I will add my two cents-as this article was well written and research, so I can't add much else. To understand how crazy of an idea this is and to further demonstrate the waste of taxpayers time, capital , and energy, California erased 10 years of emission and air quality progress, because of forest fires-which itself caused by government policy-and what's in a forest? Wood! All the money wasted.
"Future “environmentalists” will wonder what the hell we were thinking burning live trees to generate electricity under the pretense of “sustainability”. "
Current environmentalists would never condone the practices set forth under this climate change hysteria. The supporters of these hideous practices are the furthest thing from environmentalists, they are grifters of the highest order.
There is a lesser (in #'s group) consisting of well informed scientists, academics and others who truly believe "climate change" is a crisis. We simply disagree with this last group.
This is UK and EU greens subsidizing the harvesting of growing trees, not on their soil, on American and Canadian soil (not to minimize the Baltic harvest).
And doing so pretending that it doesn't count towards their CO2 emissions. Why? Purely and solely by diktat and the fact they are harvested outside EU borders.
Shameful. Will be put to a stop eventually. Cost, air quality, nuclear power, or sheer stupidity which we'll help relentlessly expose.
Yes. But as we understand it, not under their emissions from combustion/electricity generation/industrial production, etc. But under the "land use" category.
Under their UN schemes, apparently it is counted against US and Canadian "land use" emissions (and likely Baltic EU states as well.).
A) tied to land use (not combustion)
B) harvest-related land-use emissions tagged with country where harvested
C) emissions tied to actual burning in converted coal-fired boilers to make electricity don't "count".
I would contend that most Greens are Useful Idiots who take their talking points and marching from their agenda-driven superiors. Saving the planet is easy, fixing one’s own life is difficult.
I’d like to have dinner with the lobbyists that got Europe to believe wood pellets shipped from the US on ships using high sulfur #6 and burned in old coal plants is renewable, low carbon energy. That dude mu$t be a pretty $mooth talker.
Burning biomass for energy is just plain stupid. Heat energy has low value. Coal or NG has 1/10th the cost/unit energy of carbonaceous liquid fuels, chiefly diesel fuel and gasoline. Biomass is also a rich carbon source, carbon that liquid fuels need. So the obvious thing is to convert biomass into liquid fuels not heat energy. Liquid fuels that are much easier to store, transport & utilize. And not using horrendously inefficient fermentation methods like is done for ethanol. Biomass distillation to methanol produces 8x the gals of fuel/ton of biomass that corn ethanol provides. At a much lower cost per unit fuel energy obtained.
Thanks. Very interesting. I love this paragraph, it's so well put:
"We close by noting that any “green” business which loses money perennially absent government subsidies (or like Drax, makes money only due to subsidies) isn’t a business at all. It is an Organ of the administrative state, and a classic example of what we refer to as EcoStatism™. The old joke “Governments are lousy at choosing winners; losers are excellent at choosing government” applies in this case as well."
Ditto all of the kudos on this. Galbraith summed it up quite nicely: You will find that the State is the kind of organization which, though it does big things badly, does small things badly, too.
Marvelous article. I had completely ignored the carbon sink to carbon dumpster fire in assessing the intentional stupidity of making and burning pellets for electricity. That fact and the obvious ecological malfeasance of scooping up vast quantities of slash and residual organic matter from forest floors to feed a plant make this look like more of clown show than ever.
I will add my two cents-as this article was well written and research, so I can't add much else. To understand how crazy of an idea this is and to further demonstrate the waste of taxpayers time, capital , and energy, California erased 10 years of emission and air quality progress, because of forest fires-which itself caused by government policy-and what's in a forest? Wood! All the money wasted.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/wildfires-are-erasing-californias-climate-gains-research-shows
The climate/insane will destroy everything if we don’t stop them.
Truly insane.
It won’t get that far. Their idiot religion will destroy itself first.
The green lobby is against LNG shipments, but this, they sanction. Good lord.
We know, right?!?
"Future “environmentalists” will wonder what the hell we were thinking burning live trees to generate electricity under the pretense of “sustainability”. "
Current environmentalists would never condone the practices set forth under this climate change hysteria. The supporters of these hideous practices are the furthest thing from environmentalists, they are grifters of the highest order.
We think there are three basic groups here:
1) grifters
2) neo-Malthusians
3) uninformed "go alongs"
There is a lesser (in #'s group) consisting of well informed scientists, academics and others who truly believe "climate change" is a crisis. We simply disagree with this last group.
A very likely assessment. I should not have over generalized the climate alarmists. Keep up the good work!
Gracias. Thanks for being a regular!
I simply cannot take Greens seriously when they support and subsidize these practices.
It's worse.
This is UK and EU greens subsidizing the harvesting of growing trees, not on their soil, on American and Canadian soil (not to minimize the Baltic harvest).
And doing so pretending that it doesn't count towards their CO2 emissions. Why? Purely and solely by diktat and the fact they are harvested outside EU borders.
Shameful. Will be put to a stop eventually. Cost, air quality, nuclear power, or sheer stupidity which we'll help relentlessly expose.
Agreed. I am curious on the EU regulations. If they had harvested the wood from Germany or the UK, would it then count towards their CO2 emissions?
Yes. But as we understand it, not under their emissions from combustion/electricity generation/industrial production, etc. But under the "land use" category.
Under their UN schemes, apparently it is counted against US and Canadian "land use" emissions (and likely Baltic EU states as well.).
A) tied to land use (not combustion)
B) harvest-related land-use emissions tagged with country where harvested
C) emissions tied to actual burning in converted coal-fired boilers to make electricity don't "count".
Can't make it up. (We would have...)
I would contend that most Greens are Useful Idiots who take their talking points and marching from their agenda-driven superiors. Saving the planet is easy, fixing one’s own life is difficult.
Agreed. See category #3 in our response to commenter Kevin Waspi above.
I’d like to have dinner with the lobbyists that got Europe to believe wood pellets shipped from the US on ships using high sulfur #6 and burned in old coal plants is renewable, low carbon energy. That dude mu$t be a pretty $mooth talker.
We suspect there are more than one. Or two.
;)
My guess he wears a jacket stacked with envelopes in it ready for any and all grifters.
We don't think anyone makes a jacket that big.
Briefcase.....
Burning biomass for energy is just plain stupid. Heat energy has low value. Coal or NG has 1/10th the cost/unit energy of carbonaceous liquid fuels, chiefly diesel fuel and gasoline. Biomass is also a rich carbon source, carbon that liquid fuels need. So the obvious thing is to convert biomass into liquid fuels not heat energy. Liquid fuels that are much easier to store, transport & utilize. And not using horrendously inefficient fermentation methods like is done for ethanol. Biomass distillation to methanol produces 8x the gals of fuel/ton of biomass that corn ethanol provides. At a much lower cost per unit fuel energy obtained.
Stupid is obviously not a serious impediment to those driven by this agenda.
in fact, I think it is a prerequisite
Not to mention burning all that bunker fuel to get the pellets to Europe.
Yup. Even if its the lower sulfur diesel fueling most of this transport, it is no less ridiculous.
Thanks. Very interesting. I love this paragraph, it's so well put:
"We close by noting that any “green” business which loses money perennially absent government subsidies (or like Drax, makes money only due to subsidies) isn’t a business at all. It is an Organ of the administrative state, and a classic example of what we refer to as EcoStatism™. The old joke “Governments are lousy at choosing winners; losers are excellent at choosing government” applies in this case as well."
Thanks!
Ditto all of the kudos on this. Galbraith summed it up quite nicely: You will find that the State is the kind of organization which, though it does big things badly, does small things badly, too.
Thanks!
State of the State.
yep!
Marvelous article. I had completely ignored the carbon sink to carbon dumpster fire in assessing the intentional stupidity of making and burning pellets for electricity. That fact and the obvious ecological malfeasance of scooping up vast quantities of slash and residual organic matter from forest floors to feed a plant make this look like more of clown show than ever.
Thank you!