Comments on: Is Biomass combustion zero-carbon? UK report says no. http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/09/09/is-biomass-combustion-zero-carbon-uk-report-says-no/ Biomass news for power, feed and food production Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:01:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: RMida http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/09/09/is-biomass-combustion-zero-carbon-uk-report-says-no/comment-page-1/#comment-4334 RMida Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:41:10 +0000 http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/09/09/is-biomass-combustion-zero-carbon-uk-report-says-no/#comment-4334 Nick is correct. Find out more information on <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass" rel="nofollow">Biomass Energy</a> or download our <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/factsheet-biomass.pdf" rel="nofollow">Biomass Facts</a> Sheet. Nick is correct. Find out more information on Biomass Energy
or download our Biomass Facts Sheet.

]]> By: bioblogger http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/09/09/is-biomass-combustion-zero-carbon-uk-report-says-no/comment-page-1/#comment-4322 bioblogger Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:17:09 +0000 http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/09/09/is-biomass-combustion-zero-carbon-uk-report-says-no/#comment-4322 The principal argument in favor of biogenic vs. fossil feedstock conversion is that the former does not increase carbon into the carbon cycle whereas the latter reintroduces vast quantities of previously geologic time sequestered carbon. When plant matter dies but it doesn't just release CO2 as the authors describe. It releases methane which is 23 times worse a GHG than CO2. They also ignore the other toxins and aromatics in fossil emissions (which are, among other problems, linked to health issues) vs. those in biogenic. Yes, wood products like furniture and construction materials do sequester carbon longer than combusting it does - but how many constructions last 100 years longer than the trees they were converted from? Many of these forest products are not recyclable because of the paint, coatings and chemicals used in their manufacture. Our overgrown forests need to be thinned and managed to spare them and their habitats from beetle kill and wildfires. That includes salvaging killed trees and converting them into fossil carbon replacement products and power. Otherwise, all that carbon goes to methane. See http://bit.ly/cRCe6t New bioenergy infrastructure create markets for funding reforestation and afforestation. The principal argument in favor of biogenic vs. fossil feedstock conversion is that the former does not increase carbon into the carbon cycle whereas the latter reintroduces vast quantities of previously geologic time sequestered carbon.

When plant matter dies but it doesn’t just release CO2 as the authors describe. It releases methane which is 23 times worse a GHG than CO2.

They also ignore the other toxins and aromatics in fossil emissions (which are, among other problems, linked to health issues) vs. those in biogenic.

Yes, wood products like furniture and construction materials do sequester carbon longer than combusting it does – but how many constructions last 100 years longer than the trees they were converted from? Many of these forest products are not recyclable because of the paint, coatings and chemicals used in their manufacture.

Our overgrown forests need to be thinned and managed to spare them and their habitats from beetle kill and wildfires. That includes salvaging killed trees and converting them into fossil carbon replacement products and power. Otherwise, all that carbon goes to methane. See http://bit.ly/cRCe6t

New bioenergy infrastructure create markets for funding reforestation and afforestation.

]]>