Thor Hjarsen wrote:
> To make plantations or "disturbe" natural forests with the purpose of
> removing CO2 will not deal with the problems but only the symptoms.
The above statement needed classification; i) to make plantations
and ii) to disturb natural forests. I am in favour of making
plantations on the following grounds:
a) energy plantations will be established only on the deforested
areas;
b) it is not in conflict with food production (debatable);
c) the energy derived from biomass must substitute coal and other
fossil fuels that gives off more CO2;
d) energy plantation must be carried out in a sustainable manner (ie)
the rate of harvest must not exceed the rate of the plantation;
I think it is on the above arguments that energy plantations are
justified. It must be noted, however, that if wood is harvested and
not replaced, the use of woody biomass for energy production does not
only gives off higher CO2 than coal on the basis of its calorific
value but also depletes the natural sink of CO2.
On the other hand, I am against disturbing a natural forest for the
purpose of plantation to sequester CO2. As it is, natural forest is
already a sink of CO2. My knowledge of literature maybe limited but
has there been a study comparing the effectiveness of CO2
sequestration between a natural forest and a plantation?
Moreover, the use of woody biomass for energy production does not
only limit the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere (the CO2 given off
during energy conversion is sequestered by the growing trees), it
also gives off oxygen as trees grow. This replaces the oxygen used during the
combustion process. If CO2 production as a consequence of combustion is not
reduced, our next problem might no longer be CO2 but O2. Another mine field?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edd L Tadulan
Dept of Mech'l Engineering
University of Portsmouth
PO1 3DJ UK
Fax +44(01705)842351
Tel +44(01705)842461/842389
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0