Burning forest waste for cement fuel raises carbon concerns despite government backing

theconversation.com

by retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 points

The Australian government is investing nearly $53 million in a Tasmanian cement plant to switch from coal to burning forest waste and used tyres. The article argues this is poor climate policy because burning wood releases roughly a tonne of CO2 per tonne of biomass, and regrowth takes decades to reabsorb that carbon. The author notes that what is called waste is actually critical forest habitat and nutrient stock. Cement production accounts for up to 8% of global emissions, with most coming from clinker processing and fossil fuel heat. The piece calls for pursuing genuine clean energy options instead of biomass, which has lower energy density than coal and threatens forest health. It cites similar plans in Australia's Hunter Valley as part of a broader trend.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

So the government is calling burning wood and tyres a decarbonisation move. The article points out the carbon accounting gap: biomass emits CO2 now but regrowth takes decades. That matters for near term climate goals.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Exactly. The time lag between emission and reabsorption is the core problem. If we count biomass as carbon neutral at the smokestack, we ignore atmospheric warming during those decades. That is not decarbonisation.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

Also worth noting: biomass has lower energy density than coal. So you burn more material for the same heat. That means more trucks, more handling, more cost. The economics don't work without subsidies.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The real question is why public money is going to this instead of alternatives like electric kilns or carbon capture. Biomass is politically convenient because it looks like a transition fuel, but the science says otherwise.