Cinders: "The loss of power (less than 1 MWatt) will be more than compensated by excess power from the mill."

I thought the power generation was being claimed as reducing the CO_2 impact of the mill. This was doubtful enough when non-plantation timber was in the mix, i.e., the CO_2 being released wasn't being replaced by new trees. It is even more doubtful if you are offsetting water usage against hydro power generation, and claiming this is OK because the mill is generating power.

Hydro power when I last checked is not a significant generator of CO_2.

"Hydro power when I last checked is not a significant generator of CO_2."

Maybe you check again Phil...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046

Thanks alzo -- I was aware that hydro power generates some greenhouse gases from flooded vegetation but not that it was seen as significant. However this is a bigger problem in hotter climates, so I am not convinced that burning wood will be anywhere close to a neutral offset.

"However this is a bigger problem in hotter climates, so I am not convinced that burning wood will be anywhere close to a neutral offset."

Maybe somebody should tell the Brits...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/15/thisweekssciencequestions.uknews