> CO2-wise: It's neutral.
That's part of what he's rallying against. It's not because it requires a large energy input to produce wood or wood pellets suitable for burning.
That's part of what he's rallying against. It's not because it requires a large energy input to produce wood or wood pellets suitable for burning.
(Unless, of course, the pellets take more energy to produce than they produce themselves after burning and conversion... but that just makes them inefficient under any energy market mix, not CO2-producing under any mix.)
The reasoning about non-neutrality is that a tree has captured some carbon (its growth), then we burn it and release that carbon back into the atmosphere (1:1 equality).
However, anything on top of that (production of pellets, transportation, retailing) takes significant carbon, too.
Solar panels don’t take carbon from the air, and we don’t burn solar panels. We do manufacture, transport and retail them, though. So yeah, solar capture is non-neutral.
The merits of one are independent of the other. Neither of which are carbon neutral. Last point, some might argue that solar panels reduce the carbon needed to combust; it’s hard to see that as carbon neutrality, that’s a broken argument. But, I’m not sure who’s making that point.
Wood is the fuel, so to power a wood stove you need to constantly be moving it to its ultimate destination.
I really should upgrade to a motorized/automated burner that can eat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_briquette though. There is a plant that makes those about 30 km away.
Yes, it's not zero, but when comparing the extra co2 cost these machines add compared to the fossil fuel alternatives, it might as well be. In a few years they'll probably start to be battery powered, charged via clean nuclear and water power.
Both to purchase and maintain. Some operators depreciate ~usd70/hour.
> they'll probably start to be battery powered
Expensive machines are typically worked hard (long hours) when they are working. They need to keep working to make them pay. They typically work in forests not near the iTesla charging point by Starbucks.
When working, fellers are ferocious. The cabs are basically bulletproof.
And perhaps in 10 years with new battery tech and more remote charging infrastructure they'll actually be mostly fossil-free.
I'm sure the machines are more efficient compared to older machines and maybe your neighbour knows approximately how much fuel he has to put in to get a a certain number of cubic meters of wood. It would be sort of interesting to know, you can find some data online but it's very situation specific so it's probably not representative. What happens to all the waste? Does most just turn into mulch?
I don't think we'll see battery powered forestry machines any time soon, the batteries would have to be enormous but most importantly there would be no way to charge them.
I.e. be a pragmatic, not a fundamentalist.
Also: If you feel like you don't really understand a particular context: please do feel free to stay quiet until you have aquired an understanding of said context.