[uuidgen]

Nuclear is good. Wood is carbon-neutral. We should use both to move ASAP from gas and coal. Especially that wood is easier to use in some existing coal furnaces.

And if you think that burning wood is carbon-spewing, then thin about what happens in all those forests once the trees age - they either get logged and used for construction, afterwords they get discarded and rot or they don't get logged, collapse and rot. Either way carbon is getting back into the air as CO2.

[dcolkitt]

This is true on the scale of decades, but the problem with climate change is we don't need carbon neutrality for O(50 years). We need carbon neutrality today.

Yes maybe those forests would eventually release carbon in 2050 is all well and good, but very likely we'll have total clean tech solutions by then anyway. In contrast we only have a short window to reduce atmospheric carbon substantially to prevent significant warming by the end of the century. To the extent possible if we can keep carbon sequestered today and pay by having it released in 30 years that's a very good deal. Because it stops the runaway warming today, and it gives us three decades of investment to start sequestering atmospheric carbon.

[uuidgen]

But now a lot of infrastructure runs on coal. You can use wood instead and have this carbon captured and reused in the next 10 years or you can still burn coal while awaiting a perfect solution.

We have surplus of farmland due to farm efficiency. We have more forests in EU now than we had 10 years ago. Switching to biomass is a good step because every ton of wood that emits CO2 that will be recycled is better than 0.6-0.8 ton coal that gets burned now and adds carbon.