Zero emissions a confidence trick
THE current climate debate centres on net zero emissions (NZE), which is promoted as achieving a balance between emissions and emissions removed from the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, NZE is a confidence trick, a deception. It is about playing politics and the UK and Europe seeking economic advantages.
Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has pledged that a Labor federal government will commit Australia to achieving NZE.
Albanese cites the United Kingdom and European Union as examples, and attacks the Morrison government for not committing Australia to the same emission objectives.
We can debate the issues of climate change, the effects, the causes, the impacts of human activity etc, but no reasonable person could support NZE whereby emissions will substantially increase while being told they are zero.
An example is the Drax coalfired power station in North Yorkshire, which was built in the 1970s. It is the UK’S largest power station (4000MW) that generates 7 per cent of the country’s power supply.
By switching from burning coal to burning imported wood pellets, Drax is now a “renewable” power station with zero emissions. It is still generating 7 per cent of the UK’S power supply.
In 2009 the EU classified biomass, including wood pellets, as not only “renewable” but also as “zero emissions”.
So successful was this confidence trick that by 2021, biomass accounts for 60 per cent of the EU’S renewable energy.
The truth is that burning wood pellets substantially increases emissions.
You need to burn 1.5 tonnes of wood pellets to generate the same heat as 1 tonne of coal.
The EU claims that emissions from burning wood pellets release carbon but trees absorb carbon so there is a neutral carbon cycle. The fact that trees are being cut down to make the wood pellets is ignored.
The EU falsely claims that wood pellets are made from only carbon-neutral waste timber. The truth is that currently more than 50 per cent of wood pellets are made from trees that are not suitable for milling.
Prior to the growth in demand for wood pellets, the trees that were unsuitable for milling would not have been felled. They would have been left to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
The demand for wood pellets in 2000 was 2Mt. By 2027, forecast demand is 26Mt. Emissions are increasing. More and more trees are being felled.
In North Carolina, US, 50-yearold oak trees are being felled to supply the EU’S ever-increasing wood pellet demand.
This is claimed to be sustainable and net zero emissions, as they are replaced with saplings. It will take another 50 years for saplings to grow and absorb the annual emissions from burning mature trees.
An essential difference between wood and coal is that coal does not require the large-scale felling of trees.
If Drax had converted to being a modern ultra-supercritical HELE coal plant, its emissions would have reduced by 40 per cent.
Fewer trees would need to be felled year-on-year, and the same number of new trees could still be planted. Then you would have real reduction in emissions.
Emissions are emissions. The climate will not distinguish between emissions from coal or wood pellets.
It would distinguish between more emissions from wood pellets and fewer emissions from coal. BARRY LOWE, Kirwan.
TRAVEL TROUBLES
I RECENTLY planned a cruise overseas to New Zealand for 2022. Ambitious I know! However, I’ve been Covid immunised since May.
I booked the cruise and paid a deposit. Paid for accommodation in Brisbane pre-flights. Booked flights. Organised insurance. Then I receive an email the cruise is cancelled. Because there is no end date in Queensland to the borders opening.
A touch ironic is that the cruise is fully refundable, the hotel fully refundable. Jetstar won’t refund anything but I can change flights and still go to Brisbane at least. The travel insurance wouldn’t cover the flights anyway and when I cancelled the policy, I lost approximately $70 to Medibank travel insurance.
There’s a certain irony to losing money to the organisation that is supposed to protect you from losing money. Thanks for nothing Medibank Insurance. It is as little value for money as its private health insurance (which I’m also going to cancel).