The future will pass you it with biomass?

[yves35]

Good evening,

concerning the second part of the reasoning of the preceding link, it is a specious reasoning. In principle, wood for domestic use is never burnt green. It is dried before (except Parisians). ). And how does it dry? with a flow energy: the wind that costs zero euro and consumes zero kWh. Such drying gives the wood energy fictitiously taken by this agronomist. It just takes a little patience.
For people in a hurry and who have a solar thermal water heater it is easy to make a diversion to use the surplus heat in the summer and dry dry wood for the next winter. See this link and in particular the end of the presentation:
http://www.sebasol.ch/realisations.aspx?id=50&r=&edit=


For the chemical part of the argument, I do not know, I went through chemistry classes and I survived. I hope his argument is better. He still had the honesty not to count on the passive gray energy of the boiler ....
yves

[Ahmed]

It's good to have survived the chemistry class! This is also my case, but without much merit, since they did not really affect me!

You are right * for the fraction of easily evaporable water, since it is solar energy that spontaneously takes care of it, without the need for any apparatus of any kind (except to want to save time ), but the fraction of residual water ** is far from negligible and these 20% that must be evaporated will significantly impact the combustion efficiency.

* Except that it is not so easy to obtain really dry wood (in the limited sense defined above), since the drying time represents a capital asset that can not be afforded by large distributors (some arrange for the support of their suppliers ...).
** The author of the article speaks well, I quote, of the "remaining water".

[Ahmed]

In one previous articlehe explains his thought. Some of these arguments need to be nuanced and specified; for example, when he talks about shredded wood that is used to power biomass boilers, he states that wood is shredded without waiting for drying and therefore burned green. This formulation is formally vague: the wooden poles are sometimes stored a year before being crushed (they incorporate only little work and therefore do not constitute a big financial immobilization), either crushed green and the ground food stored a few months on a platform, the drying being very fast because of the fermentation; Obviously, this "automatic" drying mode (the bacteria stop their activity as soon as the humidity level becomes insufficient) consumes a fraction of the pile, which validates its reasoning on the merits.
The chemical logic it invokes remains simple to understand: the combination of a carbon atom (or other) with an oxygen atom is an exothermic reaction, if molecules are already combined with oxygen, the reaction of oxidation can no longer occur during the burning of the wood that contains them.

[chatelot16]

This article provides new arguments that challenge the value of the massive use of biomass ...

what is this gibberish of your links?

one thing is certain: when we burn biomass we just put back into the air what plants have taken in the air, so whatever the method we just go back to zero

inversely, when we burn fossil fuel we put in the air carbon that would have remained underground if we had not done anything

[dede2002]

What seems urgent is to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted, and 1 kWh obtained with wood will emit more than the kWh obtained with fossil ...

For biomass to contribute to CO2 reduction, it should be converted into insulation and building materials, rather than converting it into energy (> CO2), given the amounts of energy we currently consume.

[chatelot16]

of course, burning biomass no matter how much it destroys it does not make any profit on the carbon footprint of the planet!

the benefit of burning biomass is to replace fossil fuel ... and even if the performance of the biomass system is a little less good it is still useful

the problem of a lot of biomass is that if we do not use them it rots and breaks down by producing as much co2 as if we burned it ... except that when the green waste ends it is useless and does not replace no oil

worse when the forest is not properly exploited it ended up in the forest fire ... and when it burns, it is also necessary that the pumpir do a huge job to limit the damage ... Firefighter work not only expensive energy but sometimes as expensive in human life

[izentrop]

the problem of a lot of biomass is that if we do not use them it rots and decomposes producing as much co2 as if we burned it ...

This is not inevitable and the urgency is to stop the exponential curve of anthropogenic warming by actions going in the opposite direction by:

• Preventing decay as mentioned by 2002.
• Storing carbon in agricultural soils. Farmland has been in humus deficiency for decades.
• Agroforestry and hedgerow return
• Other solutions are under study.

The wood-energy rushes us faster in the wall.

[sicetaitsimple]

The wood-energy rushes us faster in the wall.

From my point of view you are wrong. Certainly "the future will not pass through biomass" in terms of energy supply. But it is, and I think it will be, one of the multitudes of means allowing us to have a slightly more virtuous energy mix.

What Chatelot says is the only thing that really matters: how to avoid extracting fossils from the ground (coal, oil, gas) which by their combustion will bring into the atmosphere of CO2 that would not have been if we had done otherwise than to extract them.

By atmospheric renewables (sun, wind), by energy savings, by more efficient industrial processes, by nuclear power?

And also, a little, by a reasoned and more efficient use of biomass.

[Ahmed]

Sicetaitsimple, you write:

By "atmospheric" renewable energy (sun, wind), by energy savings, by more efficient industrial processes, by nuclear?

The more efficient industrial processes, the more devastating they will be for our environment, we cannot get out of this relationship which seems to escape many (in their defense, the intense propaganda for "sustainable development" does a lot to obscure this reality) .

[sen-no-sen]

What Chatelot says is the only thing that really matters: how to avoid extracting fossils from the ground (coal, oil, gas) which by their combustion will bring into the atmosphere of CO2 that would not have been if we had done otherwise than to extract them.

It must be remembered that despite the intense propaganda on global warming *, it is not the last one that causes the decline of forests or the disappearance of species, but energy dissipation.
Except that it is of fossil or "green" origin does not change the essence of the problem, namely the process of transformation of the world.
We do not pollute the world, we transform it.
We live in an anthropotechnical system, therefore the constructions that we realize are considered as a progress, whereas their negative externalization (rejection of GHG, disappearance of species) are considered as rectifiable errors.
In reality it is simply that within the System (anthropotechnical therefore) the human does not understand the difference between its part and that of technology.
Apart from the latter acts as an intelligent whole, and what we call pollution, loss of biodiversity and other disappointments is actually a logical process to transform the biosphere into a techno-sphere.
The essence of the hoax lies in the fact that we believe that technological innovation could free us from environmental problems, while in essence it aims to increase them.

Renewable energies are surely very ingenious means to produce energy but they lose their values ​​in a context of exponential economic growth ...

* Global warming follows the long tradition of humanist "fights" (fight against racism, homophobia, women's rights etc ...), because it is characterized by a well-thought-out speech, on the surface, which completely obscures the fund issues.
It is actually a very subtle manipulation technique which consists in saturating the information of a subject (here the RCA) in order to generate satiety in the listener "we talk about it so that means we take care of it"... whereas in reality the innumerable COPs and other international meetings are only used by industrialists wanting to share the share of the immense energy cake.