Hi friends! The fact that we are burning trees on such an enormous scale has honestly struck me. Why is it so difficult to use our planet's resources wisely? This is a question that my colleague Philip has also been grappling with - in the case of the Nile, Egypt's lifeline, which is drying up more and more: ruclips.net/video/WKCW5Gg6Ffo/видео.html
Because people make their energy decisions with their emotions instead of the numbers. We could avoid all this with nuclear power but people are scared of what they don't understand and its hard to explain because science literacy is so god damn poor.
The saddest part is that these pellets were supposed to be a way to use waste material from the lumber industry. The fact that live trees are being destroyed for this makes it an utter tragedy.
I know where I live in Canada that’s exactly where the pellets come from. All the pellets being maid is from waste products from all the sawmills around. I agree cutting down trees solely for wood pellets it’s an absolutely horrible idea.
@@TheogRahoomie But for what I know most Canadians burn natural gas for heating. I guess wood pellets are mainly used for BBQs? And a pellet burning BBQ is definitely not cheap at all, the cheapest you can get is a propane BBQ, then charcoal, then pellets at premium prices. So in Canada there is not a great incentive to burn pellets for heating. Even wood stoves have fell in popularity and some people like my neighbour mostly burns what he can get from fallen branches and tress that had to be removed around the neighbourhood. It is appalling that this is happening in Europe, but as always when the public doesn't know what is going on unscrupulous companies can destroy whatever they can get a hold on.
Regardless of what trees are used, it is still a renewable resource. Trees can grow back, after all. And if this is such a danger, why not complain about other "wasteful" wood uses, like paper or furniture? In the end, it seem the authors are more concerned over trees than can be re-planted over people freezing during the cold months of the year.
Should have went to nuclear power. Most of Europe is not prone to large earthquakes or tsunamis, so it's one of the safest, cleanest and most efficient energy sources around.
@Rex Colubra’s All-Animal Channel Have you actually looked at the issue critically? Modern plants use up most of the radioactive material, about 99% of it. The little bit of waste that remains can now be buried on site several miles underground in small amounts, sealed up in a way that prevents leakage. Go look up the problems with recycling solar panels and wind turbines. And how the waste created by rare earth metals which are essential to solar panels.
@Rex Colubra’s All-Animal Channel if you'd read my comment you have noticed I said "not prone to major earthquakes or tsunamis". Northern and Eastern Europe don't get either of those, neither does much of the Iberian Peninsula.
@Rex Colubra’s All-Animal Channel you do realize Chernobyl was a poorly built obsolete design that was never used again, and it only failed that badly because of human error at all levels, right? And what should we use for energy?
@Rex Colubra’s All-Animal Channel you brought up Fukishima. The ONLY reason it failed was because it got hit by a major earthquake and then a massive tsunami. One or the other and it would have been shut down safely and later restarted with almost no problems.
The folks i know that use pellets for heat do not use it on a massive scale like this, they get their wood from already fallen trees, dead trees or they recycle wood products like old broken furniture and would never cut down live trees.
it doesn't change the fact that that carbon is being put straight back into the atmosphere rather than being locked away in soils, flora and fauna. It's also extremely toxic. Burning waste wood is the worst type of wood to burn for your health. You aren't allowed to burn waste wood and wood that been used for furniture even in the UK the only wood you are allowed to burn is kiln dried wood which add massively to the carbon footprint of that wood! Remember also that the soot from burning wood is millions of times more potent a greenhouse gas the CO2 and even when you average that out over 100 years it's still 1000's of times more warming than CO2. Add to that when that soot lands on surfaces it increases the earth's albedo warming the planet still further. If that surface is a glacier then the impact is even worse!
Never does it cease to deject. Though, I personally need to extend a greater empathy for those in places that experience real cold come winter -- where I am, I don't ever have need of a heater at all.
It reminds me humans are tropical animals, we should live in warmer places to avoid using more energy. The colder a place is, the more energy people need.
Oh, people are burning wood for the imagined 'cozyness' of it even if it's not cold. They burn plenty of wood in California, Florida, Texas, Australia, the middle east, Spain.... Even a hot summer doesn't stop people burning wood they do it for recreation. Firepits and BBQ's. I have friends in the America and Australia that complain the minute winter is over the Firepits and garden bonfires start. It's relentless! The BS that it's perfectly healthy and green has got to stop!
I think the key in the short term is energy efficiency. Good insulation, smart use of cooking heat as house heat also, and a rapid move from individuals towards green energy. Let's face it, governments and capitalism likes to walk the fine line of just in time and too late.
We need regulation more than individual action. Consumer energy use in the EU hovers at a little under 25% of total energy use, which is definitely a healthy chunk but individuals can only do so much (Having a certain baseline need), and there will always be people that won't voluntarily reduce energy use. Rather than trying to herd millions of cats, it's much easier and more cost-effective to target Industry and Transport. That isn't to say individual action is pointless (Like it almost is with water issues), but we need to prioritize targets. We should all think about using less energy where possible, but also pressure governments to regulate energy production and use more strongly.
the UK Tory government set up an agreement with DRAX and American company giving them £4M a DAY to burn wood!!!! I'm hoping the labour party nationalise the UK energy companies ASAP so this can stop before the contract renewal in 2027
Europeans seemed to be well in protecting and promoting its little remaining wild spaces. Unfortunate that they are reverting back to “Business as usual”
I really liked the way you presented the largest issue of "renewable" biomass, and I totally agree, that we should stop subsidizing the destruction of old forests, but I cannot aggree with the proposed solution. 9:15 "We need to invest in trully renewable sources" 9:20 "This is maybe Europe's great chance to shift its subsidies to solar and windpower" Here is the issue. Solar and wind are unreliable. They cannot replace reliable power. They can only REDUCE the usage of fossil fuels but never REPLACE it. That's the reason, Germany got addicted to cheap Russian gas. When the sun goes down and the wind does not blow enough, you need something for backup and that's fossil gas, coal and burning pelleted forests. If you did not hear about "Dunkelflaute" please google it. We also need more energy in the winter, when solar hardly delivers anything. To get rid of fossil fuels, we neeed RELIABLE renewable power sources like hydro and geothermal. They can REPLACE fossil fuels as they work 24/7/365. Unfortunatelly not every country has enough rivers and not every country sits on top of a magma intrusion like Iceland. The next best thing is sustainable but not renewable energy sources like nuclear. Sustainable, because with breeder reactors, we have enough uranium and thorium on planet Earth to power the whole world for about 4000-5000 million years. That should be enough, as the sun will boil away the seas and blow away Earth atmosphere in about 500 million years. Btw, solar and wind are also not renewable, because the Sun (which is the biggest nuclear power plant in our solar system) will eventually run out of hydrogen. 9:30 "Leave trees in the forest, where they belong" - I am 1000% with you on this.
Amazing and informative video as always Terra Mater! Green-washing by politics as usual As long as we have profit based system it's practically impossible to change focus to sustainability
Harvesting is very important to sustainable forest management. If the forest was left to itself the trees would die unused and release CO2 into the environment. Clear cuts in the United States are mainly pine plantations that are managed by professional foresters. It a process that takes at least 20 years. After the first five years pine straw can be harvested, then after 16 years the pine stand is thinned, and "pulpwood" is harvested. That pulpwood is used to make paper products. After 20 years the pine plantation is harvested in a "clear cut". Those logs are mostly used in sawmills. Logs that cannot be used to make lumber are chipped to make other products. Those pictures of harvested forest in NC were recently harvested at the time of the footage being taken. A farm does not look good when it is first tilled. Go back in five years and you will see a new vigorous forest growing. Young forest also consumes more CO2 than old forest.
Biomass pellets are a very interesting idea, the problem is that the scale we need them exceeds the limit of "green energy." If we expand the usable materials for biomass pellets to include agricultural waste, wood waste, and as much comparable material as possible it could become a viable green fuel for 1/10 of the current demand.
Solar (night, clouds, high latitudes) and wind (geographically variable) are not practical in some locations. Strict regulations could go some way to ensuring that only waste (which would otherwise release CO2 during decay) is used in the manufacture of pellets. Pending fusion energy, only nuclear will fill the gap.
Solar and wind are not good for the environment. Just because it's hard to calculate what is its impact it does not mean its good or "green". I'm not going to focus on their reliability just the fact they are both not recyclable and take huge swaths of land while wind also being dependent on fossil fuels (lubricant). While we are developing better technologies we should not delude ourselves that these options are " truly renewable energy sources".
@@TheAndro5 Agreed, though the alternatives range from green through to "black". We need as many green-as-possible alternatives --- not one modification, as the video implies. My point was that different energy modalities are more suitable in some locations.
Really a shame that nuclear power is so marginalized in these discussions. Liberals and conservatives alike find aspects of it distasteful, but considering how robust an energy source nuclear is relative to its emissions, serious investment into maintaining and adding such power plants is warranted.
@@austintrousdale2397 I agree. People have difficulty accurately assessing risk. As a result, clickbait scaremongering about waste, faulty old Russian engineering at Chernobyl, and a major earthquake and tsunami near Fukushima will leave paranoid populations afraid for generations. It doesn't help that assuring safety is expensive and time-consuming for full-scale facilities. Meanwhile, newer, quicker options will not even be considered.
One thing I've always been curious of is how much glue, chemicals end up in those pellets. Also. If you're going to cut timber, then you need to have a nursery full of from 5 to 10 yr old specimens in burlap, ready to be planted in their place. This practice of planting little saplings or waiting for nature to regenerate is ignorant.
No chemicals needed for pellet production pressure when making heats up the pellets which then liquifies the lignin in the wood which then acts as a binder, sometimes depending on feedstock you add corn starch as a binder.
I did the maths a few years ago and there just isn't enough land on the planet to make wood sustainable. Let alone it being extremely bad your health to burn wood. Why would anyone think that burning tobacco is bad for your health but burning a different plant material is perfectly fine when the same waste products are being produces. Wood is way, way worse than tobacco and there's a LOT more wood smoke than tobacco smoke and your inflicting that smoke and LOT more neighbours.
As far as the US goes, for the most part the reporter is right we have land dedicated to logging that is stripped every 60 years or so. I'm not going to say illegal logging doesn't happen and that some states are getting it worse then others, but illegal logging is difficult to do here. There is no conflict of interest as far as logging goes but there can be back door deals which would produce illegal logging. One of the reason CA has some of the strictest laws on trees is because of illegal logging and the constant fight to protect the red-woods even to today. PS. there are also other fire pellets that don't use wood such as hemp pellets. Not a long term solution but it could help in the meantime.
Export the Azure, Chat GPT, Revit, Plant 3D, Civil 3D, Inventor, ENGI file of the Building or Refinery to Excel, prepare Budget 1 and export it to COBRA. Prepare Budget 2 and export it to Microsoft Project. Solve the problems of Overallocated Resources, Planning Problems, prepare the Budget 3 with which the construction of the Building or the Refinery is going to be quoted.
Additionally, burning wood pellets relieses huge amount of air pollutants (especially particulate matter which affect public health directly). It is thought that on average burning wood pellets release as much air poluttants as burning gas or oil. Thus, biomass can only be a transitional energy source that should be replaced by green electricity as soon as possible. We should begin by pushing biomass burning out of major urban centers where air pollutants concentration is the highest.
Only for the record, the City of Vienna/Austria produces methane gas from waste and sells it to customers as LPG, with the small difference that methane gas has less heat output than LPG, so customers have to consume more, and all that is named legal
Ya sorry but anything that uses wood even homes can never be considered co2 storage or green energy. Yes we use houses and call em co2 storage from the wood inside. Im sorry but no you do more harm cutting them down then not cutting the trees at all. Oh ya anyone remember the industrial revolution ya guess what they used for energy yep trees and coal and they literally blacked out the sun doing this and acid rain was normal like water ph of 1 to 3 was normal at that time. Ps rain water should be 5 to 6 on the ph scale sometimes you see it at 4 around citys today.
One has to be truly retarded an live outside this world to forget all that. I was trully struck to hear someone having to explain such basic and common sense facts, it is like explaining that 2+2=4 and still people believe this nonsense of co2 storage and woodburning as something green, wtf!, seriously wtf, It is beyond imaginable, i have no words.
If a forest is protected as Natura 2000 it does NOT mean that it is forbidden to harvest wood there and I think it’s in general OK, sure there are some exceptions. This should be mentioned.
The simple fact is you are using the carbon stored in oxygen giving trees to create a fuel which creates more carbon when burnt, and by burning fossil fuels to transport it round the world creating even more carbon so how on earth was that ever thought of as green?
Thank you very much for your mighty fine citizen journalism🙇♀️ critiquing our own governments which r meant to represent us is a productive use for our hard earned free speech, and the future generations will only thank us for speaking up❤️
You didn't even talk about pellets made out of hemp, hay, cereal straws. You didn't talk about fertilizers used to grow these crops and how they are produced with fossil fuel energy. That would've been more interesting. Do you support nuclear at least?
God helps those that help themselves. Amen! It's time to get busy! Using efficient vertical hydroponic growing systems in climate controlled buildings from heat sinks for cheap AC & heat. The initial cost high but pays for itself in 2-5 yrs. And use wind or solar to power fans for the system considering ever increasing electric costs &/or availability. Also for outdoor crops - using efficient drip irrigation & drought tolerate plants to grow more food on less land with less water - "increase water use efficiency by up to 43% and yield by 8%-15%" - (The Drought in Numbers 2022 report). This could be even more efficient by creating huge greenhouses with heat sinks & containing beehives & butterflies for pollination. It would also stop locusts & other insects & help control the spread of plant diseases. Smoking not allowed on the premises, hand washing before entering facilities & fabric booties over shoes to stop tobacco mosaic disease which affects many plants. Check out growing oranges in Nebraska regarding heat sink information. Deforestation = less plant respiration = less humidity = less rain! Stop the bullshit Brazil! Leave the rain forest alone! IT'S CALLED A "RAIN FOREST" FOR A REASON!!!!
I'm surprised you didn't mention the bark beetle and its devastating effect on spruces across Europe in the past years. Although the footage you showed was (at least partially) not of these trees, in Germany, this is the main reason for big cut down areas in forests and even national parks like the Harz. Secondly, I liked your explanation on CO2 debt of burning wood. But how is that "worse" than coal? This point didn't really come across well enough (and so far I actually still believe coal to be worse). Lastly, I found this video to be extremely fast cut and don't think this always benefits your story as I find it distracting in parts.
im just speculating but would the carbon debt release + the average lost absorptive power of the downed tree be comparable to coal in terms of CO2 presence in atmosphere? i wouldn’t know
@@j4ckoe I don't think so. Coal was made from ancient trees over millions of years and the carbon that was in those trees became highly concentrated and stuck underground. Meaning, that carbon was removed from the cycle for millions of years before we began introducing it back into the environment. This kind of carbon debt release is much more concerning because we are increasing the total active carbon on the planet's surface and atmosphere. Burning trees releases carbon that was already relatively recently in the atmosphere (50-150 years), while coal carbon was safely locked in the Earth's crust since long before dinosaurs.
The problem is not what we use or how much we use but how many of us is using it. We are in an over stocked aquarium. No matter how much feeding control implemented or how much water changes or how powerful is the filter, there's no saving an over stocked aquarium.
Would you consider biomass cultivated and harvested for pellets on dedicated plantations - instead of from forests - a green 0% carbon energy production? at the end these plantations capture the carbon first ( making the carbon account in green ) and then burning for heat ( making the carbon account in black )
It's just not physically possible for it to be Carbon neutral. It defies the laws of physics. Entropy tells you that there's always waste. Biomass is extremely toxic as well, you can't accept that burning tobacco is bad for your health but burning a different plant matter with the same by-products is fine! It's just wilful ignorance!
wood burning is the esest cheapest way to convert a coal plant. so much so basically nothing has to change and if wood gets to costly then back to burning coal or a blend of wood and coal. it makes total sence why they did what they did. see it all the time in the usa in paper mills given in there case bark is a waste product anways. but stoker boiler fluidesd bed boilers and blown fuel all ezly convert or no mods necessary. why spend the money to build new plants when just change the fuel far cheaper way to do it. the other rub is ancient forests aren't healthy forests. they do have to be thind or in sum cases clear cut. so new growth can happen. building homes ironically is the greenest thing can do with wood as it locks the carbon away for aslong as the house, building stands. and that could be century's.
Not sure how much of an impact it is but i see a lot of people who owns a house with a garden remove the trees that grew there sometimes even before the house was build. There should be something to stop that too. I have a big garden with a huge and ancient beech and two giant pines so i know they lead to a lot of work but if we all do our part i have the hope that future generations might be able to walk around outside without an oxygen mask on.
I hate the idea of green grass lawns. They are a waste of water and that area would be better utilized by planting local shrubs and plants that help the wildlife ecosystem and if planned, bring some food to the people as well 🙂
You might not know this but the world has more trees today than it did 30 years ago. In the northern hemisphere, the tree cover has been expanding for decades. The only receding forests are tropical forests and even then there have been measures to curb logging. Brazil for instance has 30% of its land area protected, the tropical forests in Brazil, unlike popular misconceptions, are quite protected, there are large areas protected by massive nature reserves.
Many of them are (long time ago) replanted or commercial timberland if not there are fast growing woods. Or landscapes where it wouldn't be good to have many trees. Plus now it's more difficult to find trees that would grow with so few rain and higher temperatures. Many of the old forests which have hundred years old trees are dying. Many srudies try to find better tree mixes for the future.
@@Someone-wg3pv Tree cover has expended in europe the past 30 years and what you said about the temperatures and droughts is laughable lol neither of which have been occurring more than average. There's been a cooling trend since 2012 according to temperature data. Climate alarmists have never managed to predict anything with any semblance of accuracy, literally all climate predictions the past 50 years have been wrong.
As a forest owner no one will prohibid me using my own firewood for my home heating. That is more sustainable than transporting another energy source from fare away.
I cannot stand people that talk without facts. Just because Romania might be cutting down trees to make pellets, doesn;t mean the rest of the world does the same. In North America, we are very strict in using sustainable sources. Also, commentators that believe glue and chemicals go into making a pellet, is pure ignorance. Do your homework people!
There is so much wrong in the information presented. Biomass is carbon neutral and not green. Coal is locked up carbon that cannot be recaptured. Biomass is neutral if not green when trees are planted in excess of those burnt, there are even limits to how far biomass can travel before it is no longer green. Keep up the lie that solar is ‘green’ it’s ok if we sacrifice the vitality of the people who live in the mined countries. Look at Congo and the damage solar panel and battery production has inflicted. The creator of these videos has never left her tended garden. Biomass can be used to capture carbon if access to North Africa for plantations was permitted but there seems to be a whole conspiracy behind why that is not possible. There is no such thing as sustainable, we are more likely to go extinct from a foreign object entering our atmosphere. The younger dryas is the perfect example. Our only hope is that we accept pro-environment policies that allow us to terraform the planet and stabilize it to a comfortable level. Our biggest threat is from the outside. We must not be afraid of change, it is too late to undo the damage, victor schauberger predicted we would eliminate all old growth before the end of the century, he was not wrong (source, VS our senseless toil). Romania is not Europe and does not follow the same regulations for forestry protection (not that Europe has any left since ship building, what happened to the Black Forest?) Europe’s energy reserves are full, biomass prices will fall by Q1 23.
Hi friends! The fact that we are burning trees on such an enormous scale has honestly struck me. Why is it so difficult to use our planet's resources wisely? This is a question that my colleague Philip has also been grappling with - in the case of the Nile, Egypt's lifeline, which is drying up more and more: ruclips.net/video/WKCW5Gg6Ffo/видео.html
Nuclear power is the Future
Because people make their energy decisions with their emotions instead of the numbers. We could avoid all this with nuclear power but people are scared of what they don't understand and its hard to explain because science literacy is so god damn poor.
Occam's razor says global overpopulation.
Economy based on growth.
I thought germany were once a pioneer in renewable energy......I remembered watching bloomberg news on it a decade ago or so.
The saddest part is that these pellets were supposed to be a way to use waste material from the lumber industry. The fact that live trees are being destroyed for this makes it an utter tragedy.
Totally, it's a great solution, if we make it right!
Companies must be penalized for these actions!!!!
I know where I live in Canada that’s exactly where the pellets come from. All the pellets being maid is from waste products from all the sawmills around. I agree cutting down trees solely for wood pellets it’s an absolutely horrible idea.
@@TheogRahoomie But for what I know most Canadians burn natural gas for heating. I guess wood pellets are mainly used for BBQs? And a pellet burning BBQ is definitely not cheap at all, the cheapest you can get is a propane BBQ, then charcoal, then pellets at premium prices. So in Canada there is not a great incentive to burn pellets for heating. Even wood stoves have fell in popularity and some people like my neighbour mostly burns what he can get from fallen branches and tress that had to be removed around the neighbourhood. It is appalling that this is happening in Europe, but as always when the public doesn't know what is going on unscrupulous companies can destroy whatever they can get a hold on.
ppl dying isnot tragedy? this war is our foult
Regardless of what trees are used, it is still a renewable resource. Trees can grow back, after all. And if this is such a danger, why not complain about other "wasteful" wood uses, like paper or furniture? In the end, it seem the authors are more concerned over trees than can be re-planted over people freezing during the cold months of the year.
Should have went to nuclear power.
Most of Europe is not prone to large earthquakes or tsunamis, so it's one of the safest, cleanest and most efficient energy sources around.
@RexColubrasAllAnimalChannel Like you have any better alternatives.
@Rex Colubra’s All-Animal Channel Have you actually looked at the issue critically?
Modern plants use up most of the radioactive material, about 99% of it. The little bit of waste that remains can now be buried on site several miles underground in small amounts, sealed up in a way that prevents leakage.
Go look up the problems with recycling solar panels and wind turbines. And how the waste created by rare earth metals which are essential to solar panels.
@Rex Colubra’s All-Animal Channel if you'd read my comment you have noticed I said "not prone to major earthquakes or tsunamis".
Northern and Eastern Europe don't get either of those, neither does much of the Iberian Peninsula.
@Rex Colubra’s All-Animal Channel you do realize Chernobyl was a poorly built obsolete design that was never used again, and it only failed that badly because of human error at all levels, right?
And what should we use for energy?
@Rex Colubra’s All-Animal Channel you brought up Fukishima.
The ONLY reason it failed was because it got hit by a major earthquake and then a massive tsunami. One or the other and it would have been shut down safely and later restarted with almost no problems.
The folks i know that use pellets for heat do not use it on a massive scale like this, they get their wood from already fallen trees, dead trees or they recycle wood products like old broken furniture and would never cut down live trees.
it doesn't change the fact that that carbon is being put straight back into the atmosphere rather than being locked away in soils, flora and fauna. It's also extremely toxic. Burning waste wood is the worst type of wood to burn for your health. You aren't allowed to burn waste wood and wood that been used for furniture even in the UK the only wood you are allowed to burn is kiln dried wood which add massively to the carbon footprint of that wood! Remember also that the soot from burning wood is millions of times more potent a greenhouse gas the CO2 and even when you average that out over 100 years it's still 1000's of times more warming than CO2. Add to that when that soot lands on surfaces it increases the earth's albedo warming the planet still further. If that surface is a glacier then the impact is even worse!
Never does it cease to deject. Though, I personally need to extend a greater empathy for those in places that experience real cold come winter -- where I am, I don't ever have need of a heater at all.
It reminds me humans are tropical animals, we should live in warmer places to avoid using more energy. The colder a place is, the more energy people need.
Oh, people are burning wood for the imagined 'cozyness' of it even if it's not cold. They burn plenty of wood in California, Florida, Texas, Australia, the middle east, Spain.... Even a hot summer doesn't stop people burning wood they do it for recreation. Firepits and BBQ's. I have friends in the America and Australia that complain the minute winter is over the Firepits and garden bonfires start. It's relentless! The BS that it's perfectly healthy and green has got to stop!
I think the key in the short term is energy efficiency. Good insulation, smart use of cooking heat as house heat also, and a rapid move from individuals towards green energy. Let's face it, governments and capitalism likes to walk the fine line of just in time and too late.
We need regulation more than individual action. Consumer energy use in the EU hovers at a little under 25% of total energy use, which is definitely a healthy chunk but individuals can only do so much (Having a certain baseline need), and there will always be people that won't voluntarily reduce energy use. Rather than trying to herd millions of cats, it's much easier and more cost-effective to target Industry and Transport.
That isn't to say individual action is pointless (Like it almost is with water issues), but we need to prioritize targets. We should all think about using less energy where possible, but also pressure governments to regulate energy production and use more strongly.
Go nuclear! This is one more reason.
We cannot afford to support a UK on a war economy with our forests in UK Biomass Energy production.
the UK Tory government set up an agreement with DRAX and American company giving them £4M a DAY to burn wood!!!! I'm hoping the labour party nationalise the UK energy companies ASAP so this can stop before the contract renewal in 2027
Europeans seemed to be well in protecting and promoting its little remaining wild spaces. Unfortunate that they are reverting back to “Business as usual”
It's sad
Bring back cleaner stuff like natural gas if your think co2 gained it’s super powers since 1940 .
Maybe they shouldn't have sanctioned Russia.
Hemp waste hurds make great pellets and produce 4x biomass of trees on a annual basis per Ha.
still as toxic as smoking cigarettes. Still produce pm2.5's that are millions of times more warming as a green house gas than CO2!
I really liked the way you presented the largest issue of "renewable" biomass, and I totally agree, that we should stop subsidizing the destruction of old forests, but I cannot aggree with the proposed solution.
9:15 "We need to invest in trully renewable sources"
9:20 "This is maybe Europe's great chance to shift its subsidies to solar and windpower"
Here is the issue. Solar and wind are unreliable. They cannot replace reliable power. They can only REDUCE the usage of fossil fuels but never REPLACE it.
That's the reason, Germany got addicted to cheap Russian gas. When the sun goes down and the wind does not blow enough, you need something for backup and that's fossil gas, coal and burning pelleted forests.
If you did not hear about "Dunkelflaute" please google it.
We also need more energy in the winter, when solar hardly delivers anything.
To get rid of fossil fuels, we neeed RELIABLE renewable power sources like hydro and geothermal.
They can REPLACE fossil fuels as they work 24/7/365.
Unfortunatelly not every country has enough rivers and not every country sits on top of a magma intrusion like Iceland.
The next best thing is sustainable but not renewable energy sources like nuclear.
Sustainable, because with breeder reactors, we have enough uranium and thorium on planet Earth to power the whole world for about 4000-5000 million years.
That should be enough, as the sun will boil away the seas and blow away Earth atmosphere in about 500 million years.
Btw, solar and wind are also not renewable, because the Sun (which is the biggest nuclear power plant in our solar system) will eventually run out of hydrogen.
9:30 "Leave trees in the forest, where they belong" - I am 1000% with you on this.
We are indeed looking at nuclear energy, stay tuned to learn more about it!
Thanks for the feedback and for watching!
Very well done! Thank you for publishing this video and mentioning our partner NGO and us!
Hi EuroNatur! Thank you for the support and for watching it! 🙌
Amazing and informative video as always Terra Mater! Green-washing by politics as usual As long as we have profit based system it's practically impossible to change focus to sustainability
Thanks for the feedback and for watching!
Harvesting is very important to sustainable forest management. If the forest was left to itself the trees would die unused and release CO2 into the environment. Clear cuts in the United States are mainly pine plantations that are managed by professional foresters. It a process that takes at least 20 years. After the first five years pine straw can be harvested, then after 16 years the pine stand is thinned, and "pulpwood" is harvested. That pulpwood is used to make paper products. After 20 years the pine plantation is harvested in a "clear cut". Those logs are mostly used in sawmills. Logs that cannot be used to make lumber are chipped to make other products. Those pictures of harvested forest in NC were recently harvested at the time of the footage being taken. A farm does not look good when it is first tilled. Go back in five years and you will see a new vigorous forest growing. Young forest also consumes more CO2 than old forest.
Hi Elijah!
We also have a video about that, you can check it out: ruclips.net/video/24NpPjo8T4I/видео.html
Nuclear power would help immensely.
Biomass pellets are a very interesting idea, the problem is that the scale we need them exceeds the limit of "green energy." If we expand the usable materials for biomass pellets to include agricultural waste, wood waste, and as much comparable material as possible it could become a viable green fuel for 1/10 of the current demand.
I love this channel, I learn something new every time a new video comes out. Thank you Terra Mater for making educational and entertaining videos.
Hi Steve!
We're so happy to hear that! Thanks for watching our videos and giving us feedback 😊
Solar (night, clouds, high latitudes) and wind (geographically variable) are not practical in some locations. Strict regulations could go some way to ensuring that only waste (which would otherwise release CO2 during decay) is used in the manufacture of pellets. Pending fusion energy, only nuclear will fill the gap.
Solar and wind are not good for the environment. Just because it's hard to calculate what is its impact it does not mean its good or "green". I'm not going to focus on their reliability just the fact they are both not recyclable and take huge swaths of land while wind also being dependent on fossil fuels (lubricant). While we are developing better technologies we should not delude ourselves that these options are " truly renewable energy sources".
@@TheAndro5 Agreed, though the alternatives range from green through to "black". We need as many green-as-possible alternatives --- not one modification, as the video implies. My point was that different energy modalities are more suitable in some locations.
Really a shame that nuclear power is so marginalized in these discussions. Liberals and conservatives alike find aspects of it distasteful, but considering how robust an energy source nuclear is relative to its emissions, serious investment into maintaining and adding such power plants is warranted.
@@austintrousdale2397 I agree. People have difficulty accurately assessing risk. As a result, clickbait scaremongering about waste, faulty old Russian engineering at Chernobyl, and a major earthquake and tsunami near Fukushima will leave paranoid populations afraid for generations. It doesn't help that assuring safety is expensive and time-consuming for full-scale facilities. Meanwhile, newer, quicker options will not even be considered.
One thing I've always been curious of is how much glue, chemicals end up in those pellets.
Also.
If you're going to cut timber, then you need to have a nursery full of from 5 to 10 yr old specimens in burlap, ready to be planted in their place. This practice of planting little saplings or waiting for nature to regenerate is ignorant.
No chemicals needed for pellet production pressure when making heats up the pellets which then liquifies the lignin in the wood which then acts as a binder, sometimes depending on feedstock you add corn starch as a binder.
I did the maths a few years ago and there just isn't enough land on the planet to make wood sustainable. Let alone it being extremely bad your health to burn wood. Why would anyone think that burning tobacco is bad for your health but burning a different plant material is perfectly fine when the same waste products are being produces. Wood is way, way worse than tobacco and there's a LOT more wood smoke than tobacco smoke and your inflicting that smoke and LOT more neighbours.
As far as the US goes, for the most part the reporter is right we have land dedicated to logging that is stripped every 60 years or so. I'm not going to say illegal logging doesn't happen and that some states are getting it worse then others, but illegal logging is difficult to do here. There is no conflict of interest as far as logging goes but there can be back door deals which would produce illegal logging. One of the reason CA has some of the strictest laws on trees is because of illegal logging and the constant fight to protect the red-woods even to today.
PS. there are also other fire pellets that don't use wood such as hemp pellets. Not a long term solution but it could help in the meantime.
Thanks for the input!
Another great and informative video! Thank you Terra Mater!
Thanks for watching, Bryce!
@@terramater anytime!
Nuclear energy is the answer
We’re currently working on a video about this topic 😊
Forget all the BS, the real problem is and always has been greed.
This excatly what means to let future generation to deal with the problem
Export the Azure, Chat GPT, Revit, Plant 3D, Civil 3D, Inventor, ENGI file of the Building or Refinery to Excel, prepare Budget 1 and export it to COBRA. Prepare Budget 2 and export it to Microsoft Project. Solve the problems of Overallocated Resources, Planning Problems, prepare the Budget 3 with which the construction of the Building or the Refinery is going to be quoted.
Additionally, burning wood pellets relieses huge amount of air pollutants (especially particulate matter which affect public health directly). It is thought that on average burning wood pellets release as much air poluttants as burning gas or oil. Thus, biomass can only be a transitional energy source that should be replaced by green electricity as soon as possible. We should begin by pushing biomass burning out of major urban centers where air pollutants concentration is the highest.
Want kind of clean energy? Don't tell me wind and solar because that's dumb
That's why I love nuclear!
Only for the record, the City of Vienna/Austria produces methane gas from waste and sells it to customers as LPG, with the small difference that methane gas has less heat output than LPG, so customers have to consume more, and all that is named legal
Its a miniscule amount.
powerful videos. I wish this channel get viewed by every human on earth
We too, Danial :D
Depressing, but thank you for the Video.
It's sad, thanks for watching!
Ya sorry but anything that uses wood even homes can never be considered co2 storage or green energy.
Yes we use houses and call em co2 storage from the wood inside.
Im sorry but no you do more harm cutting them down then not cutting the trees at all.
Oh ya anyone remember the industrial revolution ya guess what they used for energy yep trees and coal and they literally blacked out the sun doing this and acid rain was normal like water ph of 1 to 3 was normal at that time.
Ps rain water should be 5 to 6 on the ph scale sometimes you see it at 4 around citys today.
One has to be truly retarded an live outside this world to forget all that. I was trully struck to hear someone having to explain such basic and common sense facts, it is like explaining that 2+2=4 and still people believe this nonsense of co2 storage and woodburning as something green, wtf!, seriously wtf, It is beyond imaginable, i have no words.
If a forest is protected as Natura 2000 it does NOT mean that it is forbidden to harvest wood there and I think it’s in general OK, sure there are some exceptions. This should be mentioned.
Awesome work :)
Hi Pranav!
Thanks for watching! :)
Our greed will bring us to extinction very soon.
Truth.
Unfortunately yes. Unless humans realize that betterment of everyone around the world is the only true way our species can survive.
Hmmmmm not really
Couldn’t they have at least made a lumber forest where they have their own trees to cut down instead of cutting down ones that are in the wild?
and the greenies call pellets green energy?
A great misunderstanding.
Directly stupid.
in what world do we live
There's a chance to make pellets from wastes, which also are an environmental hazard.
They really shouldn't be preaching to other nations
Well this is horrifying
It is!
Not to forget,, the balance of" burning "woods via lightning strikes naturally? Forest fires are also a natural phenomena? Terra nater?
Hi asley!
Exactly, forest fires many times are a natural phenomena.
Daring of you to talk about it ,👍👍
Someone had to talk about it!
Whoop! New Video!
Yep yep 🙌
Fine, I’m going back to coal to heat my home, thanks…
Net zero and "green transition" are doing great when it comes to decimate what has been left of nature.
😢
Humans are still the only way to change the system. We can figure it out. We need to put more money into investing in renewable energy development 👏
Yes, we need to stay positive!
Nuclear energy is the answer.
The simple fact is you are using the carbon stored in oxygen giving trees to create a fuel which creates more carbon when burnt, and by burning fossil fuels to transport it round the world creating even more carbon so how on earth was that ever thought of as green?
Do you know this, Terra Mater?
Please google this:
How radioactive wood from Belarus is sold across the world
Thank you very much for your mighty fine citizen journalism🙇♀️ critiquing our own governments which r meant to represent us is a productive use for our hard earned free speech, and the future generations will only thank us for speaking up❤️
Hi Akaz! Thank you for watching!
You didn't even talk about pellets made out of hemp, hay, cereal straws. You didn't talk about fertilizers used to grow these crops and how they are produced with fossil fuel energy. That would've been more interesting. Do you support nuclear at least?
God helps those that help themselves. Amen! It's time to get busy! Using efficient vertical hydroponic growing systems in climate controlled buildings from heat sinks for cheap AC & heat. The initial cost high but pays for itself in 2-5 yrs. And use wind or solar to power fans for the system considering ever increasing electric costs &/or availability. Also for outdoor crops - using efficient drip irrigation & drought tolerate plants to grow more food on less land with less water - "increase water use efficiency by up to 43% and yield by 8%-15%" - (The Drought in Numbers 2022 report). This could be even more efficient by creating huge greenhouses with heat sinks & containing beehives & butterflies for pollination. It would also stop locusts & other insects & help control the spread of plant diseases. Smoking not allowed on the premises, hand washing before entering facilities & fabric booties over shoes to stop tobacco mosaic disease which affects many plants. Check out growing oranges in Nebraska regarding heat sink information. Deforestation = less plant respiration = less humidity = less rain! Stop the bullshit Brazil! Leave the rain forest alone! IT'S CALLED A "RAIN FOREST" FOR A REASON!!!!
Follow James Hansen recommend to go Nuclear Power put a carbon tax on to be paid directly back to the public.
Thanks for spending the time to create and share this content
Hi, Zachary!
Thanks for watching! :)
I'm surprised you didn't mention the bark beetle and its devastating effect on spruces across Europe in the past years. Although the footage you showed was (at least partially) not of these trees, in Germany, this is the main reason for big cut down areas in forests and even national parks like the Harz.
Secondly, I liked your explanation on CO2 debt of burning wood. But how is that "worse" than coal? This point didn't really come across well enough (and so far I actually still believe coal to be worse).
Lastly, I found this video to be extremely fast cut and don't think this always benefits your story as I find it distracting in parts.
im just speculating but would the carbon debt release + the average lost absorptive power of the downed tree be comparable to coal in terms of CO2 presence in atmosphere? i wouldn’t know
CO2 is good, plants thrive and there's no evidence that it affects temperature
@@j4ckoe I don't think so. Coal was made from ancient trees over millions of years and the carbon that was in those trees became highly concentrated and stuck underground. Meaning, that carbon was removed from the cycle for millions of years before we began introducing it back into the environment. This kind of carbon debt release is much more concerning because we are increasing the total active carbon on the planet's surface and atmosphere. Burning trees releases carbon that was already relatively recently in the atmosphere (50-150 years), while coal carbon was safely locked in the Earth's crust since long before dinosaurs.
Human beings are hypocrites? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Yes, it's very shocking :(
The problem is not what we use or how much we use but how many of us is using it. We are in an over stocked aquarium. No matter how much feeding control implemented or how much water changes or how powerful is the filter, there's no saving an over stocked aquarium.
0:20: Well, pray to God that Putin gets the humility and sobriety needed to stop this war so he doesn’t drag Russia and the world down with him.
Allow me to share your video. Currently the world is not in a good condition.
LET'S STOP GLOBAL BOILLING
🥹 we have to take action! 💚
Something with the speech flow of the presenter is messing up my mind
Would you consider biomass cultivated and harvested for pellets on dedicated plantations - instead of from forests - a green 0% carbon energy production? at the end these plantations capture the carbon first ( making the carbon account in green ) and then burning for heat ( making the carbon account in black )
It's just not physically possible for it to be Carbon neutral. It defies the laws of physics. Entropy tells you that there's always waste. Biomass is extremely toxic as well, you can't accept that burning tobacco is bad for your health but burning a different plant matter with the same by-products is fine! It's just wilful ignorance!
wood burning is the esest cheapest way to convert a coal plant. so much so basically nothing has to change and if wood gets to costly then back to burning coal or a blend of wood and coal. it makes total sence why they did what they did. see it all the time in the usa in paper mills given in there case bark is a waste product anways. but stoker boiler fluidesd bed boilers and blown fuel all ezly convert or no mods necessary. why spend the money to build new plants when just change the fuel far cheaper way to do it.
the other rub is ancient forests aren't healthy forests. they do have to be thind or in sum cases clear cut. so new growth can happen. building homes ironically is the greenest thing can do with wood as it locks the carbon away for aslong as the house, building stands. and that could be century's.
Not sure how much of an impact it is but i see a lot of people who owns a house with a garden remove the trees that grew there sometimes even before the house was build. There should be something to stop that too. I have a big garden with a huge and ancient beech and two giant pines so i know they lead to a lot of work but if we all do our part i have the hope that future generations might be able to walk around outside without an oxygen mask on.
I hate the idea of green grass lawns. They are a waste of water and that area would be better utilized by planting local shrubs and plants that help the wildlife ecosystem and if planned, bring some food to the people as well 🙂
You might not know this but the world has more trees today than it did 30 years ago. In the northern hemisphere, the tree cover has been expanding for decades. The only receding forests are tropical forests and even then there have been measures to curb logging. Brazil for instance has 30% of its land area protected, the tropical forests in Brazil, unlike popular misconceptions, are quite protected, there are large areas protected by massive nature reserves.
@@earthling_parth Personal consumption of water accounts for 9% of water usage. The rest is agriculture and industry.
It's a shame😒
It is!
Let's use ecosia 👍🌱🌳
Nature is not a resource.
We need NUCLEAR NOW!
Hi Samuele!
We did a video exactly about that: ruclips.net/video/uCcgtM6ImGY/видео.html
Please make a video about Sweden it has the worst logging in europe.
Thanks for the suggestion!
I bet European lumber is a valued consider there's little natural forests left due to previous centuries of these woodlands being cutdown.
Many of them are (long time ago) replanted or commercial timberland if not there are fast growing woods. Or landscapes where it wouldn't be good to have many trees. Plus now it's more difficult to find trees that would grow with so few rain and higher temperatures. Many of the old forests which have hundred years old trees are dying. Many srudies try to find better tree mixes for the future.
@@Someone-wg3pv Tree cover has expended in europe the past 30 years and what you said about the temperatures and droughts is laughable lol neither of which have been occurring more than average. There's been a cooling trend since 2012 according to temperature data. Climate alarmists have never managed to predict anything with any semblance of accuracy, literally all climate predictions the past 50 years have been wrong.
As a forest owner no one will prohibid me using my own firewood for my home heating. That is more sustainable than transporting another energy source from fare away.
We understand, the problem is that many people are buying pellets without knowing its origin and consequences.
Green agriculture Forest for human in housing
Nuclear is the greenest energy, cry about it.
I cannot stand people that talk without facts. Just because Romania might be cutting down trees to make pellets, doesn;t mean the rest of the world does the same. In North America, we are very strict in using sustainable sources. Also, commentators that believe glue and chemicals go into making a pellet, is pure ignorance. Do your homework people!
wow... so coal still the greener thn wood pellet
Wood energy from the sun。 Wood is just stored energy。
wood is greener than gas
If we make it right!
If it's actually sustainable. But even then...
There is so much wrong in the information presented. Biomass is carbon neutral and not green. Coal is locked up carbon that cannot be recaptured. Biomass is neutral if not green when trees are planted in excess of those burnt, there are even limits to how far biomass can travel before it is no longer green. Keep up the lie that solar is ‘green’ it’s ok if we sacrifice the vitality of the people who live in the mined countries. Look at Congo and the damage solar panel and battery production has inflicted. The creator of these videos has never left her tended garden. Biomass can be used to capture carbon if access to North Africa for plantations was permitted but there seems to be a whole conspiracy behind why that is not possible. There is no such thing as sustainable, we are more likely to go extinct from a foreign object entering our atmosphere. The younger dryas is the perfect example. Our only hope is that we accept pro-environment policies that allow us to terraform the planet and stabilize it to a comfortable level. Our biggest threat is from the outside. We must not be afraid of change, it is too late to undo the damage, victor schauberger predicted we would eliminate all old growth before the end of the century, he was not wrong (source, VS our senseless toil). Romania is not Europe and does not follow the same regulations for forestry protection (not that Europe has any left since ship building, what happened to the Black Forest?) Europe’s energy reserves are full, biomass prices will fall by Q1 23.
The before and after picture in your thumbnail are two completely different places in different parts of the world
juːd͡ʒ