Comments
[deleted] t1_j0ea7nc wrote
[deleted]
ash_274 t1_j0eblj6 wrote
That's more of a management problem than a renewables problem. Coal and oil are several orders of magnitude slower than old-growth forests.
If you're saying that without the renewable energy credits that the deforestation rate would be slower, then that's a positive that would have to be weighed against what I asked about.
If the lack of energy credits don't have an effect on the rate of deforestation, then it could be worse for the environment than maintaining the status quo. If the deforestation is the problem then work on directly stopping it through legislation.
[deleted] t1_j0eg37y wrote
[deleted]
yagonnawanna t1_j0hef4a wrote
Actually no. All the coal in the world comes from one geological time. When trees first evolved into being they were very successful and forests spread over a large areas of the planet. Being so relatively new, nothing had evolved to decompose fallen or dead trees, so they simply piled up. Over time, this layer became coal. The micro-organism free environment will never exist again, so coal will never form again.
[deleted] t1_j0irdu9 wrote
[deleted]
Ill-Bat-207 t1_j0krdr4 wrote
We just have to boil and wrap it first. Then wait a few million years.
[deleted] t1_j0gcw8z wrote
>However, it's the waste after timber processing
That's what the pellet manufacturers told everyone. The reality is they are cutting down entire trees to make pellets for places like Drax power station. In fact, Drax purchased the largest timber company in British Columbia, Canada and is cutting down giant swathes of Canadian forests. One of Canada's politicians who was responsible for logging permits is now working for the logging company.
The pellet companies started with promising they'd only use what was left behind. The waste. They moved on to cutting down entire trees.
MonkeyTacoBreath t1_j0emmd1 wrote
Changing the classification won't ban or stop the burning of lumber scraps, as you correctly assert if just dumped will decompose, but won't release all their carbon, as fungi will capture most of it. However, that is not the point as I first stated. It is really to stop companies from getting tax breaks or carbon credits for burning it.
ThatGIRLkimT t1_j0essyc wrote
It is true.
Meanderingversion t1_j0efmea wrote
Yeahhhh.......cutting down then burning what's left of them isn't helping convert CO2 into O2...
Khemith t1_j0eggp8 wrote
I wonder which lobbyist wrote up that law.
ThatGIRLkimT t1_j0esw4l wrote
This post caught my attention. Thanks for posting.
ash_274 t1_j0e8592 wrote
Technically it is renewable, but not low-carbon or otherwise "green". However, it's the waste after timber processing, so without its burn value is it just going to be dumped somewhere where it releases carbon dioxide gas, anyway?
Edit: Based on where this is happening, the wood was supplementing coal burning; so if the wood scraps are made uneconomical because of the change, wouldn't more coal be burned to maintain the same electricity supply? Seems like this is a good-feeling but actually bad thing to do.