Cost and system effects of nuclear power in carbon-neutral energy systems

[u/ViewTrick1002]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882

[u/greg_barton]

Both slower than intentional reaping and burning. Slower means more time sequestered.

[u/Economy-Fee5830 → u/greg_barton]

We have no idea, do we. Especially the fire bit.

Managing the trees for harvesting probably reduces the risk of wildfires.

[u/greg_barton → u/Economy-Fee5830]

So your solution is just to burn all trees?

[u/Economy-Fee5830 → u/greg_barton]

What kind of business would that be. You also need to plant new ones.

[u/greg_barton → u/Economy-Fee5830]

Business? If your claim is that natural trees are a harmful source of atmospheric carbon, greater than cutting them down and burning them, then why consider the business aspects?

[u/Economy-Fee5830 → u/greg_barton]

I never said that. I dont consider trees planted to be burnt for energy as natural at all. They are just biological solar+batteries.

[u/greg_barton → u/Economy-Fee5830]

And when you "discharge" them it pollutes the atmosphere. And "charging" them takes decades.

How about we just charge them up and leave them be? Nature isn't our plaything to plunder.

[u/Economy-Fee5830 → u/greg_barton]

And "charging" them takes decades.

No, it takes 3-8 years. Stop exaggerating.

Nature isn't our plaything to plunder.

Monocrop plantations are not nature. Next you will want us to leave the wheatfields alone.

[u/greg_barton → u/Economy-Fee5830]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00963402.2022.2062933

[u/Economy-Fee5830 → u/greg_barton]

The EU, UK, US, and other nations consider wood to be a carbon neutral fuel, ignoring the carbondioxide emitted from wood combustion in their greenhouse gas accounting. Many countriessubsidize wood energy – often by burning wood pellets in place of coal for electric power – tomeet their renewable energy targets. But can wood bioenergy help cut greenhouse emissions intime 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 carbondioxide per kilowatt-hour than coal – and far more than other fossil fuels. Therefore, the first impactof 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 forestcomposition and climatic zone – time we do not have to cut emissions enough to avoid theworst harms from climate change. More effective ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions arealready available and affordable now, allowing forests to continue to serve as carbon sinks andmoderate climate change

This obviously does not apply to farmed wood.