Thats missing the point. Wood is most commonly burned for heat/warmth. Not for generating power.
Gas is not green.
I think you're missing the point that this is about powerplants burning wood (usually in the form of manufactured, high-density pellets) instead of fossil fuels, to generate electricity.
It is meant to be part of green tech because the carbon is cycled over decades (cut trees, burn, grow new trees) instead of pulling it from the ground, over 60 million years old, never to be put back.
Can you imagine just how much wood it would take to fuel a power plant?
Can you imagine just how much wood it would take to fuel a power plant?
Yeah, I mean it's not exactly magic. There are 23 working biomass power plants in California and wood pellets are a huge source of their fuel.
This is 10 years old...
https://biomassmagazine.com/articles/californias-biomass-debacle-part-3-12749
But the key point is this:
25 biomass electric generating plants in operation, which combined produce more than 565 MW of power, enough for 420,000 homes, nearly all of Sacramento County’s residences. These plants use 8 million tons of wood waste as fuel annually that would otherwise be landfilled, left to rot and serve as a fire hazard in the forest, or open burned.
Excuse my ignorance, but would not letting the waste wood rot, or be burned also produce carbon emissions? This way we are capturing the energy in the process.
Not on nearly the same scale. If properly composted, about 40% of the carbon will be turned into gases by the creatures breaking it down (in the form of carbon dioxide) but most of it would go directly back into the soil. If disposed of improperly, like in a landfill, then yes, that number shoots way up (50-90%) as you start getting methane gas production in an anaerobic environment.
In any case, just to be clear, I was just giving some sample numbers on how wood is used to create electricity.
I'm not really giving a commentary on whether it is a good idea to do this or not. I'm not an expert tin the field and it is a heavily debated process. This study suggests it's not good, but my gut feeling is that it's still better than burning fossil fuels.
There is another big issue where sometimes the wood was being sourced from non-waste sources - like Canadian old growth forest being used to fuel power plants in England. That changes the equation entirely and I'm staunchly against it. Like, if they're using sawdust from sawmills, yeah, we can talk. But reports were that whole logs were being used, and just fuck that. No fucking way!
Well, can you imagine how much wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Drax cut down trees, ships them across the globe and then burns them. They get funded by tax payers to do this because our government is run by idiots with £s in their eyes.
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.