[leonidasrup]

Biomass in Demark is in large part not green technology. Could be even worse then fossil gas.

"The utmost amount (46%) of wood pellets comes from the Baltic countries (Latvia and Estonia) and 30% from the USA, Canada and Russia.6 Estonia and Latvia have steadily been the primary exporters of biomass to Denmark, mainly in the form of wood pellets and wood chips."

https://noah.dk/Biomass-consumption-in-Denmark

[lukan]

Even if the wood is imported, it still counts as green, as it regrowing and does not add CO2 that was in the ground before.

(So it depends how much CO2 the ships used to transport it there)

[leonidasrup]

1. We can comfortable say that the CO2 from burned wood stays in the atmosphere for at-least 100 years (time necessary for the next tree to grow), with all the associated effects.

2. I could not imagine scaling biomass to country like India or China to cover the same share in electricity production mix as in Dermark (Denmark currently produces 20% of electricity from Bioenergy).

https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/denmark

[lukan]

1. No, if you take wood out of the forest and let it regrow, it is roughly +-0 CO2 balance (It is not just the new trees binding CO2, taking advantage of the new sunlight, all the other plants and existing trees start to bind CO2 the moment they can)

2. No, it is not and I doubt anyone claimed that this is possible.

[leonidasrup]

"Does wood bioenergy help or harm the climate?" by John Sterman.

John Sterman is the Jay W. Forrester professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management

"The EU, UK, US, and other nations consider wood to be a carbon neutral fuel, ignoring the carbon dioxide emitted from wood combustion in their greenhouse gas accounting. Many countries subsidize wood energy – often by burning wood pellets in place of coal for electric power – to meet their renewable energy targets. But can wood bioenergy help cut greenhouse emissions in time to limit the worst damage from climate change? The argument in favor seems obvious: wood, a renewable resource, must be better than burning fossil fuels. But wood emits more carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour than coal – and far more than other fossil fuels. Therefore, the first impact of wood bioenergy is to increase the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, worsening climate change. Forest regrowth might eventually remove that extra carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but regrowth is uncertain and takes time – decades to a century or more, depending on forest composition and climatic zone – time we do not have to cut emissions enough to avoid the worst harms from climate change. More effective ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions are already available and affordable now, allowing forests to continue to serve as carbon sinks and moderate climate change."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2022.2...

[onraglanroad]

> But wood emits more carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour than coal

Utterly irrelevant since that carbon came out of the air to grow the tree in the first place.

> Forest regrowth might eventually remove that extra carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but regrowth is uncertain

Of course it's not! Trees are grown as a crop. These aren't ancient forests, they're fields of trees for harvesting. If it was uncertain no-one could make money from forestry.

[Moldoteck]

it also depends on the rate of consumption. On top of that, the burning aint perfect, you also get amplifiers like monoxide or NOx. It also depends on the type of burned wood - some trees grow faster, others slower. If you burn a tree that grew slowly, it'll be +- zero after a long time