Burning wood or biomass produces more

[doc03]

greenhouse gas than coal. What's your opinion on that study?

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/study_burning_biomass_for_elec.html

[Richard D]

1. Well . . .

. . . it's not so much as is produced as is the issue, it's how much that was sequestered under the ground that is dug or pumped up then released into the atmosphere that is the real problem.

[Uncle Joe]

4. I agree, coal and oil consists of carbon which has been sequestered for

millions to hundreds of millions of years, wood or biomass releases relatively recently captured CO2.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Good for you for knowing the difference. This fact escapes the understanding of many.

That which would otherwise rot turns into methane and CO2 anyway, so burning it doesn't have anywhere near the same sort of impact as releasing what's been stored in the lithosphere for millions of years.

:thumbsup:

[jwirr]

2. dupe. Sorry

[jwirr]

3. Wood is renewable.

[niceypoo]

5. Wood and biomass are part of the present carbon cycle

Thus they are not the problem. Fossil fuels hold a couple eons worth of stored carbon from previous carbon cycles.

We are releasing a billion years worth of stored carbon in a geological instant.

[Warpy]

6. It's actually a wash

with more wood for fuel being grown. It's only producing carbon which has been sequestered by the tree and which will be re sequestered by other trees.

That's why we call it renewable. It's a cycle and those trees would release those greenhouse gases eventually as they aged, died, and rotted.

Coal and oil, on the other hand, are producing greenhouse gases sequestered millions of years ago when the planet was much hotter. It is not being taken up again by biomass because there isn't enough biomass out there to do it.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Glossed over the report, calling bullshit on the interpretation in the article.

PDF summary here: http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/doer/renewables/biomass/Manomet_Biomass_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

I think what we have is a legislature trying to weasel their way out of meeting 2050 carbon reduction goals.

And they've cherry-picked data to support conclusions that meet their agenda.

I could be wrong, that's the impression I'm getting from my cursory review.

:patriot:

[Ernesto]

10. works for me nt

[NeoGreen]

9. But not "fossil" carbon...

..., biomass adds nothing to the present day carbon cycle.