next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
ov --001a113e8f42f372aa0527969d10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 A friend recently accused me of being "gnomic", and ill-educated lout as i am, i took issue at being called a gnome, but moving into this here case at hand, I think the gnomes have it: "And warning that use of biomass is not green is perhaps already an effective way to indirectly kill trees." Not exactly gnomic but not entirely designed for clarity and explicitness. Then we have: "And if not now, then without doubt in the future." This non sentence leaves us without a doubt in the future waiting with and like Godot for some Christmas clarety. Seriously, I see Dave's point and Jamie's. England found a way through Edward Darby to stop using beech trees for coking to make steel; Darby figured out how to substitute coal for wood and thank god because England had run out of most decent sized trees and was charcoaling most of its forests. David is right that the first quotation is an overstatement but Jamie's point was most welcome in today's Herald. We not only are running the risk of losing good forest but we are running down our forest soils so that tree regrowth is poor, forest composition is weedy, wildlife suffers, and the carbon balance (ie. that less carbon dioxide is being emitted than would be if we allowed forests to grow and used conventional fossil fuels in the most efficient manner) is questionable. We want to move away from "Green" that is not sustainable for wildlife and I would put biomass and large scale hydroelectric both in that unsustainable class. Good on David and Jamie, the environmental critic and the advocate. Merry Christmas guys Nick On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:56 PM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: > 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. > 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. > > 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). > > 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. > 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. > 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 > --001a113e8f42f372aa0527969d10 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">A friend recently accused me of being "gnomic", = and ill-educated lout as i am, i took issue at being called a gnome, but mo= ving into this here case at hand, I think the gnomes have it: "And war= ning that use of biomass is not green is perhaps already an effective way t= o indirectly kill trees." Not exactly gnomic but not entirely designed= for clarity and explicitness. Then we have: "And if not now, then wit= hout doubt in the future." This non sentence leaves us without a doubt= in the future waiting with and like Godot for some Christmas clarety.<div>= <br></div><div>Seriously, I see Dave's point and Jamie's. England f= ound a way through Edward Darby to stop using beech trees for coking to mak= e steel; Darby figured out how to substitute coal for wood and thank god be= cause England had run out of most decent sized trees and wa