Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5197 readers

658 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

102

Biomass power station produced four times emissions of UK coal plant, says report (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Sensationalist headline as far as I can tell.

(I wrote the same in a different sub as this seems to have been posted all over)

Comparing carbon emissions and only telling that it is more than another plants/industrial sites, is pretty useless. It needs to be normalized to emissions/kWh so it would be a useful comparison. That alone gives me pause as to how accurate/honest the comparison is.

For example: the plant could be the largest in the country which would mean emoting more is normal. Or it could be the smallest and have a disproportionate emission rate.

It also seems like the spokesperson of the plant claims that the wood is sourced from sustainably managed forests, and though I won't take that at face value, I see how that could further mitigate impact compared to what the sensationalist headline claims.

I don't have time right now to do much more research on this specific site such as where the forest is, transportation emissions, processing emissions, etc. However, it is clear that the author of the article didn't do any research either, and/or intentionally cherry picked a way to display the data to come up with an article that would drive traffic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, the reporting is incredibly lazy. Such is The Guardian's standards.

Drax is the largest power station in the UK. Assuming the figures in Wikipedia are in the same ballpark as the nameless report that The Guardian is referencing without citation, Drax has a capacity of 3.9 GW. Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station is capable of producing about 2 GW of net electricity. It's doubtful they're actually running either to capacity, but we can estimate that Drax produces roughly double the power as Ratcliffe-on-Soar. That means Drax is still roughly emitting double the carbon per watt.

It would be nice to know whether that figure includes biomass transport across the Atlantic...

edit: typo

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

You said it, very lazy

I'm not familiar with how the UK decides on dispatching order for power plants, but if they follow a similar protocol as the US where is a combination of marginal cost and emissions, I wound in then expect that the bio-mass plant (with lower expected emissions) will be dispatched more often than the coal fire power station.

That would significantly affect the emissions/kWh

Finally, like you said we would need the transportation emissions and I would ask too for info on whether the source of the wood is a sustainable managed forest. If it is, that wood has near zero emissions as the forest regrows (except for processing emissions)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Additionally, The CO2 emitted from a biomass electricity generation plant isn't new CO2 pumped out of the ground. It's the CO2 that was already captured from the atmosphere by living things. On balance, net carbon emission is zero, since the input fuel is a net negative CO2 source.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's probably more complex than this. For example, every tree you remove mean less carbon capture in the world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

it depends on whether that tree is re-planted.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Its not that simple sadly, saplings and young trees capture significantly less than older mature trees. We're talking a 30+ year return on that carbon investment. Planting trees and restoring wilderness for carbon capture and sustainable ecosystems is good, ripping them up every 20 to 40 years for biofuels is not. If your end goal is sustainable energy, nuclear, wind or even solar would be better use of that space and still probably have land left over for forestey renewal. The reason nuclear is the ecologically best choice is because it uses the least amount of land per kwh produced, leaving more land that can be used for conservation and long term carbon capture efforts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

If you remove a mature tree and replace it with a young one, you will actually increase uptake as the growing tree will absorb more CO2 than a mature one will.

However, I agree that it is complex because you need to take a long term view and there are always risks. For example a wild fire would offsetting the equation as the young trees are more vulnerable.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

How about we don't burn things.

load more comments