Interesting question here about #Denmark 's rapidly increasing bioenergy use to replace fossil fuels.
Denmark imports wood from USA forests and burns them for electricity.
Yearly increasing emissions from bioenergy mean, the area is expanded yearly as well on which forest is killed for Denmark.
The increasing emissions from LULUCF of this activity are being accounted for in the USA. Or not, who knows.
Likewise, whether Denmark buys wood pellets made from ground litter, as they claim, also no one knows. More likely, profit-smelling private investors are felling old forests/are killing ecosystems.
And all of this for the least efficient energy fuel: wood. One might argue, burning fossil gas is more sustainable because you need less of it for the same amount of energy.
Meanwhile, science is also undecided whether or not old forest stores more carbon than re-planted young forest. I side with old forests anytime –if nothing else, because of the biodiversity it hosts which we can't afford to lose anymore.
Aside from LULUCF emissions accounting, ie disturbed soil, lost sink, there's an important disadvantage in introducing bioenergy use while our myopic economic system governs the dynamics down the line:
greedy profitability and blind Growth!Growth!
AND while Denmark is electrifying formerly fossil fuelled stuff = Growth!Growth!³
Expect growing³ "need" for felled trees. But tree re-growth naturally won't be able to serve this growing demand ➡️the result is, forest area felled increases³ in parallel.
Introducing growing demand for felled trees reminds me of the aviation industry now yodelling "Old cooking fat makes our fuel sustainable!"
All the while planning with 5% growth/year.
Are you guys ready to eat 5% more fish and chips year on year to keep planes flying and satisfy the Growth!Growth! idiocy?
Bioenergy in a closed loop without demand growth is sustainable even with slow-growing trees: assign 1 plot and never allow a second plot. Period.
But in our growth-reliant, profit-driven economic and societal system, when you
create demand for felled trees by
allowing private money to invest in infrastructure and machinery,
the demand grows [for profits=for trees] inevitably as well.
Which then also increases emissions and kills carbon sinks and biodiversity.
Life cycle emission analysis has to account for such systemically driven follow-up dynamics.
And when seen side-by-side, the LCA of renewable energy from PV and wind turbines wins.
PV begets PV, just look at roofs in neighborhoods. You'll seldom see only a single roof with PV. Because of the psychological pull-effect when 1 house gets PV, the neighbours remember that they too "always wanted PV", and now finally see this constant reminder for also starting the project. 🖖🏽
#co2emissions #bioenergy #forest #LULUCF #energy #RenewableEnergy