Is wood carbon neutral? - Mass. addresses Biomass loophole

[Smidge204]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericagi...-biomass-loophole-and-limits-subsidies/print/

(Link to print version so it's all on one page and there's no spammy sidebar or comments section)

Basically the argument goes that since it takes so long for trees to grow back, burning them for energy is not entirely carbon neutral. There's a good if superficial back-and-forth on the various viewpoints of this.

Massachusetts has reduced subsidies for some biomass operations (forest tree biomass specifically) as a result. They make a sensible argument and the regulations as described in the article seem to be pretty good IMHO. The article also cites a study that smartly points out the source of biomass matters when evaluating carbon neutrality. (Kind of a Duh thing there if you ask me! :roll: )
=Smidge=

 

[AndyH]

It seems strange that the article, apparently panned by people on 'both sides' still suggests that carbon emitted from burning wood should be considered equal to carbon from coal and/or natural gas.

I also wonder about the 'forward view' of carbon and trees rather than considering the view back. What's a full carbon cycle for a single tree - from seed to 40 years of carbon sequestration, to burning or decay which returns much of the carbon? All this completely ignores that about 1/2 the biomass of a tree is underground and is not part of the biomass energy process...

Thanks Smidge...

edit... synchronicity...

Watch this, if you wish, to see the underground life of plants - and then reevaluate the ...silliness?... of the article's accounting. The speaker is a trained ecological biologist, farmer, and permaculture designer.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ4_u51lI94[/youtube]

 

[TickTock]

Basically the argument goes that since it takes so long for trees to grow back, burning them for energy is not entirely carbon neutral. There's a good if superficial back-and-forth on the various viewpoints of this.

A blink of an eye in geological time. As long as we are growing trees as fast as we consume them (but I don't think we are) it's carbon neutral.

 

[Herm]

As long as we are growing trees as fast as we consume them (but I don't think we are) it's carbon neutral.

We cant harvest them if we dont allow enough time for them to grow, so it is a self limiting system and thus carbon neutral.. and it does thin the forest to prevent fires... and that is probably wrong, we need the occasional fire in the forest but wood, even wood waste, is valuable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Coppicing is a traditional method of woodland management which takes advantage of the fact that many trees make new growth from the stump or roots if cut down. In a coppiced wood, young tree stems are repeatedly cut down to near ground level. In subsequent growth years, many new shoots will emerge, and, after a number of years the coppiced tree, or stool, is ready to be harvested, and the cycle begins again. (The noun "coppice" means a growth of small trees or a forest coming from shoots or suckers.)

Coppicing maintains trees at a juvenile stage, and a regularly coppiced tree will never die of old age—some coppice stools may therefore reach immense ages. The age of a stool may be estimated from its diameter, and some are so large—perhaps as much as 5.4 metres (18 ft) across—that they are thought to have been continuously coppiced for centuries.[2]"