[knappe]

That it isn't sustainable. As Eating the Earth points out, by growing trees to then cut them down again we're not accounting for the cost of using that same forested land for anything else, like a forest which is a great carbon sink. Instead burning wood pellets is considered renewable until you consider the cost of using that land for something else in which case it isn't a renewal resource.

[happosai]

The word renewable has a specific meaning (the source renews). Just because something is renewable, doesn't mean it's climate-friendly and/or sustainable.

Burning pellets as Bioenergy is renewable - it's just not sustainable[1] or climate-friendly.

[1] not sustainable in large scale use.

[eptcyka]

Burning wood pellets is carbon neutral. Any forrest is a great carbon sink until it matures and it saturates, i.e. growth reaches replacement equilibrium and old trees/growth decay, releasing the CO2.

[sl-1]

This is not taking in to account the fossil fuel usage for growing wood, transporting it and processing it to pellets.

Biofuels rarely make sense, unless we can get the biomass as a side-flow from some other process. And that kind of flows are quite limited compared to our energy needs.

[7952]

It depends on the time and spatial scale. And how much replanting is happening.

[lazide]

That makes no sense with the definition of ‘renewable’.

Trees grow again. They are renewed.

What is this junk?

[fodkodrasz]

The soil is degraded, washed away on clear-cut forests, and even old-growth protected forests are being relabeled unprotected to provide energy for the industry all over Eastern-Europe. The resulting flash floods, the water of which is harder to retain on the lowlands are worsening the droughts and the effects of climate change.

Ah, end eventually trees will not regrow, because they need soil for that. And water. Modern forestry is far from renewable. Only externalities having a longer time-frame to kick in are conveniently ignored by the decision makers and the masses willing to see only the upsides.

[knappe]

It makes perfect sense.

Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest. The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The land used is not free; it could have instead stayed a forest and remained a carbon sink. When you compare wood pellets using for generating energy and compare it to other forms of energy generation it no longer holds up as a renewable resource after you take into account the land that could have been kept instead as a forest and carbon sink.

[rini17]

The soil gets depleted when biomass is consistently taken away. It might be possible to avoid it but that's cost center.

[7952]

So do fish when they are harvested from the ocean. But that doesn't mean it is sustainable.

[HDThoreaun]

Opportunity cost has nothing to do with whether something is renewable