Prof Matt Hannon @matthannon.bsky.social · 14/08/2025I can't see the underlying evidence for the headline in the BirdLife article, nor the underlying report. From what I can surmise, the reference in the report speaks to comparing the carbon emissions of biomass for *power generation* (not heat) with that of coal. Am I missing something? Thanks. 200
Go Green @ecowarriorss.bsky.social · 14/08/2025Burning wood emits more CO2 per unit of energy than coal due to wood’s lower energy density. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2006 noted that wood and wood wastes have a greenhouse emission factor ~20% higher than coal. www.nrdc.org/stories/no-b...nrdc.orgNo, Burning Wood Fuels Is Not Climate-FriendlyAs Europe and the United States look to cut their carbon emissions, the biomass industry wants us to pretend that logging forests in the American South could help. 75933
Faith Austin @mfamuso.bsky.social · 15/08/2025You’ll never convince the Neanderthals in Arrowtown, the most polluted town in New Zealand, that this is the case. 010
Matt Beany @mattsawyer.bsky.social · 15/08/2025People don’t seem to understand that anything made of H and C and O that decays, by whatever means, will make CO2! 030
Prof Matt Hannon @matthannon.bsky.social · 15/08/2025Have you got the link to the IPCC report please? I don’t see the reference in the article. Thanks 100
Drawn @commoner.bsky.social · 14/08/2025Except for high heat furnaces with thermal storage mass, like 'Rocket Burners'. 010
jmaesing.bsky.social @jmaesing.bsky.social · 14/08/2025However, coal in the ground is safely sequestered for ever, whereas wood is not. The carbon in wood is already in circulation. Much more important to keep fossil fuels in the ground than to worry about energy density. 040
Repetete @repetete.bsky.social · 14/08/2025There is a flawed assumption that wood not burned in a stove would continue to sequester CO2. In the western us often we thin forests to reduce wildfire chances. Better a stove than a wildfire or a burn pile. 030