you say you’re from the state of green no fact is you’re from the state of burning green...

Yousayyou’retheSTATEOFGREEN?No”Factisyou’retheSTATEorBurningGreenTrees?

THiiiNK Holding Switzerland AG

Jäger Treuhand & Verwaltungs AG Kirchacherstrasse 9 CH-8608 Bubikon Zurich Switzerland

e-mail [email protected] Web www.THiiiNK.com

http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/

Advantages

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKgo1s4yN-oOQGWouFOzCk0Fu7Sn-8vnpmP_JKPUX_aQn8G9AoPAFPtA

JornP.WinklerexplainingthefutureofEnergyMarketshere

HowbadisDenmarktheSTATEOFGREEN?Bycomparison?AmericaisSTATEOFGREEN!

Advantages

&CoHeartofDarkness4Trees?65%ofEUWindSolarEnergyOURGreenTrees?Nowind’sNosun,Energytokeeplightson?Whenyoulookatsystem-costbasis,biomassconversionisoneofifnotthecheapestrenewablesontheEUsystem=OurTrees?


PulpFictionDarkSideof&Co100%WindSolarUtopiaTrees2chargeIPHONES?http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/





The thing that really hurts me the most about Ineffective Unsustainable Electricity from WindSolar” is that the Greenpeace PR is so effective” that nobody noticed that the Greenpeace Energy policy, makes Greenpeace the Most Aggressive driver of Global deforestation” I.e. My 2 Country’s Denmark and Germany hunt Green Trees 24/7? Or Denmark the STATE OF GREEN is nothing but PR” Fact is it’s so bad in Denmark that America is the STATE OF GREEN” Let me explain why Denmark has little if any Co2 Reduction at all? Here you see my Denmark; the Horror is everybody thinks they are Green? Little do they know, Little Denmark my Country is at the forefront of Aggressive Global Deforestation 100% = Ineffective Unsustainable WindSolar Electricity as you see Denmark is not State of Green; Denmark is nothing but masses of Co2 = Fossil Fuel Trees 100% of district heating will be Trees by 2035 according to future planning, save our climate by burning Trees?

How bad is it really” with Ineffective Unsustainable Electricity by saying 100% WindSolar, take a close look? Bad is not the right word if you like Green Trees, the true word is HORROR if you know what you see” as you Note” the energy is not coming form WindSolar No Wind No Sun or Darkness” the energy is our Green Trees? 65% of the combined EU Renewable energy consumption is Green Trees” we scream at“Trump” will we in Denmark & EU use Green Trees by the millions each day to watch TV, Take a hot shower and charge our IPHONES?





Energy from renewable sources

Main statistical findings After a period up to 2010 during which renewables were growing strongly, the combined effect of warm weather, slower progress by Member States in implementing the Renewable Energy Directive and Europe’s faltering economic situation led to a decrease in the use of renewable energy in 2011. However, the share of renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy did increase, since the consumption of fossil fuel energy fell more than that of renewables. Afterwards, the share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy continued the increasing trend and by 2014 it reached 16.0 % .

Primary production of energy from renewable sources Primary production of renewable energies is on a long-term increasing trend. Between 1990 and 2014 it increased by 174 % (an average annual growth rate of 4.3 %). However, in 2011, the primary production of renewables declined by 2.2 %; this was mainly due to the annual variation in hydropower production and decrease in the combustion of solid biomass. This was only the second decrease recorded since 1990 — the first in 2002 (-1.6 %) was also a consequence of hydropower variation. The Renewable Energy Directive requires that — for accounting purposes — hydropower and wind power production is normalised[1] for annual variations. Primary production of renewable energies is shown in Figure 2 (N.B. the figures shown for electricity production are not normalised).

In 2014, the primary production of renewables increased by 1.6 % compared with 2013. In fact, with the exception of years 2002 and 2011 (when primary production of renewables decreased) this is the lowest annual increase in the last 15 years. When compared to the primary production 5 years ago, it is now 29 % higher.

Electricity generation from renewable sources In 2014, gross electricity generation from renewables increased by 4.9 % compared with 2013. However, the picture varies depending on the energy source: from an increase of 0.9 % for electricity generation from hydro to a 14.1 % increase for solar power. Between 1990 and 2014, total electricity generation from renewables increased by 191 %. In 2014, renewable electricity generation accounted for 28 % of total gross electricity generation[2].

Hydropower plants generate by far the largest share of electricity from renewable energy sources. Electricity generation from hydropower increased by 29 % between 1990 and 2014, even if its share of total renewable electricity generation shrank from 94 % to 42 % over the same period. This is due to the more rapid expansion of electricity generation from other renewable sources. Wind power generation more than tripled over the period 2005-2014: since 2000, it has been the second largest contributor to renewable electricity, replacing wood and other solid biomass, which had held that position since 1990. Solar power electricity generation has increased rapidly in recent years and in 2014 accounted for 11 % of all renewable electricity. Also, in 2013 the electricity generated from solar energy surpassed wood and other solid biomass and is now the third most important contributor to the electricity production from renewable sources. Solid renewables (wood and other solid biomass, excluding renewable wastes) are also used in conventional thermal generation power plants: their share in electricity from renewable sources grew from 3.5 % in 1990 to 10 % in 2014. Bioliquids and biogas, which were negligible in 1990, reached 7 % in 2013. Electricity generation from renewable sources is shown in Figure 3 (in this Figure electricity production is not normalised in the area chart but the dashed line shows the total normalised electricity generation).

Installed capacity for renewable electricity generation The available capacity of renewable electricity generation has increased significantly over the last 20 years. Wind power capacity had already begun to increase rapidly in the late 1990s and from 2005 there was a boom in solar generation capacity. Additional capacity increases for other renewables were much more modest than for these two. Solar and wind generation are intermittent energy sources: their utilisation rate is much lower than for those renewables used in conventional thermal power stations (as well as compared with fossil fuels and nuclear power). Pumped-storage hydropower plants can be reliably used to deal with surplus electricity generation from intermittent sources. The capacity of pumped-storage hydropower plants did not increase at the same rate as solar and wind. Installed capacity for renewable sources, nuclear power and pumped-storage hydropower is shown in Figure 4. To put into perspective electricity generation capacities from renewable sources, which in 2014 was in total around 400 GW, the existing electricity generation capacity of fossil fuel plants in the EU was around 450 GW in 2014.

Production of liquid biofuels in the EU Production of liquid biofuels increased significantly from almost nothing in 1990. There were rapid increases — especially after 2002 — producing an average annual growth rate between 2000 and 2010 of 32 %. However, production decreased in 2011 by 10 % compared with 2010. Since then it is increasing at around 10% each year. Production of liquid biofuels is shown in Figure 5.





Imports and exports of renewables Imports and exports of renewable energy products are very difficult to analyse. It is even more difficult to provide figures corresponding to import dependency that would be comparable with fossil fuels (coal, crude oil, natural gas). The major obstacle for detailed import/export analysis is that primary feedstocks for solid, liquid and gaseous biofuels often compete for other non-energy uses. For example, wood can be used as material for furniture production and as building material on construction sites. Energy statistics track only quantities of renewable products for energy purposes; stocks of renewable products for non-energy purposes are not part of energy balances.

Another complication arises because of missing data on feedstock input for the transformation sector — for example, the raw materials for production of biofuels. These data on feedstock input are out of the scope of energy statistics. Energy balances place solid, liquid and gaseous biofuels produced in the EU in the category of ‘primary production’; this is in contrast to production of fossil-based secondary fuels, which are categorised as ‘transformation output’ (for example, the ‘primary production’ of motor gasoline or automotive diesel is zero in EU energy balance sheets).

Trade in liquid biofuels that can be blended with — or used as a substitute for — gasoline or diesel (for example, ethanol in E85 for use in flex-fuel vehicles) serves as an illustration. Trade volumes of liquid biofuels (blended part within mineral fuel plus pure biofuels) shipped between EU Member States, and internationally, are increasing. In 2012, EU-28 net imports of liquid biofuels accounted for 20 % of their gross inland consumption. For their part, net imports of biodiesel and biogasoline stood at 15 % and 30 % of gross inland consumption, respectively. (These figures include the blended part within mineral fuels and all pure biofuels.) However, in 2014 the net imports of liquid biofuels accounted only for 9 % of their gross inland consumption.

Detail data for trade in liquid biofuels are available in energy database:(nrg_126a) and (nrg_136a).

Gross inland consumption of renewables Gross inland consumption of renewables is closely related to primary production of renewables. The only noticeable variation is due to imports and exports: primarily because of net imports of liquid biofuels, gross inland consumption of all renewables is 3 % higher than primary production. Gross inland consumption of renewables increased by 1.7 % in 2014 compared with 2013. Wood and other solid biomass continues to be the largest contributor to the mix of renewable energy sources. Hydropower and wood accounted for 91 % in 1990. However, the rate of increase since then has been much slower than for other sources notwithstanding that wood more than doubled by 2010. Consequently, their combined share decreased to 61 % in 2014. Gross inland consumption of renewable energies is shown in Figure 6 (electricity production is not normalised).

Renewable energy available for final consumption Renewable energy available for final consumption (Figure 7) tends to rise and fall in line with changes in gross inland energy consumption from renewable sources. Rapid expansion of certain technologies caused the share of energy from solid renewables (including wood and renewable waste) to decrease from 61 % in 1990 to 40 % in 2014. However, in absolute terms it increased by 64 % during this period. Renewable energy available for final consumption increased by 69 % between 2004 and 2014. In 2014 the renewable energy available for final consumption decreased by 1 % compared to 2013.

Share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy In the EU-28, the share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy increased from 8.5 % in 2004 to 16.0 % in 2014. This is evidence of a progress towards the Europe 2020 target of 20 %. As some countries have not yet fully implemented all provisions of the Renewable Energy Directive, some biofuels and bioliquids are not counted as compliant (sustainable) in the period 2011-2014. Some countries have also not yet improved their national statistical system to fully account for all renewable energy sources (for example for the renewable energy with respect to heat pumps). The increased share between 2010 and 2011 is not due to increased use of renewables but rather because of a decline in the use of fossil energies (oil products and natural gas). Allowing for the 2020 targets of the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU), further decreases in the EU’s energy consumption could be expected up to 2020.

The latest data for 2005 shows a small variation with respect to data available during the preparation and adoption of the Directive in 2007-2008. Changes are due to revisions in data sets transmitted by Member States in response to annual energy questionnaires. Comparing the average of 2011-12 to the indicative trajectory set out in the Renewable Energy Directive, it can be seen that France and the Netherlands were below the first indicative trajectory values, while all other countries were above. Comparing the average of 2013-14 to the indicative trajectory set out in the Renewable Energy Directive, it can be seen that the Netherlands was below the second indicative trajectory values, while all other countries were above.

Table 1 presents data for all Member States and also the values of the indicative trajectory.

The renewable share in Estonia has been above the 2020 target value since 2011. Bulgaria and Sweden have been reaching their 2020 levels since 2012. In 2014, also the Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Romania and Finland were above their 2020 target. Due to revision of data for biomass consumption in the residential sector, the updated data for Croatia indicates that its consumption of energy from renewable sources is above its 2020 target since 2004 (the first year for which values are available).





In 2014 the highest share amongst the EU-28 Member States was observed in Sweden (52.6 %) and the lowest in Luxembourg (4.5 %).

Share of energy from renewable sources: electricity In 2014, electricity generation from renewable sources, with necessary adjustments for wind power and hydro power, contributed 27.5 % to total EU-28 electricity consumption. There is a huge variation between EU Member States - please see the detailed presentation of the share of electricity from renewable sources in gross electricity consumption in Table 2.

Share of energy from renewable sources: heating and cooling In 2014, renewable energy accounted for 17.7 % of total energy use for heating and cooling in the EU-28. This is a significant increase from 10.2 % in 2004. Increases in industrial sectors, services and residential use (building sector) contributed to this growth. Aerothermal, geothermal and hydrothermal heat energy captured by heat pumps is taken into account, to the extent reported by Member States. The share of energy from renewable sources in heating and cooling is presented in Table 3.

Share of energy from renewable sources: transport For all countries, there is a common 2020 target of 10 % for the share of renewable energy in the transport sector. The Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC stipulates that only biofuels and bioliquids that fulfil sustainability criteria should be included. In some countries consumption of biofuels and bioliquids in the period 2011-2014 were not certified as compliant (sustainable) due to late implementation of Directive 2009/28/EC. While the share of renewable energy as a whole is increasing since 2004, between 2010 and 2011 its share in transport decreased. This can be attributed in part to the total absence of compliant biofuels reported by several EU countries (countries did report some biofuel use, but none or very little of it compliant in 2011). Respecting accounting rules of Directive 2009/28/EC, the share of energy from renewable sources in transport increased from 1% in 2004 to 6% in 2014. The share of energy from renewable sources in transport is presented in Table 4.

Share of energy from renewable sources: OECD-EU comparison Energy data collection is harmonised on an international level in the joint OECD/IEA — European Commission/Eurostat — UNECE questionnaires. This enables some comparison of the share of energy from renewable sources between EU Member States and OECD/IEA countries. However, as not all information is available, certain additional assumptions are made in this comparison: all biofuels and bioliquids are counted towards the renewable share and without using multipliers; heat pumps are not counted: all pumped hydropower is assumed to be pure pumped hydropower and mixed hydropower is assumed to be zero; electricity in road transport is counted without any multiplier. This facilitates a harmonised comparison of the EU-28 aggregate with other OECD countries; however, in this comparison, EU-28 values are not equivalent to the values presented earlier in this article. The 2011 comparison of the EU-28 with other OECD countries and Russia is presented in Table 5 and Figure 8.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_from_renewable_sources#Main_statistical_findings

So tell me do you still think, that you’re from the state of Green?





Now most people do not know this” go make an experiment yourself” I do it myself, ask a person you know, or anyone you meet Bar of Café: Ask how many % of the renewable energy in the EU Do you think comes from Trees? The answer is always the same” or it comes in 2” first people say Trees for energy that can’t be that much” you ask again, or say you did not answer my question, how many % is Green Trees? Most I have asked this question say 1% or 2% some have said 4% at the most? When I then say 65%” people freak out” that’s impossible who would do that 65% that’s crazy” Are you shore that’s wrong” I tell them take your mobile say 65% Trees” People literally go Green or they look up in absolute horror and say but that’s impossible? how could this happen?

Europe’s green energy policy is a disaster for the environment December 2016

Biofuels or fossil fuels? Boris Horvat/AFP/Getty

The European Union’s proposals for revising its renewable energy policies are greenwashing and don’t solve the serious flaws, say environmental groups.

The EU gets 65 per cent of its renewable energy from biofuels – mainly wood – but it is failing to ensure this bioenergy comes from sustainable sources, and results in less emissions than burning fossil fuels. Its policies in





some cases are leading to deforestation, biodiversity loss and putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than burning coal.

“Burning forest biomass on an industrial scale for power and heating has proved disastrous,” says Linde Zuidema, bioenergy campaigner for forest protection group Fern. “The evidence that its growing use will increase emissions and destroy forests in Europe and elsewhere is overwhelming.” On 30 November the European Commission unveiled a draft “clean energy” package for the period up to 2030. On the surface, these proposals address some of the issues with existing renewable energy policies. But environmental groups who have been analysing the proposals say that the changes will make little difference.

“It’s almost worse than doing nothing,” says Sini Erajaa, the bioenergy policy officer for BirdLife Europe & Central Asia, who describes the changes as greenwashing.

Burning biomass For instance, one proposed change is to apply the EU’s sustainability criteria to biomass used in heat and power plants whose output is 20 megawatts or more. “This means, for instance, that electricity and heat from biomass have to produce at least 80 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels by 2021 and 85 per cent less by 2026,” states a memo on the revised renewable energy directive. You might think this will ensure that burning biomass does not result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel use, but far from it. That statement is misleading because it does not make clear that the EU’s method for calculating emissions assumes burning biomass produces no CO2 at all. “Emissions from the fuel in use shall be taken to be zero for biofuels and bioliquids,” states a 2009 directive. The assumption is that these emissions don’t have to be counted because the growth of plants soaks up as much CO2as is emitted when they are burned. But this assumption is not true on the timescales that matter for limiting climate change. Burning wood can result in higher emissions than burning coal. This fact is not controversial. Buried deep in the EU’s own impact assessment is an acknowledgement that burning forest biomass is not carbon neutral, and that using some forms of forest biomass can increase emissions. “Biogenic emissions remain high (higher than emissions from fossil fuels) beyond a policy-relevant timeframe for sawn wood, stumps, coarse dead wood,” it states on page 106.

Carbon neutral? But because the EU doesn’t count these emissions, it is claiming carbon reductions for activities that are sometimes increasing emissions – what New Scientist has recently revealed as “the great carbon scam”. For instance, the EU is not just burning small bits of wood waste for energy, which can indeed reduce emissions. Whole trees are being felled for energy and often in an unsustainable way, say campaigners.

A recent report by Birdlife and other groups documents several examples of how EU subsidies are driving deforestation in Europe and beyond. Supposedly protected forests are being cut down in Slovakia and Italy, for instance. Campaigners want the EU to abandon its drive to use ever more bioenergy, particularly forest bioenergy. “We are not saying bioenergy has no role to play,” says Erajaa. “But it will have to be smaller.”

When asked about these criticisms, a spokesperson for the European Commission said it is committed to making sure the biomass used for energy throughout the EU is sustainable.

The draft proposals now go before the European parliament for review, so there is still a chance to amend them. But countries and industries raking in profits from bioenergy subsidies are fighting to prevent meaningful reform.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114993-europes-green-energy-policy-is-a-disaster-for-the-environment/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter&utm_term=Autofeed&cmpid=SOC%7cNSNS%7c2016-Echobox#link_time=1480701752

65% Energy is your Green Trees?






Now what happens on a Global level when industrial developed Country’s like Denmark, Germany the whole EU is forced by the so Called Green Movement / Greenpeace to use only 100% WindSolar to power both day-to-day life and their heavy industries” saying No Coal Oil or Gas = Use 65% Trees instead? As mentioned above it’s a true horror story from America to Russia; Humans have destroyed 7% of Earth’s pristine forest landscapes just since 2000, equals the rise of Ineffective WindSolar for harvesting electricity? The Green movement is currently the biggest Climate Risk of them all” preaching destructive 0 Solutions?

The world’s natural places are disappearing at a galloping clip, says a new study, released Friday in the journal

Science Advances. It suggests that more than 7 percent of Earth’s natural, intact forest landscapes have been lost

since 2000 — and these ecosystems may be in danger of disappearing entirely from at least 19 countries in the

next 60 years.

These landscapes represent some of “the last portions of the Earth that are not significantly affected by human

influence,” said Lars Laestadius, a forest expert, consultant on natural resources policy and co-author of the new

study. “As we lose these, we lose something that is bigger than ourselves.” Using satellite data, the researchers

investigated changes to the world’s intact forest landscapes between 2000 and 2013. In 2000, they found that

intact forest landscapes covered a total global area of 12.8 million square kilometers, or nearly 5 million square

miles. But in the years since, human activities have altered and fragmented many of these areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/13/humans-have-destroyed-7-percent-of-earths-pristine-forest-landscapes-just-since-2000/?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=buffer7bd34&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=.a2f1b6524e82 Humans have destroyed 7% of Earth’s pristine forest landscapes just since 2000?

65% is Green Trees? So tell me do you still think, that you’re from the state of Green?





Here comes the Hammer” the Green Movement 24/7 attacks Coal” which is correct Coal is bad” but what is worse is when you do the math from A to Z, not burning Coal but Trees instead, just to say 100% WindSolar electricity were 65% is our Green Trees in reality” is not only sad, but truly frightening?

Biomass Electricity More Polluting Than Coal Apr. 04, 2014 01:21PM EST Biomass electricity generation, a heavily subsidized form of “green” energy that relies primarily on the burning of wood, is more polluting and worse for the climate than coal, according to a new analysis of 88 pollution permits for biomass power plants in 25 states.

The report found that although wood-burning power plants are often promoted as being good for the climate and carbon neutral, the low efficiency of plants means that they emit almost 50 percent more CO2 than coal per unit of energy produced. Photo credit: Global Justice Ecological Project

Trees, Trash, and Toxics: How Biomass Energy Has Become the New Coal, released this week and delivered to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI), concludes that biomass power plants across the country are permitted to emit more pollution than comparable coal plants or commercial waste incinerators, even as they are subsidized by state and federal renewable energy dollars. It contains detailed emissions and fuel specifications for a number of facilities, including plants in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

“The biomass power industry portrays their facilities as ‘clean,’" said Mary Booth, director of PFPI and author of the report. “But we found that even the newest biomass plants are allowed to pollute more than modern coal- and gas-fired plants, and that pollution from bioenergy is increasingly unregulated.” =

Where Ever You Say 100% makes WindSolar ineffective & Unsustainable = More Everything not less?





The report found that biomass power is given special treatment and held to lax pollution control standards, compared to fossil-fueled power plants.

Biomass plants are dirty because they are markedly inefficient. The report found that per megawatt-hour, a biomass power plant employing “best available control technology” emits more nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and carbon monoxide than a modern coal plant of the same size.

Almost half the facilities analyzed, however, avoided using BACT by claiming to be “minor” sources of pollution that skim under the triggering threshold for stricter pollution controls. Minor source permits are issued by the states and contain none of the protective measures required under federal air pollution permitting.

"The American Lung Association has opposed granting renewable energy subsidies for biomass combustion precisely because it is so polluting,” said Jeff Seyler, president and CEO of the American Lung Association of the Northeast. “Why we are using taxpayer dollars to subsidize power plants that are more polluting than coal?”

The analysis also found that although wood-burning power plants are often promoted as being good for the climate and carbon neutral, the low efficiency of plants means that they emit almost 50 percent more CO2 than coal per unit of energy produced. Current science shows that while emissions of CO2 from biomass burning can theoretically be offset over time by forest regrowth and other means, such offsets typically take several decades to fully compensate for the CO2 emitted during plant operation. None of the permits analyzed in the report required proof that carbon emissions would be offset.

EPA rules also allow biomass plants to emit more hazardous air pollutants than both coal plants and industrial waste incinerators, including heavy metals and dioxins. Even with these weak rules, most biomass plants avoid restrictions on the amount of toxic air pollution they can emit by claiming to be minor sources, and permits usually require little testing for proof of actual emissions. When regulated as a minor source, a facility is not required to meet any limitations on emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

The potential for biomass power plants to emit heavy metals and other air toxics is increasing, because new EPA rules allow burning more demolition debris and other contaminated wastes in biomass power plants, including, EPA says, materials that are as contaminated as coal. A majority of the facilities reviewed in the report allowed burning demolition debris and other waste wood.

“Lax regulations that allow contaminated wastes to be burned as biomass mean that communities need to protect themselves,” said Mary Booth. “They can’t count on the air permitting process to ensure that bioenergy pollution is minimized.”

Where Ever You Say 100% makes WindSolar ineffective & unsustainable = More Everything not less? = Nobody checked the math from A to Z, as 100% WindSolar is not Energy but pure fanatical Greenpeace, politics for the sole purpose of political power, making them millions of dollars, ending up supporting Fossil Fuel 24/7 for the past 50 years” stopping triple profit plenty energy for all sector industries and 3 world economies?

http://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-electricity-more-polluting-than-coal-1881884788.html

Humans have destroyed 7% of Earth’s pristine forest landscapes just since 2000?

65% is Green Trees? Burning Trees for Energy is worse than Coal?






Biomass Emits Double The CO2 Of Gas FEBRUARY 26, 2015

As we all know, burning coal and gas to produce electricity is BAD, but burning wood is GOOD.

But what do the actual figures tell us?

I asked DECC to supply comparative figures CO2 produced/MWh, for coal, gas and biomass (specifically wood pellets). I specifically requested that the biomass figures should purely relate to emissions from the power stations, and not to include “whole life” calculations. This was their reply:

1) We have identified a calculation of the biologically derived CO2 emitted from a typical power station converted to biomass combustion. The calculation assumed that 47% of the dry weight of the wood pellet is carbon and that large biomass conversions are typically 35.5% efficient at converting the energy content of the wood pellets into electricity. These assumptions would need to be amended for specific biomass fuels, and power station operating conditions. Also the value below is higher than the true value of CO2 emissions as no allowance was made for the carbon retained in the ash at the power station.

The value calculated was 920 kg CO2/MWh of electricity generated.

We do not routinely estimate the emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from combustion of wood pellets when calculating the national emissions total. In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector.

2) The quantity of CO2 emitted by fuel use in the pellet making process depends on a range of factors such as how the fuels are used to dry the biomass before pelletisation. As examples;

• saw mill offcuts require no additional drying before pelletisation, • natural forest-side drying can reduce timber moisture content from 50% to 25% without requiring energy, • the CO2 released in generating the electricity used in pelletising will normally have the typical CO2 impact of the electricity network of the country in which it is located.





3) The BEAC report and spreadsheet referred to above contain values for the comparable emissions of carbon dioxide from typical coal and natural gas fired power stations of 1018 and 437 kg CO2 equivalent/ MWh electricity generated respectively.

So, on a straight comparison, you clearly see why we have a Global Climate Crisis” Denmark the State of Green is not reducing Co2, that is all Green PR, fact is Denmark is increasing Co2 = more and more trees?

Or ineffective unsustainable WindSolar electricity is the Global Climate Emergency?

CO2 kg/MWh

Coal 1018 Gas 437 Bio 920 While bio is slightly better than coal, it is emitting more than double the CO2 of gas.

None of these figures account for the emissions involved in processing or transporting wood pellets. Equally of course, they don’t include these for fossil fuels, although it seems reasonable that the add on emissions for gas would not be as great.

The only logic to biomass is that forests are replanted to compensate for the extra CO2 produced, but, even if this is true, it would take decades to happen.

In any event, if the forests were left where they were, how much CO2 would simply have been sequestrated into the soil? Or if the wood had been used for other purposes, such as building material, there would be no extra emissions at all.

Given that we are supposed to only have a few years left to save the planet, would it not be more sensible to be burning gas? The only conclusion is that the whole biomass farrago has been no more than a gimmick, with a veneer of “sustainability”. The clue lies in DECC’s statement:

In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector.

In other words, you can burn as many trees as you like, as long as they are not your own. Without this edict, biomass would be dead in the water.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas/

Double Co2 from Trees? So tell me do you still think, that you’re from the state of Green?





Worse the true horror story of the missing WindSolar Energy, replaced by burning millions of our Green Trees burned 24/7, is that Denmark the STATE OF GREEN is cutting American Trees while saying that “Trump is a danger to Climate and COP22? I mean WHO is WHO? We just stopped burning Coal which got us our Trees back, and suddenly we are back to burning Trees which is much worse that burning Coal” WHO or WHAT is worse TREES or COAL?

Europe's 'renewable' energy plan is actually destroying US forests Dec. 23, 2015, 7:17 PM

Biomass, the unused portions of logged trees such a branches and the tree tops, sit at the Old Town Fuel and Fiber mill in Maine. Brian Snyder/REUTERS

Europe imported more than 4 million tons of wood pellets from US forests last year and wrote it all off as renewable energy.

A new report from Climate Central exposes how 4.4 million tons of wood pellets were cut from American forests last year, and 98% of it was shipped to Europe to be burnt for energy.

Because of a loophole, the European Union classifies this wood-generated electricity as "carbon neutral," though research actually indicates it's more environmentally dangerous in the short term.

Burning wood biomass is considered a "renewable" energy on the idea that if you plant at least as many trees as you burn the process is carbon neutral. But until these trees grow back to the full size of the original felled tree, which takes decades, the carbon emitted still contributes to global warming in the here and now.

Most of this wood biomass comes directly from the forests of the US's southeast, where trees are cut down, turned into pellets, and then shipped across the ocean, according to a Climate Central report titled "Pulp Fiction."

A study of satellite data, published in Science in 2013, showed that between 2000 and 2012 logging in the US Southeast was four times more disruptive than logging in South American rainforests and nearly a third of Southeastern forests were either cut down or regrown during that period.





"The Southeast U.S. is a tree farm," study researcher Matthew Hansen, a geography professor at the University of Maryland, told Climate Central. "It stands out globally. This is super-intensive use."

This biomass is now the European Union's largest source of "renewable" energy. This could be catastrophic, since the Climate Central investigation found that power plants fed by woodbiomass heat the atmosphere faster than coal-fired plants do.

EIA The United Kingdom, which received nearly three-quarters of US wood pellet exports in 2014, plans to get 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. And the country is increasingly using biomass to meet that goal.

In 2012, the UK was getting 3.4 gigawatts of its electricity from biomass. By 2020, biomass could generate up to 6 gigawatts of electricity, according to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. That's enough to power 4.2 million homes per year — power that comes directly from America's forests.

This increase is partly due to the conversion of the largest power plant in the western Europe, Drax, from coal to biomass. The Drax Power Station, east of Leeds, is expected to burn 6 million tons of wood pellets this year, Climate Central reported.

The Drax Power Station in North Yorkshire, England. Nigel Roddis/REUTERS

But when Drax's boilers burn wood, they release 15% to 20% more carbon dioxide than when they burn coal, Climate Central's analysis found — amounting to millions of tons of CO2 per year for what the government and these companies are calling a "renewable" power source. Wood pellets ready to be turned into energy. D-Kuru/Wikimedia Commons





On top of this power source releasing more coal it's destroying US forest, which sources that trees being cut down to fuel Europe's growing biomass appetite. The Climate Central report says Drax's US-sourced wood pellets are 73% whole trees and other non-waste wood. Those trees aren't being used by the US, either. Biomass only made up 1.04% of the electricity used in the US last year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

The climate agreement the world reached in Paris December 12 is an encouraging framework for change. But we may need to rethink what we classify as "renewable" before such accords end up pushing more power plants to using dirty biomass.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/europe-imports-wood-biomass-from-us-for-power-2015-12?r=US&IR=T Humans have destroyed 7% of Earth’s pristine forest landscapes just since 2000? 65% is Green Trees even from America and the Amazon? Burning Trees for Energy is worse that Coal? Burning Trees emits twice as much Co2 as Gas?

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10566/state-of-green-embraces-pellet-power So tell me do you still think, that you’re from the state of Green?

No somehow you have become a leader in aggressive deforestation?

Advantages

DenmarkStateofGreen=BurnGreenTrees?RenewableEnergy=BurningGreenTrees?Aninconvenienttruth=BurnTrees4Energy?


Denmarkaleaderinaggressivedeforestation?http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10566/state-of-green-embraces-pellet-power





50 degrees + North Pole Denmark STATE OF GREEN BURN GREEN TREES equals 24/7 Gas by 2050

http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/50-years-of-greenpeace-no-nuclear-no-wind-solar-or-electric-cars-by-2040

Burning Green Trees equals Denmark THE STATE OF GREEN has little or no Co2 Reduction? https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas

Do you still think you’re from the STATE OF GREEN?

Advantages



HowbadisDenmarktheSTATEOFGREEN?Bycomparison?AmericaisSTATEOFGREEN!

Burn Green Trees = Double Co2 to burning Gas! https://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/you-say-youre-from-the-state-of-green-no-fact-is-youre-from-the-state-of-burning-green-trees

Advantages

DenmarkStateofGreen=BurnGreenTrees?Aninconvenienttruth=BurnTrees4Energy?BurnTrees4Energy=TwiceCo2toBurningGas


EqualsDenmarkhaslittleornoCo2Reduction?https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas/





Worse than Coal: http://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-electricity-more-polluting-than-coal-1881884788.html

Burning Green Trees equals Denmark THE STATE OF GREEN has little or no Climate Solution? https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas

Tell me, do you still think you’re from the STATE OF GREEN?

Advantages



DenmarkmoreCo2moreDeadlyParticels!=BiomassElectricitymorePollutingthanCoal!=BiomassElectricityDOUBLECo2toburningGas!Nowonderis’t50Degrees+ontheNorthPole?

Co2:https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas/COAL:http://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-electricity-more-polluting-than-coal-1881884788.html

Advantages

DenmarkStateofGreenisBurningGreenTrees?BurnTrees4Energy=TwiceCo2toBurningGas?AninconvenienttruthLittleorNoCo2Reduction


EqualsDenmarkhaslittleornoClimateSolution!https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas/





It’s about 50 degrees warmer than

normal near the North Pole, yet again? Do you think burning Green Trees 4 Energy will stop this? Do you think dirty ships & Soot your transport will stop this? February 10

Temperature difference from normal, Feb. 10, 2017. (University of Maine Climate Re-analyzer) Peer at a map of the Arctic and it glows fluorescent red. The warmth, compared to normal, is again nearly off the charts. It’s crazy and perhaps unsettling, but we have seen it coming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/02/10/its-about-50-degrees-warmer-than-normal-near-the-north-pole/?utm_term=.613b203ccf60





Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study January 31, 2017 This is all no Joke saying 100% WindSolar will kill us all from A 2 Z, as 99.9 do not understand due to the 24/7 Green wash PR from places like Denmark, that the current so called WindSolar Revolution is currently at ONLY 3% of Global Energy Consumption, with a Country like Brazil in population growth being added year by year, we will never make in time with Greenpeace & Co 100% WindSolar as that’s what GOT US HEAR? 50 degrees + on the NORTH POLE should tell EVERYONE WE NEED NUCLEAR?

Even if solar and wind capacity continues to grow at breakneck speed, it will not be fast enough to cap global warming under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) Expansion of renewable energy cannot by itself stave off catastrophic climate change, scientists warned Monday. Even if solar and wind capacity continues to grow at breakneck speed, it will not be fast enough to cap global warming under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the target set down in the landmark 2015 Paris climate treaty, they reported in the journal Nature Climate Change. "The rapid deployment of wind, solar and electric cars gives some hope," lead author Glen Peters, a researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway, told AFP. "But at this stage, these technologies are not really displacing the growth in fossil fuels or conventional transportation." Earth is overheating mainly due to the burning of oil, gas and especially coal to power the global economy. Barely 1C (1.8F) of warming so far has already led to deadly heatwaves, drought and superstorms engorged by rising seas. The 196-nation Paris Agreement set a collective goal to cap warming, but lacks the tools to track progress, especially at the country level. To provide a better toolkit, Peters and colleagues broke down the energy system into half-a-dozen indicators—GDP growth, energy used per unit of GDP, CO2 emissions per unit of energy, share of fossil fuels in the energy mix, etc.





What emerged was a sobering picture of narrowing options. Barely a dent "Wind and solar alone are not sufficient to meet the goals," Peters said. The bottom line, the study suggests, is how much carbon pollution seeps into the atmosphere, and on that score renewable have—so far—barely made a dent. Investment in solar and wind has soared, outstripping fossil fuels for the first time last year. And renewables' share of global energy consumption has increased five-fold since 2000. But it still only accounts for less than three percent of the total. Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period. Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century. Compounding the challenge, other key policies and technologies deemed essential for holding down temperatures remain woefully underdeveloped, the study cautioned. In particular, the capacity to keep or pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it securely—a cornerstone of end-of-century projections for a climate-safe world—is practically non-existent. Vetted by the UN's top climate science panel, these scenarios presume that thousands of industrial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities will be up-and-running by 2030. As of today, there are only one or two, with a couple of dozen in various stages of construction. Negative emissions Another form of clean energy pencilled into most medium- and long-term forecasts that does not yet exist on any meaningful scale is carbon-neutral biofuels. The idea is that CO2 captured while plants grow will compensate for greenhouse gases released when they are burned for energy. On paper, that carbon pollution will also be captured and stored, resulting in "negative emissions"—a net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. But here again, reality is dragging its feet. "It is uncertain whether bioenergy can be sustainably produced and made carbon-neutral at the scale required," the researchers noted. All of these technologies must come on line if we are to have a fighting chance of keeping a lid of global warming, which is currently on track to heat the planet by 3C to 4C (5.4F to 7.2F), the study concluded. Market momentum alone is not enough, Peters added. "There need to be a shift in focus," he said in an email exchange. "Politician seem happy to support wind, solar and electric vehicles through subsidies. But they are not willing to put prices"—a carbon tax, for example—"on fossil fuels." "Unless the emissions from fossil fuels goes down, the 2C target is an impossibility." In an informal survey last week of top climate scientists, virtually all of them said that goal is probably already out of reach.

Explore further: Action is needed to make stagnant CO2 emissions fall: research More information: Glen P. Peters et al. Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3202 There is no Green Energy Revolution, 3% is not a Revolution” it’s an emergency of epic proportions? https://phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables-paris-climate-goals.html#jCp





Presentation Denmark Trees & Transport: Once you do the Math you see Denmark = no climate solution? https://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/you-say-youre-from-the-state-of-green-no-fact-is-youre-from-the-state-of-soot

Advantages

DenmarksClimateSolutionSailingaroundtheWorldlookingforGreenTreestocutandburn?

JornP.WinklerexplainingthefutureofEnergyMarketsherehttps://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/you-say-youre-from-the-state-of-green-no-fact-is-youre-from-the-state-of-soot