BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[briantrumpet]

There is only one useful datum in it, which is the change in the percentile point of the cliff edge in the past 15 years.

Well, and the increasing gap between what Average Joe/Jolene was paying and is paying now.

 

[C R]

Ah, interesting, I'd not come across this, a free payment system in Brazil called 'Pix', being targeted by Trumpus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pix_(payment_system)

Can't have people breaking the stranglehold that the US has on money movement.

 

[Psamathe]

Fair enough. But burning wood is carbon neutral.

So is using Oil and Gas - it's just a question of timescales. New oil and gas is being created today but it all comes down to timescales and we are far approaching tipping points and those become a massive issue and hitting those is a question of "timescales" eg hit the AMOC shutdown tipping point and we're facing true disaster.

 

[First Aspect]

So is using Oil and Gas - it's just a question of timescales. New oil and gas is being created today but it all comes down to timescales and we are far approaching tipping points and those become a massive issue and hitting those is a question of "timescales" eg hit the AMOC shutdown tipping point and we're facing true disaster.

You may not be surprised to know that geological timescales are excluded from most accepted definitions of carbon neutrality.

 

[Psamathe]

You may not be surprised to know that geological timescales are excluded from most accepted definitions of carbon neutrality.

UN defines "renewable as "Renewable energy is energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed." which makes woodburning in the UK not renewable

 

[First Aspect]

UN defines "renewable as "Renewable energy is energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed." which makes woodburning in the UK not renewable

Does it? I think the actual answer is not going to be straightforward.

 

[Psamathe]

Does it? I think the actual answer is not going to be straightforward.

Most recent reports I've seen give that UK tree planting at less that 50% of Government targets (England down at 30%).

UK is currently restocking using conifers at 4 x the rate of broadleaf (conifers are pretty useless in wood burning stoves and pretty useless for biodiversity).

UK imports 81% of its timber from overseas (2nd highest in the world) but then
UK forested land area is down to just 13% (compared to 46% across Europe.

UK tree planting rates are less than half the rates back in 1976.

Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than burning coal because wood has a lower energy density (more wood needs to be used to produce the same amount of energy as burning coal).

80+% of what hardwoods are grown in the UK go to wood fuel.

etc.

 

[First Aspect]

Most recent reports I've seen give that UK tree planting at less that 50% of Government targets (England down at 30%).

UK is currently restocking using conifers at 4 x the rate of broadleaf (conifers are pretty useless in wood burning stoves and pretty useless for biodiversity).

UK imports 81% of its timber from overseas (2nd highest in the world) but then
UK forested land area is down to just 13% (compared to 46% across Europe.

UK tree planting rates are less than half the rates back in 1976.

Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than burning coal because wood has a lower energy density (more wood needs to be used to produce the same amount of energy as burning coal).

80+% of what hardwoods are grown in the UK go to wood fuel.

etc.

Burning wood emits 0% of the carbon dioxide of coal, if you measure it from the right point in time. Otherwise green campaigners.would be telling everyone to burn coal.

Also, mature forest does t capture much CO2 at all so there's a fair argument that at least timber products that result in replanting actually capture more than rewilding.

You've also explained perfectly why UK timber use is about as sustainable as our consumption of food. What is used is sustainable, just not the overall consumption.

There's a separate.argument to be had about land use, although my.expectation is that land suitable for foresty and agricultural use doesn't overlap very much.

Although I agree with your concerns.over.national biodiversity, its really a separate issue. And to the extent one might contemplate repurposing land used for crop trees, who is going to replace the lost income?

 

[Psamathe]

Burning wood emits 0% of the carbon dioxide of coal, if you measure it from the right point in time. Otherwise green campaigners.would be telling everyone to burn coal.

Green campaigners say don't burn either. I'm afraid Climate change doesn't respect people carefully selecting specific points in time to measure CO2 from (anthropomorphising about Climate Change). We desperately need to be keeping from emitting CO2 into our atmosphere whatever the source. And it's tipping points that many regard as the crucial urgency. nb Government report stated that "Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than burning coal"). Even Drax’s independent advisory board has recently advised that Drax should reassess its criteria for determining carbon neutrality and should move away from stating biomass is carbon neutral.

And it's costing more to use tham than eg gas Wood burners more costly for heating than gas boilers, study finds

 

[First Aspect]

Green campaigners say don't burn either. I'm afraid Climate change doesn't respect people carefully selecting specific points in time to measure CO2 from (anthropomorphising about Climate Change). We desperately need to be keeping from emitting CO2 into our atmosphere whatever the source. And it's tipping points that many regard as the crucial urgency. nb Government report stated that "Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than burning coal"). Even Drax’s independent advisory board has recently advised that Drax should reassess its criteria for determining carbon neutrality and should move away from stating biomass is carbon neutral.

And it's costing more to use tham than eg gas Wood burners more costly for heating than gas boilers, study finds

Not everyone has mains gas.

And as far.as the planet is concerned, wood bur ing is carbon neutral. It really is that simple.

Green campaigners oppose all sorts.of things. But if climate change.is the most important thing, their opposition to carbon neutral energy sources is misguided. The opposition to nuclear is my bugbear. It is the least worst option in a lot of ways.

 

[briantrumpet]

Not everyone has mains gas.

And as far.as the planet is concerned, wood bur ing is carbon neutral. It really is that simple.

Green campaigners oppose all sorts.of things. But if climate change.is the most important thing, their opposition to carbon neutral energy sources is misguided. The opposition to nuclear is my bugbear. It is the least worst option in a lot of ways.

Germany's shutting down of all its nuclear reactors and switch to (Russian) gas has turned out so well.

 

[First Aspect]

Germany's shutting down of all its nuclear reactors and switch to (Russian) gas has turned out so well.

I think Fukashima was used as the justification. Last I heard that policy is under review.

Look, the strategic vulnerability of large scale nuclear is amongst its issues, but it is still better than fossil fuels. Yes yes the Greens will say, but we could all use renewables and light our own farts when the wind stops blowing and it is dark. But for the next couple of generations at least we.need something else.

 

[briantrumpet]

Not long to wait now, though if you want intellectual stimulation and deep financial insight, the Rupert Annual will be out before Christmas.

 

[Psamathe]

Not everyone has mains gas. ...

I don't have main gas, don't have a woodburner yet I stay warm fine.

... And as far.as the planet is concerned, wood bur ing is carbon neutral. It really is that simple.

Only if you select your measurement points to support your claim. But from the Climate's perspective it's not about manipulated "measured from <dates>" but about what we have and continue to do to the atmosphere and emitting CO2 we don't need to is that's pushing us towards those tipping points as well as the more gradual impacts of the climate damage.

Green campaigners oppose all sorts.of things. But if climate change.is the most important thing, their opposition to carbon neutral energy sources is misguided. The opposition to nuclear is my bugbear. It is the least worst option in a lot of ways.

Dismissing valid objections because "oppose all sorts.of things" does not really make a case.

My personal view is that whilst I don't like nuclear at least in the manner the UK Government is doing it, I do accept it is a "necessary evil" particularly given where we have allowed ourselves to get to and our lack of adequate action to stop making things worse.

eg AMOC is significantly slowing and increasingly likely to collapse. Under mid-range scenarios that would likely mean winter sea ice down to The Wash, London winter temperatures down to -20℃, Oslo dow as low -45℃. And it's a tipping point and we don't know is lags in the system mean we have passed the tipping point yet or what might happen but AMOC is slowing.

 

[Psamathe]

Look, the strategic vulnerability of large scale nuclear is amongst its issues

I agree (the reason my above "I don't like nuclear at least in the manner the UK Government is doing it". New nuclear is massively expensive, ludicrous time scales, etc.. I suspect SMRs will be up and operating before new massive nuclear stations are. And good that GBR seem to be supporting Rolls-Royce on this.