"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 10:52:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
I saw a thing on TV that I believe suggested that there was no Co2
'tax' to burning wood chips, even though burning such produces
(releases?) loads?

The theory is that growing trees for fuel absorbs CO2. Thus reducing the
CO2 penalty of burning them.

Ignoring any other pollutants produced when it's burnt
presumably (recent issues with domestic log burners)?

That's not such a problem with a power station because its easier
to clean up the exhaust with those than a domestic log burner.

Not that it makes any sense at all to be carting wood in any form
halfway around the world to burn it for power generation. Nukes make
a hell of a lot more sense if you do want to reduce CO2 emissions.

And isn't it the same thing with coal, just
that the whole cycle takes a bit longer? ;-)

The problem obviously is that it takes a hell of a lot longer and burning
coal and
gas and petrol etc is the main reason for the big hike in atmospheric CO2
levels.

"... burning trees for energy produces 1.5 times as much
carbon as coal and three to four times more than natural gas."

Sure, but the new wood is done much more quickly.

https://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...s-1808994.html

I think there was some other reason why it (burning imported wood chips)
wasn't a 'good' as it seemed at face value (levels of subsidies etc)?

You didn't say that very clearly.