6 ms·

That it isn't sustainable. As Eating the Earth points out, by growing trees to then cut them down again we're not accounting for the cost of using that same fo

by knappe 1y ago

That it isn't sustainable. As Eating the Earth points out, by growing trees to then cut them down again we're not accounting for the cost of using that same forested land for anything else, like a forest which is a great carbon sink. Instead burning wood pellets is considered renewable until you consider the cost of using that land for something else in which case it isn't a renewal resource.

lazide 1y ago
That makes no sense with the definition of ‘renewable’. Trees grow again. They are renewed. What is this junk?
- rini17 1y ago
  The soil gets depleted when biomass is consistently taken away. It might be possible to avoid it but that's cost center.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Carbon comes from the atmosphere in this scenario. Crops can be rotated. Trees can be non-clear cut when harvested. None of this changes the definition of renewable.
    - rini17 1y ago
      In practice we want forest soil not eroded away after clear cut logging, but also not depleted nutrients like phosphorus, nor prone to wildfires[note], nor trees damaged by acid rain etc. Definition of "sustainable" in the law alone is not sufficient to cover all this and never will be, some discretion and responsibility is required. [note] depends on the biome, part of said discretion
- knappe 1y ago
  It makes perfect sense. Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest. The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The land used is not free; it could have instead stayed a forest and remained a carbon sink. When you compare wood pellets using for generating energy and compare it to other forms of energy generation it no longer holds up as a renewable resource after you take into account the land that could have been kept instead as a forest and carbon sink.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Forests are not long term carbon sinks. They flatline rather quickly. This is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in a forest, because if this wasn’t the case, forests would be sitting on thousands of feet of sequestered carbon. Instead of a few feet (typically) of non-mineral soil. Forests also (typically) go through cycles of burning. The highest rate of carbon sequestration is when a forest is in the 3-25 year old range, because that is when the bulk of the actual growth is occurring. Renewable doesn’t mean ‘indefinite carbon sink’. Renewable means ‘renews’. This entire discussion is incredibly ridiculous.
    - fodkodrasz 1y ago
      The soil they create, if they stay alive and are able to retain the soil layer, is gradually washed away (and locally replenished) and is fertilizing the lowlands.
    - knappe 1y ago
      Look dude, read the papers or read the book. I don't have much more to offer you. This isn't just about the forest itself but about the land used to grow the forest. "In the Carbon Costs of Global Wood Harvests, published in Nature in 2023, WRI researchers using a biophysical model estimated that annual wood harvests over the next few decades will emit 3.5-4.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. That is more than 3 times the world’s current annual average aviation emissions. These wood-harvest emissions occur because the great majority of carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere after harvest when roots and slash decompose; as most wood is burned directly for heat or electricity or for energy at sawmills or paper mills; and when discarded paper products, furniture and other wood products decompose or burn. Another recent paper in Nature found that the word’s remaining forests have lost even more carbon, primarily due to harvesting wood, than was lost historically by converting forests to agriculture (other studies have found similar results1). Based on these analyses, a natural climate solution would involve harvesting less wood and letting more forests regrow. This would store more carbon as well as enhance forest biodiversity."[0] [0]https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emissions-economic-vs-biophysical-models https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emis... And the original paper that introduced the idea of land use https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861
- fodkodrasz 1y ago
  The soil is degraded, washed away on clear-cut forests, and even old-growth protected forests are being relabeled unprotected to provide energy for the industry all over Eastern-Europe. The resulting flash floods, the water of which is harder to retain on the lowlands are worsening the droughts and the effects of climate change. Ah, end eventually trees will not regrow, because they need soil for that. And water. Modern forestry is far from renewable. Only externalities having a longer time-frame to kick in are conveniently ignored by the decision makers and the masses willing to see only the upsides.
  - lazide 1y ago
    In the US that is not how it has been done in a very, very long time. At this point all US timberland is multi-generation new growth; and is doing just fine.
- 7952 1y ago
  So do fish when they are harvested from the ocean. But that doesn't mean it is sustainable.
eptcyka 1y ago
Burning wood pellets is carbon neutral. Any forrest is a great carbon sink until it matures and it saturates, i.e. growth reaches replacement equilibrium and old trees/growth decay, releasing the CO2.
- sl-1 1y ago
  This is not taking in to account the fossil fuel usage for growing wood, transporting it and processing it to pellets. Biofuels rarely make sense, unless we can get the biomass as a side-flow from some other process. And that kind of flows are quite limited compared to our energy needs.
- 7952 1y ago
  It depends on the time and spatial scale. And how much replanting is happening.
happosai 1y ago
The word renewable has a specific meaning (the source renews). Just because something is renewable, doesn't mean it's climate-friendly and/or sustainable. Burning pellets as Bioenergy is renewable - it's just not sustainable[1] or climate-friendly. [1] not sustainable in large scale use.
HDThoreaun 1y ago
Opportunity cost has nothing to do with whether something is renewable

by knappe 1y ago

lazide 1y ago

That makes no sense with the definition of ‘renewable’. Trees grow again. They are renewed. What is this junk?

rini17 1y ago
The soil gets depleted when biomass is consistently taken away. It might be possible to avoid it but that's cost center.
- lazide 1y ago
  Carbon comes from the atmosphere in this scenario. Crops can be rotated. Trees can be non-clear cut when harvested. None of this changes the definition of renewable.
  - rini17 1y ago
    In practice we want forest soil not eroded away after clear cut logging, but also not depleted nutrients like phosphorus, nor prone to wildfires[note], nor trees damaged by acid rain etc. Definition of "sustainable" in the law alone is not sufficient to cover all this and never will be, some discretion and responsibility is required. [note] depends on the biome, part of said discretion
knappe 1y ago
It makes perfect sense. Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest. The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The land used is not free; it could have instead stayed a forest and remained a carbon sink. When you compare wood pellets using for generating energy and compare it to other forms of energy generation it no longer holds up as a renewable resource after you take into account the land that could have been kept instead as a forest and carbon sink.
- lazide 1y ago
  Forests are not long term carbon sinks. They flatline rather quickly. This is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in a forest, because if this wasn’t the case, forests would be sitting on thousands of feet of sequestered carbon. Instead of a few feet (typically) of non-mineral soil. Forests also (typically) go through cycles of burning. The highest rate of carbon sequestration is when a forest is in the 3-25 year old range, because that is when the bulk of the actual growth is occurring. Renewable doesn’t mean ‘indefinite carbon sink’. Renewable means ‘renews’. This entire discussion is incredibly ridiculous.
  - fodkodrasz 1y ago
    The soil they create, if they stay alive and are able to retain the soil layer, is gradually washed away (and locally replenished) and is fertilizing the lowlands.
  - knappe 1y ago
    Look dude, read the papers or read the book. I don't have much more to offer you. This isn't just about the forest itself but about the land used to grow the forest. "In the Carbon Costs of Global Wood Harvests, published in Nature in 2023, WRI researchers using a biophysical model estimated that annual wood harvests over the next few decades will emit 3.5-4.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. That is more than 3 times the world’s current annual average aviation emissions. These wood-harvest emissions occur because the great majority of carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere after harvest when roots and slash decompose; as most wood is burned directly for heat or electricity or for energy at sawmills or paper mills; and when discarded paper products, furniture and other wood products decompose or burn. Another recent paper in Nature found that the word’s remaining forests have lost even more carbon, primarily due to harvesting wood, than was lost historically by converting forests to agriculture (other studies have found similar results1). Based on these analyses, a natural climate solution would involve harvesting less wood and letting more forests regrow. This would store more carbon as well as enhance forest biodiversity."[0] [0]https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emissions-economic-vs-biophysical-models https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emis... And the original paper that introduced the idea of land use https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861
fodkodrasz 1y ago
The soil is degraded, washed away on clear-cut forests, and even old-growth protected forests are being relabeled unprotected to provide energy for the industry all over Eastern-Europe. The resulting flash floods, the water of which is harder to retain on the lowlands are worsening the droughts and the effects of climate change. Ah, end eventually trees will not regrow, because they need soil for that. And water. Modern forestry is far from renewable. Only externalities having a longer time-frame to kick in are conveniently ignored by the decision makers and the masses willing to see only the upsides.
- lazide 1y ago
  In the US that is not how it has been done in a very, very long time. At this point all US timberland is multi-generation new growth; and is doing just fine.
7952 1y ago
So do fish when they are harvested from the ocean. But that doesn't mean it is sustainable.

eptcyka 1y ago

Burning wood pellets is carbon neutral. Any forrest is a great carbon sink until it matures and it saturates, i.e. growth reaches replacement equilibrium and old trees/growth decay, releasing the CO2.

sl-1 1y ago
This is not taking in to account the fossil fuel usage for growing wood, transporting it and processing it to pellets. Biofuels rarely make sense, unless we can get the biomass as a side-flow from some other process. And that kind of flows are quite limited compared to our energy needs.
7952 1y ago
It depends on the time and spatial scale. And how much replanting is happening.

happosai 1y ago

The word renewable has a specific meaning (the source renews). Just because something is renewable, doesn't mean it's climate-friendly and/or sustainable. Burning pellets as Bioenergy is renewable - it's just not sustainable[1] or climate-friendly. [1] not sustainable in large scale use.

HDThoreaun 1y ago

Opportunity cost has nothing to do with whether something is renewable