Bit on radio this morning about how burning wood in power stations can be as bad as burning coal.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18350b14-1273-11e4-a581-00144feabdc0.html

If anyone knows where the real report is please post the link up as it may make interesting reading.

Though I know we covered all this a few years back and it caused a fair bit of upset in some quarters
http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=6241

Actually meant the paper that MacKay co-authored that the FT article mentioned.
There is one on the gov.co site that may be it:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/336038/beac_report.pdf

Posted By: tony(A tiny bit is turned into soot particles and or tar)

and ash

Could it be that the recent piece on th BBC report is coming from the same place that I am.

ST posted a link to the DECC report (reported by the BBC today) in the 3rd post of this thread.

Basically DECC are concerned that woody residue used for fuel, rather than being left to decay naturally, has a negative effect on CO2 levels - which, of course, it does. The report models this, and some related items left out of previous LCA studies, for the first time (well, first time for DECC ).

The natural, age old ecological cycle treats *all* timber as 'waste' - the tree falls (unless burnt in a forest fire , which is also part of the ecological cycle) and the whole of it rots on the spot. In that way all its nutrients are returned to the soil or made available to a multiplicity of life forms; also provides habitat for those life forms.

Along comes man, and 'harvests' the bulkiest bits, but still leaves lots to rot - so far fairly good. A somewhat impoverished ecological cycle can continue.

Finally, clear felling, and a mentality which treats every scrap as a resource to be taken away, even down to twiggy 'woody residue' - which actually (more than the bigger stuff) is the best and vital habitat for most of the forest life forms.

Watch out - what we're approving of here is actually the worst kind of habitat impoverishing, ecology sapping 'prairie farming'.

Posted By: fostertomWatch out - what we're approving of here is actually the worst kind of habitat impoverishing, ecology sapping 'prairie farming'.

And there was silly old me thinking roadside verges, trackways, footpaths, shredded undergrowth, top growth for the rural woodpile and better managed woodland used for things that last. Whose "mentality" were you alluding to exactly?

But Tom, forests are constantly changing and morphing, that is one of the beauties of them. Leave a tarmac road unused for 20 years and trees will move in. Or have I missed the point you were making?
Though I agree that modern forestry is pretty benign to the local environment. Just wish arable farming practices where.

Posted By: SteamyTeaBut Tom, forests are constantly changing and morphing, that is one of the beauties of them. Leave a tarmac road unused for 20 years and trees will move in. Or have I missed the point you were making?
Though I agree that modern forestry is pretty benign to the local environment. Just wish arable farming practices where.

There really is something alarming happening in the coutryside. I wrote to my MP and the then Environment Minister over the business of pesticide use when in came up in Brussels. No joy there but I am going to write again along the lines set out below. They take little notice of concerned citizens unless there is a chorus loud enough to drown out vested interests so If any of the observations below sound familiar ----- you know what to do.

Over 12 years in my very bee friendly garden the number of bees (and other insects including wasps and bluebottles) has plummeted, especially in the last 4-5 years. Those that do come are smaller and, even more alarming, I find dead and dying bees near the plants they like and bees "circling" on the ground. About 4 years ago I found a shrew on a gravel path (unheard of previously) also "circling" - dropped on its head by a raptor, brain injury, I thought. But was that the explanation? This spring I found a young hegdehog also "circling" and near death, more recently two fully grown, robust-looking, just-dead hedgehogs. They were crouched on the verge of a track (Fostertom, the kind of track that disappears in a years or two if the brush is not cleared, the saplings cut and the tree branches pruned!!) without any sign of injury. I also note a growing practice by local authorities and farmers to spray rather than cut those inconvenient verges and road edges. And we all know that rape is now mass sprayed when the seeds have set and even pasture land is sprayed with "selective" weed killer. I have a horrible feeling that the use of weed killer and the odd behaviours of the wildlife really are related.

To my observation, road edges in stretches of the M4 sprayed about a month ago, likewise in at least one London Borough and in a National Park. Never seen such a thing before in those areas.

Posted By: fostertomLike Mrs T you're saying TINA - There Is No Alternative. That is rarely true

Mrs T? Do you mean Thatcher? First time I've been compared to her!

I'm not even slightly saying there's no alternative. Just that we have to make the alternatives attractive to the people holding the purse strings. When going green means making money then change occurs rapidly. When it means extra costs they'll fight it every step of the way.

Other western nations don't have that belief - 'what's good for General Motors is good for America' . UK and US uniquely have that limiting belief

Can you give specific examples? In my experience attitudes in the UK aren't significantly different to NZ or Oz, for example. Their economies aren't as focussed on financial services, but they have exactly the same attitude to things like mining, forestry and tourism.

Posted By: fostertomit has freedom to do things for good reasons

Such as burning coal, well done Germany.

Posted By: fostertomReal change comes from dramatic events

True, mainly monetary/financial policy though.

Posted By: fostertomit also comes from grassroot sentiment

No so true, think the decline in organic food sales since the recession started, the rise in meat eating since India and China have improved financially, the monitoring of citizens since 911 etc.

I don't see what that little plasticine fellow off Take Hart has to do with anything.

Last year Germany got 24% of its energy from solar energy and wind.

DECC proudly says that UK got 15% last year - and increasing very fast. But that 15% is just electricity - UK got just 5.2% of its total energy from 'renewables' (incl biomass imported for co-firing with imported coal in power stations).

To compare truly with the German 24% figure, I wonder what UK solar and wind (leaving out other 'renewables') was last year, as %age of total energy?

UK became a nett importer of energy last year, for first time since 1984. Considering that UK shares with Eire the best wind-energy potential in the world (and some of the best tidal too), over wide areas of relatively benign and shallow waters, what's the word for UK energy policy, compared to 'brave' for Germany? Not, I think the obvious opposite, 'cowardly'. More like 'corrupt'.

Posted By: SteamyTeafor Germany.
in 2011 the breakdown of renewable energy was:
Wind 40%
Biomass (burning I presume) 30%
PV 16%
Hydro 14%

That's obviously the electricity-only breakdown, not comparable with the 24% of all energy figure.

Corrupt as in being at the beck and call of City of London/Wall Street big biz/banks priorities - and just coincidentally making old pals and party funds contributors very happy. That's Blair's/Brown's power-cronies and party funds, as well as the Tories'.