• jafffacakelemmy@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    the article states that drax burning wood produces four times the CO2 of radcliffe burning coal; however it fails to mention how much electricity was produced by each one. i expect better from the guardian, but we didn’t get it in this report.

    • elgordino@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      Wow you’re right. It’s not talking about CO2 per MWh it’s talking about total CO2 per year. What a completely useless comparison.

      Also the source of the C in the CO2 is important, rendering this comparison even more pointless.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also, trees capture CO2 when growing, so it’s not just emitting it like carbon or petrol, it’s a cycle.

      • Crismus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Tree farming is very good, because the trees are harvested after their peak carbon sequestration is past. Young trees clean up more CO2 than wild trees.

      • theMechanic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        That is a good start, clearly crazy is nearly 2x larger in nameplate. However, it also depends on how often they are deployed.

        Being that one is consider clean power it is likely dispatched more often. That would result in more numbing hours which would make the difference between the two even bigger.

        I saw this article in a different sub and it seems to be just sensationalist header to drive traffic