Is Biomass Really Carbon Neutral?

[Dr. Courtney]

So can anyone explain to me why I should care, given that biomass is, if I'm understanding correctly, defined to be carbon neutral by the Paris Climate Agreement?

Political definitions are not scientific facts.

Every kind of biomass is effectively carbon sequestration with some time constant. Most of my dinner has a relatively short time constant (a couple days.) Grass and leaves and most ocean algae has a time constant shorter than a year. Under natural decay conditions, carbon sequestered as wood typically has a time constant of decades. Fossil fuels are biomass with much longer time constants.So the question is, "If atmospheric CO2 is bad, are shorter carbon sequestration times worse than longer sequestration times, even if the carbon will eventually be released?"

I think so. All carbon sequestration is buying is time. And longer times are better than shorter times, because the negative effects of atmospheric CO2 are reduced while the carbon in question is sequestered. Burning biomass in the present year releases all the carbon now. Leaving it to grow and eventually die and decay by natural processes releases it gradually over decades.

Now, I'm not convinced burning is a real disaster, as it may be that the net effect is positive, since ash in the atmosphere can have a cooling effect. But that's a broader question. I think the more important point here is not to confuse political definitions with scientific facts.

 

[Windadct]

Typically today "Biomass" is referring to an energy source, and clearly we are getting no "energy" benefit or value from the burning. Technically however Biomass represents all organisms in an area, however, regardless of purpose. The "carbon neutral" aspect is to grow plants explicitly to convert as an energy source - algae for example - so that the energy cycle is Neutral. The challenge is how to develop this in any significant scale where the agricultural activities requires do not offset any real "neutrality" or benefit.

As for the Amazon
So the carbon that has been naturally sequestered in this area, is being immediately released.
The lack of vegetation will reduce the capacity to sequester more carbon moving forward
The area is being cleared for cattle and agriculture activities that carry a very heavy burden - they release methane and CO2. Just because this method on increasing farm production is cheaper than becoming more efficient and use the land already converted better.

This is both a economy and money before all other concerns mentality AND a nationalist power move disregarding regional and global community concerns.

We ether accept that we live in local, regional, continental and global communities and those communities have rules and norms, some of which we do not agree with or we can take an adolescent "I am free to do what ever I want" approach - so I can pour my engine oil in the creek, burn my trash, pollute the waterways, overfish the ocean, etc... as I want...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Russ, first Dr. Courtney is completely correct. What matters is the time constant. One could argue that even coal is carbon neutral - but the time constant is millions of years.

Second, I don't think the concern - at least from what I have read - is that these fires are a source of CO2 emissions. It's that these fires are a consequence of past CO2 emissions. I don't believe this is correct, and the chain of reasoning seems mighty flimsy.

Finally, this seems to be not atypical. Jesse Ferrell of Accuweather (probably not a hotbed of denialism) sums it up https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/5-things-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-the-amazon-fires/70009150.

 

[fresh_42]

If we start to discuss it on a "less" scientific level, I'd like to add an information about the $CO_2$ emissions of the current fires, stating that the soil is the actual problem rather than the trees:
https://www.sciencealert.com/wildfi...are-turning-carbon-sinks-into-climate-heatershttp://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/handle/10204/7767

 

[anorlunda]

I can't vouch for this article. It is the headline that caught my eye.

https://reason.com/2019/08/23/dont-panic-amazon-burning-is-mostly-farms-not-forests/

 

[bhobba]

An IRS auditor once gave me this advice. "Never ever try to apply logic when dealing with the IRS." I say the same to you Russ when dealing with all things "green." It's 95% political and only 5% rational.

Just as an example you often hear renewables are now as cheap or cheaper than conventional sources so there is no issues, cost-wise, with using them. What they do not say, and my father was an electrical engineer who worked as an electrical estimator mainly on power plants, so I more or less have known this for years as a bit of esoteric knowledge that these days should be better known, there is great cost variation, depending on the source in getting it to the consumer. On the average 44% of what you pay for electricity, is paid to the wholesaler. The rest is getting it to those that need it which varies greatly depending on the source. Wind for example is highly intermittent, some wind farms may be producing tons, others virtually nothing, at anyone time. If you have a lot of wind farms in your network then balancing the network so it delivers power where its needed becomes a big cost. This is very well known in the industry - but renewable supporters never tell you that. It is also possible that you get blackouts if there is not enough electricity for balancing to work. To prevent that you really need a mix of sources - conventional and renewable, yet you have some politicians making pronouncements we will be 100% green by say 2030:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-stunning-aim-to-be-net-100-per-cent-renewables-by-2030/
Despite the 'technobabble', it's driven by politics with the poor engineer having to somehow pull it off. South Australia does not have a good track record:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...arm-operators-court-south-australian-blackout
Who knows they may pull it off - we will need to wait and see. But as cheap or cheaper than conventional sources - doubtful IMHO.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I can't vouch for this article. It is the headline that caught my eye.

https://reason.com/2019/08/23/dont-panic-amazon-burning-is-mostly-farms-not-forests/

Out here in Aus every actual news report with meteorologists etc, rather than opinion type reports from those kinds of shows (which of course is wise take with grain of salt) all say that. I think its likely true. I do know some of the pictures are misleading - one for example was five years old.

Thanks
Bill

 

[OCR]

Jesse Ferrell of Accuweather (probably not a hotbed of denialism) sums it up. . .

Yeah, I read that on August 25 at the link below. . . https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/08/25/many-of-the-photos-circulating-of-wildfires-in-the-amazon-are-not-of-the-amazon/

.

 

[fresh_42]

News manipulation, politics or whatever apart. The following statement remains true:

But scientists in Brazil and elsewhere say there is clear evidence that the spike, which has triggered concerns and anger around the world, is related to a recent rise in deforestation that many say is partly the result of prodevelopment policies of the government of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...fires-are-caused-deforestation-scientists-say
Downplay as "liberal opinions" or alike doesn't make it go away.

It is burning. Fire extinction is difficult. Ergo it damages the $CO_2$ balance and the planet's oxygen production. You cannot simply say it is not true or exaggerated.

 

[BillTre]

Just as an example you often hear renewables are now as cheap or cheaper than conventional sources so there is no issues, cost-wise, with using them.

I can not recall having ever heard anyone say this.
Sounds like straw-man argument to me.

Clearly quality will not be as good as new material, but there are some low grade uses for which recycled materials can make sense, such as tires --> doormats.

 

[anorlunda]

You cannot simply say it is not true or exaggerated.

It is true, but it could be exaggerated.

It would be nice to put it in perspective by comparing it to a volcanic eruption. It would be similarly useful to see the CO2 spike on a plot of C02 trends over several years so that we see how it compares with the background noise.

I don't have that data. Perhaps another PF member does.

 

[fresh_42]

The point is, that it would have been avoidable. We cannot influence methane emissions in Siberia, but we can influence what we burn down deliberately. Of course, a major volcanic eruption is probably worse, but this isn't the point.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

It is true, but it could be exaggerated.

It would be nice to put it in perspective by comparing it to a volcanic eruption. It would be similarly useful to see the CO2 spike on a plot of C02 trends over several years so that we see how it compares with the background noise.

I don't have that data. Perhaps another PF member does.

There's usually a several month delay between when CO2 is produced/released and when the detectable rise occurs at the sampling stations. It takes time for it to mix and disperse in the atmosphere. But if it is a significant blip, it will be discernable at Mauna Loa and most of the other sampling stations. The time to show up depends on the sampling location and seasonal movements of air masses.

Here's the main link I use and I point students to for what I consider to be reliable CO2 sampling data:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/data-products.html

Here's a student paper I mentored making use of that data:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1812/1812.10402.pdf

 

[anorlunda]

we can influence what we burn down deliberately

People need to feed their families, even in Brazil. The root cause is too many people on the planet, not the behavior of people.

There are more than 200 million people in Brazil. It could probably support only 20 million without impact on the forests. How would you feed them?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+trend+brazil

 

[anorlunda]

Here's the main link I use and I point students to for what I consider to be reliable CO2 sampling data:

Thanks for the links. But how can I use them to compare the "normal" CO2 oscillations with the "spike" caused by the current event in Brazil?

In 2018, there were many wildfires in North America. Can we see the CO2 spikes from those in the global data?

 

[fresh_42]

How would you feed them?

Certainly not with palm oil and soy. This is food for our food industry and cheap cattle, not people.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Thanks for the links. But how can I use them to compare the "normal" CO2 oscillations with the "spike" caused by the current event in Brazil?

In 2018, there were many wildfires in North America. Can we see the CO2 spikes from those in the global data?

As I mentioned, a current event takes some time to reach the detectors. Subtracting the oscillatory background that is normal every year requires some thought. I'd recommend using Fourier Analysis to identify the oscillatory part - there are a number of frequency components with amplitudes that are fairly uniform. Identifying and subtracting the "seasonal oscillations" should be straightforward with care.

But seeing a "spike" from ordinary wildfires is almost as silly as detecting every cow fart. Do the math. How many ppm does an event need to raise the CO2 concentration to be detectable? How many millions of tons of wood need to be burned to cause that rise? How many acres of forest does that correspond to?

A truly globally significant event should be detectable. Cow farts and ordinary summer wildfires - not so much.

 

[fresh_42]

I have just seen a tv interview (ACN digital) from Richard Westbrook, deputy assistant administrator EPA.
If I would have linked the interview without saying who this man was, I would have earned a **-storm. However, the current EPA is not famous for being neutral. But this man said it out loud: No chance!

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I have just seen a tv interview (ACN digital) from Richard Westbrook, deputy assistant administrator EPA.
If I would have linked the interview without saying who this man was, I would have earned a **-storm. However, the current EPA is not famous for being neutral. But this man said it out loud: No chance!

Would you be so kind as to link it? Normally by google fu is sufficient, but I'm coming up empty.

 

[fresh_42]

It was a facebook feed and far from being anywhere near a scientific base. I searched for Richard Westbrook on the EPA page, but couldn't find him. This can of course have the trivial reason that he is a deputy assistant administrator in any local office, and the broadcasters haven't been very accurate. Even the timestamp was questionable: only that it came up today doesn't mean it was up to date. And it is from a very biased site. I just mentioned it, since it pleased my sarcasm.

So on your own risk. and please don't blame me for this "unacceptable reference".

 

[bhobba]

Downplay as "liberal opinions" or alike doesn't make it go away.

I do not now what legit news outlets elsewhere, like the weather channel here in Aus, are saying, but the story I hear is of course you are correct - it is caused by deforestation - possibly even farmers clearing more land. But evidently it was a problem last year, the year before etc etc. Deforestation of the Amazon, and the paltry money spent trying to stop it without success, is a big problem - but it has been a big problem for years. Even conservative talk shows admit that - they just do not think its worse than any other year and make a big deal of why this year is not any different. Its obviously politically charged - some say it provides 6% of our oxygen, others 20% - when I see discrepancies like that I just shake my head. Either way when its gone - and eventually it will - things will not be good,

Thanks
Bill

 

[fresh_42]

Either way when its gone - and eventually it will - things will not be good,

In my opinion there is a far bigger problem than carbon dioxide: the loss of biodiversity, uncounted unknown plants and with them potential drugs. Not to mention the moral crime this represents for the indigenous populations.

 

[bhobba]

I can not recall having ever heard anyone say this.
Sounds like straw-man argument to me.

Its all over the internet and talk shows etc eg:
https://www.sustainability-times.co...w-cheaper-than-coal-but-new-challanges-await/
Renewable enthusiasts make a big deal of it, and as time goes by it will get cheaper still.

What they ignore, and the anti-renewable people are now using it in their arguments, is renewables have different characteristics than coal or nuclear that make balancing a lot harder and more expensive so overall it's not cheaper - yet. To me its obvious we will not have a totally renewable energy supply for quite a while - it will be a mixture. Even the South Australia link I gave, while claiming 100% renewables, admits they need gas generators to kick in every now and then, and to sometimes import power from other states in Australia. And then of course there is the possibility of Fusion power that could change everything.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Z0dCHiY8]

carbon neutral solution doesn't exist == if we take extra energy somewhere (even from our Sun), it always provides extra heating or cooling for Ambient. those changes of temp always affects mass rate of carbon around. The very solution to prevent collapse of Biosphere is, to reduce energy consumption down to reasonable values.

 

[fresh_42]

Its all over the internet and talk shows etc

I guess this isn't even wrong. The question is: what do you take into account? Coal and nuclear energy is pretty expensive if you calculate long term total costs. However, there will be still the problem to evaluate a human life.

 

[bhobba]

I guess this isn't even wrong.

Where is another Pauli when we need him (I am certain Fresh knows this but not even wrong was a favorite saying of his, especially to other top tier scientists like Landau - but than again by all reports Landau's personality didn't click too well with Pauli). He could cut through BS like a hot knife though butter. Who is right and who is wrong - its just so politically charged its hard to get the facts.

What I do know for sure is they finally did a survey I have been suggesting for a long time. They went to some less affluent and more working class suburbs and asked how much would you pay extra for your electricity to fight climate change. The answer was zero. They then went to affluent suburbs and asked the same question - the answer was 25%. Yet over the last 10 years electricity prices here in Aus have gone up 117%. Are people willing to pay the price - I suspect no. Remember though most people here live in democracies - if you believe in the democratic process you must expect people to vote for their own interests - its just human nature, What can be done? I think we just have to accept some damage to this poor Earth of ours. Already engineers are working on how to minimize it and when the consequences are catastrophic enough it will be tackled. This is the view of Professor Lomborg and Freeman Dyson. although Dyson believes its doing some good by making the planet greener.

Where I live in Brisbane we are having extinction event marches a court just ruled, correctly, are perfectly legal. I will let our justice system sort that out when they infringe on other rights such as the freedom to go unmolested about your lawful business, but I have zero idea where they are getting the idea we are approaching an extinction event - even an IPCC author wrote an article condemning it. The link I will dig up later.

As promised here is the link by Myles Allen, Leader of ECI Climate Research Program, Oxford
https://theconversation.com/why-pro...12-years-to-climate-breakdown-rhetoric-115489

Thanks
Bill

 

[fresh_42]

I only have a problem with subsidies. The damages of accidents, severe or just incidental emissions, air and water pollution, waste storage etc. are not fully covered by the price. In this sense, the prices are not really comparable. This is also true for solar energy and wind energy where we do not have sound long term data for maintenance and substitutions. I guess this would be an economic thesis to figure out the total cost balance sheet on a macroeconomic if not global level.