If you remove a mature tree and replace it with a young one, you will actually increase uptake as the growing tree will absorb more CO2 than a mature one will.
However, I agree that it is complex because you need to take a long term view and there are always risks. For example a wild fire would offsetting the equation as the young trees are more vulnerable.
Sensationalist headline as far as I can tell.
(I wrote the same in a different sub as this seems to have been posted all over)
Comparing carbon emissions and only telling that it is more than another plants/industrial sites, is pretty useless. It needs to be normalized to emissions/kWh so it would be a useful comparison. That alone gives me pause as to how accurate/honest the comparison is.
For example: the plant could be the largest in the country which would mean emoting more is normal. Or it could be the smallest and have a disproportionate emission rate.
It also seems like the spokesperson of the plant claims that the wood is sourced from sustainably managed forests, and though I won’t take that at face value, I see how that could further mitigate impact compared to what the sensationalist headline claims.
I don’t have time right now to do much more research on this specific site such as where the forest is, transportation emissions, processing emissions, etc. However, it is clear that the author of the article didn’t do any research either, and/or intentionally cherry picked a way to display the data to come up with an article that would drive traffic.
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
ESPN FC presents play soccer (Fifa)… I guess not very interesting
This sounds like a conversation for you and your manager. I’ve had a few with my team that have resulted in different solutions for different people.
With one we established a monthly 1h call for her to explain where she is stuck, what she has tried, and we brainstorm how to get through it. This is separate from our usual weekly check-ins and focuses on issues related specifically to complexity and ambiguity.
With another, he created a list of what she thinks needs to happen and puts together ideas on how to get through it. I review it and then give him feedback. He liked this as over time he built confidence on his ideas as my feedback more often than not was “exactly what I would try, go for it”.
Finally, sometimes is about reducing the work load on that team member until they get a good foothold and slowly start adding more.
Shot answer, no one solution or easy path, but communication with your manager and hopefully a good manager is your besy bet.
Don’t burn out! Ask for help and guidance when needed, and take care of your mental and physical health (get a hobby, go out with friends, go to the gym, etc.)
I’ve seen brilliant people burn out and end up leaving/missing out growth opportunities because of it. Now that I manage people, it is my biggest area of focus because many times the best employees are the most at risk. They keep getting praise and asked to be involved in more and more and it becomes hard to say ‘no’ to new projects, responsibilities, etc… Until it is to much.
When it happens everyone looses, your boss, your team, the company, and especially you.
You said it, very lazy
I’m not familiar with how the UK decides on dispatching order for power plants, but if they follow a similar protocol as the US where is a combination of marginal cost and emissions, I wound in then expect that the bio-mass plant (with lower expected emissions) will be dispatched more often than the coal fire power station.
That would significantly affect the emissions/kWh
Finally, like you said we would need the transportation emissions and I would ask too for info on whether the source of the wood is a sustainable managed forest. If it is, that wood has near zero emissions as the forest regrows (except for processing emissions)