![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
А ларчик просто открывался
Неутомимый юзер ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
e2pii1 нашел простое и понятное объяснению дебильному поведению европейцев, которые жгут древесину и полагают что это очень зелено и прогрессивно, о чем я сообщал неделю назад.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-biomass-energy-invs/
How the American South is paying the price for Europe's 'green' energy.
In its Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the EU classified biomass as a renewable energy source.
Burning wood is less efficient than burning coal and releases far more carbon into the atmosphere, according to almost 800 scientists who wrote a 2018 letter to the European parliament.
In 1996, scientists at the United Nations devised a method to measure global carbon emissions. To simplify the process, they suggested emissions from burning biomass should be calculated where the trees are cut down, not where the wood pellets are burned.
Вот это последнее я как-то не уловил из статьи в Таймс, которую я нашел сам.
scientists at the United Nations - это звучит гордо!
e2pii1 нашел простое и понятное объяснению дебильному поведению европейцев, которые жгут древесину и полагают что это очень зелено и прогрессивно, о чем я сообщал неделю назад.https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-biomass-energy-invs/
How the American South is paying the price for Europe's 'green' energy.
In its Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the EU classified biomass as a renewable energy source.
Burning wood is less efficient than burning coal and releases far more carbon into the atmosphere, according to almost 800 scientists who wrote a 2018 letter to the European parliament.
In 1996, scientists at the United Nations devised a method to measure global carbon emissions. To simplify the process, they suggested emissions from burning biomass should be calculated where the trees are cut down, not where the wood pellets are burned.
Вот это последнее я как-то не уловил из статьи в Таймс, которую я нашел сам.
scientists at the United Nations - это звучит гордо!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Completely meaningless without a qualifying statement "than X" or "per Y".
classified biomass as a renewable energy source
The obvious reasoning here is that the carbon in the biomass had been recently sequestered, and that sequestering can be readily repeated.
no subject
"Хоботов, это мелко!" ;)
> The obvious reasoning here is that the carbon in the biomass had been recently sequestered,
Carbon is carbon. From the point of view of minimizing CO2 emissions, it makes no difference when it was sequestered. If they really cared about that, wood would be their last choice. Instead, it is first.
> and that sequestering can be readily repeated.
Depending on what you mean by readily, depending on the subsequent land use etc.
no subject
Упомянуть эту мелочь ничего не стоило бы, а её отсутствие просто бросается в глаза.
"CO2 emissions" per se are meaningless. Burning wood does not increase the "above-ground" carbon, but burning any fossil fuel does.
no subject
no subject
It is only the carbon coming from the underground which skews the equilibrium.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
вы правы, зарастает
no subject
no subject
no subject
Enviva received 15% of those once living, standing trees — deemed “lower-value wood” by the biomass industry because it doesn’t meet the specifications for lumber.
То есть, все-таки лес рубят ради других целей, и только около 15% древесины, которая низкого качества и не годится ни на что более - грубо говоря, отходы, идет на топливо.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject