• explodicle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Why not? Doesn’t creating the biomass require sequestering carbon?

      • kjetil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Difference is timescale. Coal “sequestered carbon” over millions of years, and released over a few decades.

        Biomass gathers and realeases on the same timescale

        • Philippe23@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Then you’re saying biomass is not really sequestering carbon, essentially.

          • bitwaba@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Neither is solar or wind. But they’re all net-zero or near-zero carbon emissions when considering the entire lifestyle of the energy and machinery production.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I just feel that if you’re growing a load of trees, it’s slightly more environmentally friendly to just let them carry on growing rather than chopping them into bits and burning them.

      I mean I get it, it’s a way to use those old coal power stations for something, but it should be something else we need to phase out.