Good morning,
I just received a steep price increase from my energy provider enercity, raising the cost to 15 cents per kWh starting in August. That’s really tough, and I think prices will rise even further.
It’s a strange feeling to be thrown back so quickly into an energy supply situation where you have to figure out how to keep the house warm. It seems to me that the government has given up on the goal of enabling everyone to adequately cover at least their basic needs.
Goodbye central supply structures; now the winner is whoever has solar panels and a heat pump in their new build, while the others are left out.
Welcome back, coal heating 😕
Frustrated regards,
I just received a steep price increase from my energy provider enercity, raising the cost to 15 cents per kWh starting in August. That’s really tough, and I think prices will rise even further.
It’s a strange feeling to be thrown back so quickly into an energy supply situation where you have to figure out how to keep the house warm. It seems to me that the government has given up on the goal of enabling everyone to adequately cover at least their basic needs.
Goodbye central supply structures; now the winner is whoever has solar panels and a heat pump in their new build, while the others are left out.
Welcome back, coal heating 😕
Frustrated regards,
M
motorradsilke15 Jul 2022 08:15chand1986 schrieb:
I'll ask openly: In your opinion, how many trees need to be planted to offset the CO2 from burning one tree? And how many for one that decomposes naturally?
One each, if you do it continuously. Assume a tree takes 20 years to reach maturity. If you plant a piece of land with trees every year for 20 years, after those 20 years you can harvest the oldest trees annually.
People usually don’t do this. But this natural cycle also exists in nature.
C
chand198615 Jul 2022 08:15Deliverer schrieb:
Correction: "planted 50 years ago" No!
What I actually meant is that the argument about the CO2 balance from burning renewable raw materials requires a defined time frame. For practical reasons, let’s assume 1 year.
Then I would have to calculate how many newly planted trees in 1 year absorb as much CO2 as a 50-year-old tree releases when burned. That would make the argument internally consistent.
You can tell from the conditional mood that I don’t consider this practical. That’s because it means a very large number of new trees, which no one is planting in that quantity.
On the other hand, decay releases CO2 roughly as quickly as absorption by new growth, again calculated over 1 year.
C
chand198615 Jul 2022 08:19motorradsilke schrieb:
One each, if you do it continuously. This is a common misconception (no offense intended).
This approach would maintain the number of trees, but during the first period up to the trees’ harvesting age (several decades), it would release additional CO2 into the atmosphere and afterwards would no longer capture as much.
Overall, there would actually be less total tree biomass afterwards, since there are fewer mature trees and more young ones.
From a CO2 emissions perspective, the argument does not hold. Explanation is given in the reply to @Deliverer above.
M
motorradsilke15 Jul 2022 08:23Deliverer schrieb:
Correction: "planted 50 years ago"
Although this is a simplification – a proper forest needs 500 years to effectively capture CO2. This requires the trees to decompose on site for the process to work. If trees are removed from the forest, the forest dies and the carbon storage capacity of the managed forest drops to nearly zero.
Why does this need to be proven again in every second "energy" thread? It’s stated daily in various (non-Springer) media outlets... Because, like with everything, the scale matters.
It’s certainly neither feasible nor sensible to heat all households with wood right now. But it is a transitional alternative for some to avoid having to sit in the cold due to failed policies. Energy won’t be sufficient for everyone next winter if Russia really stops gas deliveries. Not everyone can install photovoltaic systems that quickly. Therefore, wood is a reasonable interim solution.
M
motorradsilke15 Jul 2022 08:24chand1986 schrieb:
This is a common misconception (no offense intended).
It would maintain the number of trees, but during the first period until the trees reach maturity—which can take several decades—it would actually release additional CO2 into the atmosphere and then no longer absorb as much afterward.
Overall, there is less tree biomass afterward because there are fewer old trees and more young ones.
From a CO2 emissions perspective, this argument does not hold. Explanation is given in the response to @Deliverer just above. Why would it release more CO2 if you only plant trees over the first 20 years until they reach harvest age?
In der Ruine15 Jul 2022 08:27chand1986 schrieb:
Oil and coal were once wood or living organisms that formed over a few decades, just as they do today. Therefore, during those few decades, CO2 was absorbed, just like wood absorbs CO2 as it grows today.
The fact that it was transformed over millions of years and then stored for millions more does not change that. The CO2 was already absorbed beforehand. You are forgetting something crucial. Yes, it grew in a few years and absorbed CO2. However, this process took place over millions of years. The enormous quantities of fossil fuels that we now burn carelessly represent CO2 that was absorbed millions of years ago. They are trapped sunlight from millions of years ago. And now, in just decades, we are releasing this solar energy and massive amounts of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Therefore, the expected ice age does not occur, and we face the consequences of climate change.Similar topics