Biopolttoaineiden itse aiheutettu "vaikea yhtälö"

[Heikki Jokipii]

Reippaita, kovia väitteitä:

Researchers: Wood Burning Unsustainable, Huge Footprint…”Will Accelerate Warming For Decades”

A team led by Laura Bloomer concluded here in a report that “burning trees and other forest biomass for energy is contrary to climate mitigation, biodiversity protection, and environmental justice goals” and that “governments must stop promoting climate-damaging forest bioenergy.” The researchers are calling for a stop to the folly of burning trees.

Linkki raporttiin (pdf).

[Heikki Jokipii]

Viime vuonna tästä oli jo puhetta täälläkin:

Thanks, Guardian, For Questioning the Virtues of Biomass

A recent article in United Kingdom (UK)-based newspaper The Guardian gives fair coverage to the idea that biomass energy may not be as environmentally friendly as its advocates claim. This is especially true in the case of wood pellet biomass power plants in the UK, where the majority of pellets are shipped across the Atlantic from the United States and Canada.

The article, “Burning imported wood in Drax power plant ‘doesn’t make sense’, says Kwarteng,” describes the recent comments by the UK’s business and energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng. Kwarteng says that “[t]he importing of wood to burn in Drax power station “is not sustainable” and “doesn’t make any sense,” The Guardian reports.
[..]
This issue is explored in a Climate Realism post, “Real Threats to Biodiversity and Humanity,” which says that “nearly 300,000,000 trees per year” are cut down and turned into wood pellets that go to the Drax plant. As Paul Driessen explains in the post, “[t]hat’s one year to slash and burn the fuel, and fifty years to regrow replacement trees.”

[Heikki Jokipii]

Näin siinä kävi:

EU Votes to Keep Burning Forests Because of Climate Change

   

Despite growing public opposition, the European Parliament voted this week not to declassify woody biomass as renewable energy. The forest biomass industry quickly declared victory, while supporters of native forests announced their plan to continue the fight — even in court.
    The EU likely renewed its commitment to burning wood as a source of energy largely to help meet its target of cutting EU carbon emissions by 55% by 2030, something it likely couldn’t achieve without woody biomass (which a carbon accounting loophole counts as carbon neutral, equivalent to wind and solar power).
    Scientific evidence shows that burning wood pellets is a major source of carbon at the smokestack. The European Union also likely continued its embrace of biomass this week as it looks down the barrel of Russian threats to cut off natural gas supplies this winter over the EU’s opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
    While the EU decision maintains that whole trees won’t be subsidized for burning, that natural forests will be protected, and that there will be limits to logging old growth and primary forests, these provisions include legal loopholes and were not backed with monitoring or enforcement commitments. No dates were set for biomass burning phase down.

Mutta minkäs teet. Puu on kuitenkin säädeltävissä oleva energialähde. Tuttavapiirissäni kynnelle kykenevät keräävät nyt klapivarastoja ensi talveksi. Samoin kuulemma tapahtuu Saksassakin.

HS tulkitse kuitenkin tuon saman näin:

EU suhtautuu yhä kielteisemmin puun polttoon – Suomessa tuli­linjalla olisivat metsä­hakkeen kasvava käyttö ja puu­poltto­aineiden verotuki

***

Joku roti asiassa sentään?

Kaura olisi jo pellettiä halvempaa energiana, mutta asiantuntija valitsisi ehdottomasti pelletin sen helppouden takia
Myös moraalikysymykset mietityttävät: onko oikein polttaa ruokaa?