CO2–uitstoot van biomassa groter dan van kolen.
Het stoken van biomassa on de vorm van houtpellets of –snippers vormt een belangrijk onderdeel van het duurzaamheidsbeleid, niet alleen in Nederland maar ook in het VK. Leidt dat tot minder CO2–uitstoot? Volgens een recente studie van het Britse departement voor energie en klimaatverandering - verstopt in voor leken ondoorgrondelijk wetenschappelijk proza - is dat niet het geval.
Biofuelwatch rapporteert:
Campaigners say “End subsidies for polluting biomass now” as DECC publishes controversial biomass carbon calculator
The Department for Energy and Climate Change have today published a long-awaited carbon calculator for biomass electricity, [1] which has been twice delayed in recent months. The calculator is the work of Chief Scientific Advisor Professor David MacKay, and highlights how burning whole trees, or roundwood, in power stations produces more carbon emissions than burning coal. Significantly, the report shows that Drax power station’s sourcing of wood from diverse wetland forests in the southern US will result in increased carbon emissions, despite the company’s claim that the fuel is low-carbon. [2]
“The carbon calculator shows that the UK Government have got it badly wrong when it comes to biomass electricity.” Said Oliver Munnion, Biofuelwatch Co-Director. [3] “Their own commissioned research now shows that the wood most likely to be burned in import-reliant, big biomass power stations, such as those proposed across the UK, will make climate change worse. DECC must end subsidies for these power stations now.”
Lees verder hier.
Ook Matt Ridley heeft kritiek op het verbranden van biomassa. Onder de titel, 'Another Renewable Myth Goes Up In Smoke', schreef hij in 'The Times':
If wood-burning power stations are less eco-friendly than coal, we are getting the search for clean energy all wrong.
On Saturday my train was diverted by engineering works near Doncaster. We trundled past some shiny new freight wagons decorated with a slogan: “Drax — powering tomorrow: carrying sustainable biomass for cost-effective renewable power”. Serendipitously, I was at that moment reading a report by the chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change on the burning of wood in Yorkshire power stations such as Drax. And I was feeling vindicated.
A year ago I wrote in these pages that it made no sense for the consumer to subsidise the burning of American wood in place of coal, since wood produces more carbon dioxide for each kilowatt-hour of electricity. The forests being harvested would take four to ten decades to regrow, and this is the precise period over which we are supposed to expect dangerous global warming to emerge. It makes no sense to steal beetles’ lunch, transport it halfway round the world, burning diesel as you do so, and charge hard-pressed consumers double the price for the power it generates.
There was a howl of protest on the letters page from the chief executive of Drax power station, which burns a million tonnes of imported North American wood a year and plans to increase that to 7 million tonnes by 2016. But last week, Dr David MacKay’s report vindicated me. If the wood comes from whole trees, as much of it does, then the effect could be to increase carbon dioxide emissions, he finds, even compared with coal. And that’s allowing for the regrowth of forests.
Ridley inventariseert vervolgens alle andere vormen van 'duurzame' energie en stelt vast dat geen enkele daarvan de beloften heeft waargemaakt. Hij concludeert:
Over the past ten years the world has invested more than $600 billion in wind power and $700 billion in solar power. Yet the total contribution those two technologies are now making to the world primary energy supply is still less than 2 per cent. Ouch.
Lees verder hier.
Alweer een sprookje minder.
Dat betekent dat een belangrijk deel van het Nederlandse duurzaamheids- cum klimaatbeleid op een vergissing/illusie/onbenul/desinformatie/bedrog (doorhalen wat niet van toepassing is) berust.
0 reacties :
Een reactie posten