Such anti-nuclear has some validity, but only if we can agree that burning fuel for energy and heat should not continue. Constructing new power plants and central heating systems that rely on burning fuel should be imminently stopped, and all existing plants should have their remaining life time determined and then sunset when they reach it. Any argument of external factors for nuclear are dwarfed by the external factors from burning fuel for energy and heat, double so for profit-maximizing locusts and warmongering oligarchs.
The biggest reason the world is seeing more active was is that we are dependent on a few unstable countries for our energy needs. Solar and wind power can produce very cheap energy when the weather is optimal, but suboptimal weather can equally produce extremely expensive prices to the point where social and economical stability start to break down. We are giving money to warmongering oligarchs because of the fear of what happens if prices goes up to high, which would not happen if energy and heating infrastructure was secure and geopolitical independent.
> only if we can agree that burning fuel for energy and heat should not continue.
Unless you accidentally left out "fossil", as in "burning fossil fuel", then we at least are unlikely to agree.
I certainly intend to continue to gather tree waste and burn it - and I cannot see a problem if forest weight is maintained through replenishment and replacement.
Burning wood waste is primarily a green washing method. True tree waste is very minimal today in quantity, and most wood "waste" is actually used for a lot of products like paper and ply wood, and what is left to burn when everything is used are not enough to power a nation for any duration. In term of pollution it reduces air quality, and in term of sustainability there aren't enough forests around to use wood as the main fuel for all the power needs we have when renewables can't deliver.
Burning wood has at best similar environmental impact as beef. In theory it can be produced using just "waste", but we have to extend the word "waste" beyond recognition when production is scaled up and the profit-maximizing locusts become part of the picture. The world is suffering from deforestation.
We are not talking about using garden waste to burn a log in a open fire place, but rather grid sized power plants and central heating plants. I should however mention that there are air quality reports that points to issues with individual homes burning wood inside cities. Open air fireplaces do not scale well with dense population areas.
> Cutting down massive amount of forests just for the purpose of burning it up is harmful to the environment
Err, lets perhaps stick with
* Cutting down massive amount of old growth forest is harmful to the environment ( whether it's for burning or bauxite )
and
* Cutting down forest faster than regrowth rate is harmful to the environment (as that's net loss wrt surface sequestration)
and perhaps examine "harmful to bio diversity" (is it? checker-boarded plantation forest has about the same biodiversity as it ever has - it's not old-growth but it's not devoid of life or diversity), "dangerous to humans" (really? with modern logging machines on plantation forest? - the deaths in logging largely come from non plantation clearing on steep slopes and happen to humans aware of the risks)
> True tree waste is very minimal today
Is it? Many people hereabout heat their homes from limb lopping, dead fall, and tree deaths.
> not enough to power a nation for any duration
I don't recall suggesting powering a nation - just pointing out that there's an acceptable attrition rate for forests.
The harm from deforestation comes from multiple sources. It increase the harmful effect of storms, flooding, and perhaps counter intuitively also forest fires.
Modern plantation forest involve draining of water, and that causes green house gases to be released. After logging, the area also release more green house gases during the first 20 years then they pick up. Logging also changes the level of ground water, and how much of the ground water get filtered, which in turn reduces quality of the water downstream. Logging also increase erosion, which has it own set of risk to humans.
> I don't recall suggesting powering a nation - just pointing out that there's an acceptable attrition rate for forests.
The article is about nuclear power plants, in the context of the UK green party. In order for wood to be an alternative it would need to be able to provide energy in a green, sustainable, and national independent way. Power plants that burn wood pellets do exist, but how green and how sustainable they are is debatable. It also questionable if they will just use wood, or if they mix it in with other even less green and less sustainable fuels, but sells the energy as green energy produced on waste products.
> I cannot see a problem if forest weight is maintained through replenishment and replacement
It does not scale. That’s how they are cutting down ancient pristine forest in Central Europe. It’s useful as a supplement to use wood waste; it cannot be a major source of energy.
There was no claim that it scaled, merely that it should not continue.
My point is that AGW is sensitive to the source of burnt fuel and not to the act of burning fuel alone (although it is a balancing act between carbon released and carbon captured - thrown out of balance during the anthropocene by the act of dragging up "old" carbon from the depths).
It is good to recycle tree waste and it's already done on industrial scale. But there are not enough forests in the word to replace our consumption of fossil fuels.
For example Denmark is importing lot of wood from Baltics, UK lot of wood from Canada.
https://www.eubioenergy.com/2025/03/13/no-smoke-without-fire...
> not enough forests in the word to replace our consumption of fossil fuels.
I certainly didn't claim that there was, but thank you for rebutting a point not made.