next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0EC5_01D13D92.2CE8D130
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All, Dec 23, 2015
There is an article on biomass in today's Chron. Hrld. page A3 =
"Biomass may be less than green: report". I could not see how to extract =
a link to this article.
The warning was issued some years ago to "Beware of false prophets" =
and if this article is at all accurate then Jamie Simpson and Aaron Ward =
may qualify to some extent.
These biomass plants leave much to be desired and constructive =
criticism will hopefully lead to better context integration in future =
but saying that "...the province is not capable of proving that =
harvesting for biomass is better for the environment than burning coal." =
is misleading in the extreme.=20
First of all it is an example of deplorable prose because =
superficially it would appear to say that burning biomass for power is =
no better for the environment than burning coal. Unless huge amounts of =
CO2 are released in the course of cutting, hauling and preparation for =
burning then the above would be false.
But burning of biomass is not mentioned; only harvesting for =
biomass is mentioned in that quote. And true enough "harvesting for =
biomass" uses energy for no purpose if the biomass is not subsequently =
burned and would not help the environment in any way. And the province, =
being just an area of land would be unable to prove anything.
=20
Getting back to the heart of this question; when a tree which has =
fixed carbon for say 100 years is cut down, it is entirely correct that =
another tree of equal size and carbon content does not spring up to =
replace it in less than 100 years (unless a faster growing tree is =
planted). So yes there often is an apparent lag. But if done astutely, =
say by thinning overstocked trees sufficiently early, then this apparent =
lag will shrink nearly to zero. And this may be repeated on the same =
ground two or more times depending upon details.
But what are the alternatives ? If a tree dies and rots in the =
forest then all of the carbon is eventually released as CO2 after being =
recycled through a host of fungi, insects , etc. In event of forest fire =
then huge amounts of CO2 are released in one slug. And some may have =
noticed that large areas of western forest were burned this year; (some =
carbon bank).=20
Going back to that 100 year old tree which was cut, and standing =
back a bit, it can be seen that the perceived lag in carbon capture is =
an illusion. The carbon has already been captured. The tree, over the =
period of its life fixed carbon and atmospheric carbon was decreased =
accordingly. Even if that entire tree is burned; trunk, branches and all =
roots, the amount of CO2 released can not exceed the amount which that =
tree has fixed. So the true lag is zero.
There is more than one way to kill a tree. I became alarmed about =
1990 because Spruce trees, normally long lived, were starting to die =
prematurely. At first I suspected air pollution and this may be in play =
to some extent. But over time I have became convinced that moisture =
stress was the dominant cause. Trees evolved for loss of feeder =
roots. As moisture is extracted to the wilting point, at a given level, =
death of feeder roots will soon follow and when moisture is replenished =
a new set of feeder roots will eventually develop. And long periods =
without rainfall in NS go way back, as growth rings here record, but if =
repeated too frequently then trees become overwhelmed by fungi invading =
dead extension roots leading to invasion of major roots.=20
I don't have the figures extracted to prove it, but I think climate =
change has already led to more erratic precipitation during the growing =
season here.=20
And warning that use of biomass is not green is perhaps already an =
effective way to indirectly kill trees. And if not now, then without =
doubt in the future.
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
------=_NextPart_000_0EC5_01D13D92.2CE8D130
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Dear All, =20
=
=20
Dec 23, 2015</DIV>
<DIV> There is an article on biomass in today's Chron. =
Hrld.=20
page A3 "Biomass may be less than green: report". I could not see how to =
extract=20
a link to this article.</DIV>
<DIV> The warning was issued some years ago to "Beware =
of=20
false prophets" and if this article is at all accurate then Jamie =
Simpson and=20
Aaron Ward may qualify to some extent.</DIV>
<DIV> These biomass plants leave much to be desired =
and=20
constructive criticism will hopefully lead to better context =
integration in=20
future but saying that <FONT color=3D#ff0000>"...the province is not =
capable of=20
proving that harvesting for biomass is better for the environment than =
burning=20
coal."</FONT> is misleading in the extreme. </DIV>
<DIV> First of all it is an example of deplorable =
prose=20
because superficially it would appear to say that burning biomass for =
power is=20
no better for the environment than burning coal. Unless huge amounts of =
CO2 are=20
released in the course of cutting, hauling and preparation for burning =
then the=20
above would be false.</DIV>
<DIV> But burning of biomass is not mentioned; =
only=20
harvesting for biomass is mentioned in that quote. And true enough =
"harvesting=20
for biomass" uses energy for no purpose if the biomass is not =
subsequently=20
burned and would not help the environment in any way. And the province, =
being=20
just an area of land would be unable to prove anything.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Getting back to the heart of this question; when =
a tree=20
which has fixed carbon for say 100 years is cut down, it is entirely =
correct=20
that another tree of equal size and carbon content does not spring up to =
replace=20
it in less than 100 years (unless a faster growing tree is planted). So =
yes=20
there often is an apparent lag. But if done astutely, say by =
thinning=20
ov