Hacker News Reader

Comment by jhoechtl | Hacker News Reader

Who is this poster? And why is he/she amassing so many words of almost total blunder on a plattform totally inadequate to engage in any meaningful discussion?

Actually its hard for me to start counterarguing as almost anything is wrong.

For one the criticism that fuel wood is inadequate as it is not energy dense. Well that's right, coal, gas, petroleum are denser as is uranium. It's not about density but fit for purpose. The energy source of cars is also not uranium. And while we are at it, the density of EVs batteries is about a third of gas or diesel.

Using wood as a source of fuel is sensible given that the rate it is burnt equals the rate of re-forrestation AND we are starting from a sensible equilibrium.

Brasil's rainforest is maybe out of equilibrium. Forrest's throughout Europe are in a net plus since about 1920.

View on HN

> Using wood as a source of fuel is sensible given that the rate it is burnt equals the rate of re-forrestation AND we are starting from a sensible equilibrium.

What does "sensible" mean here? The topic is carbon neutrality. And for wood-burning to be carbon neutral, tree cutters would have to somehow accelerate forest growth enough to absorb the extra CO2 from the burned wood, plus the CO2 emitted from processing and transporting the pellets. There is no evidence that they are doing this. On the contrary, old hardwood trees are being chopped down, and their regeneration is slow and uncertain. https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_...

Doomberg is also on substack: https://doomberg.substack.com/

If the only metrics on sensibility of fuel is the rate of re-forestation, sure burning wood makes sense, but that's not the only metric. It's heavy and hard to transport and its dirty, both in the micro environment (soot) and the macro (CO2). It's also way less convenient than other forms of heating. Remember: Europe is going through an energy crisis and is replacing mostly natural gas and electric heating with wood. Turning the furnace on with a switch isn't really the same thing as maintaining a wood stove.

> replacing mostly natural gas and electric heating with wood.

This right here is complete and utter BS. Please stop repeating this.

Why is exporting fuel from another continent in any way better than producing the same kind of fuel in EU? Other than said policy loopholes

> Using wood as a source of fuel is sensible given that the rate it is burnt equals the rate of re-forrestation AND we are starting from a sensible equilibrium.

If you burn deadwood, sure, maybe, that would just rot back into CO2. But removing trees for burning is just removing the CO2 storage living trees provide.

If you make a furniture out of cut tree that CO2 is trapped for 10-50 years, if you burn it it's right back to atmosphere

How many years did it take for that wood to grow?

Unrelated to the main topic, but you may be onto something. I always wondered why people keep creating these 20+ tweet long threads, going on and on with fluff and useless words just to make a trivial point.

After reading your comment, I now think that it may be to avoid counter arguments. The way Twitter displays threads and replies makes it very hard to rebute talking points in a cohesive and organized way.

For many, social media has become a form of prayer. Public ritualistic sayings and actions to create a better world, although no one is listening.

Instead of 5 hail marys, post a 30 parter.

Using wood from an equilibrium is perfectly fine, yes. But Europe has that equilibrium, responsibly managed forests since many generations. That's why we import from the USA, where apparently strip-mining live biomass is still a thing. We already exceed live biomass capacity even while still burning through millennia of fossil biomass per year and as long as we do exceed live capacity, substituting fossil with even now live is no improvement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com