this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
608 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

60809 readers
3707 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Why not? Doesn't creating the biomass require sequestering carbon?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] kjetil 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Difference is timescale. Coal "sequestered carbon" over millions of years, and released over a few decades.

Biomass gathers and realeases on the same timescale

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Then you're saying biomass is not really sequestering carbon, essentially.

[–] bitwaba 1 points 2 weeks ago

Neither is solar or wind. But they're all net-zero or near-zero carbon emissions when considering the entire lifestyle of the energy and machinery production.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I just feel that if you're growing a load of trees, it's slightly more environmentally friendly to just let them carry on growing rather than chopping them into bits and burning them.

I mean I get it, it's a way to use those old coal power stations for something, but it should be something else we need to phase out.