found biofuel production taking up valuable agricultural land. If not, his point is a dud.

As explained by in the various links I've listed upthread, this whole greenwash of burning forests for Grid electricity has only become possible because of some poor definitions made in the Kyoto 1992 protocol, whereby biomass is treated as carbon neutral at point of use. This explains the whole confusion, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2017/02/wo ... -emissions

The UK government has been extremely opportunistic in exploiting this error, it appears to me to be little short of disaster in progress. Even were there no emissions with harvesting, processing and transportation, even if woodland was replaced like-for-like with no damage done (mostly impossible), there is a decades-long increase in carbon emissions until replacement trees are sufficiently well grown to significantly capture carbon - at which point, they're often felled. Young trees sequester much less carbon than mature ones.

We're already living through an acceleration of the 6th Mass Extinction, yet we're now cutting down forests on the other side of the planet to fire our wasteful uses of energy. If nothing is done, as the price of carbon/carbon taxes rise then more and more agriculatural land will be used for tree farming and even more people will go hungry because of the West's greed.
Post Reply