BioMass -- the Zero Carbon Myth.

Discussion in 'Energy' started by flacaltenn, Jun 1, 2012.

  1. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,026
    Thanks Received:
    4,653
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,343
    There are so many myths and manipulations about using biomass for electricity generation or for biofuels that it's hard to nail them all. But you really only need to nail one to (hopefully) put this vamp to sleep.. That's the myth that because biofuels are a net absorber of CO2 during plant growth and that they emit a smaller amount of CO2 when taken to the incinerator and burnt to produce electricity --- that they are a ZERO CARBON energy source. This is also referred to as "cyclic carbon" fuels.

    No equations necessary, no chemistry necessary to reveal the obvious fallacy in thinking here. It has to do with land use. The assumption is that biofuels will replace a portion of our existing cropland or be used in rotation with crops like corn and wheat.

    Problem is -- the NET ZERO CARBON assumption neglects the obvious point that putting switchgrass into a field previously growing food like corn doesn't sequester a lot more CO2 (if any) than the previous land use was producing.

    So giving a CO2 credit against the emissions that result from burning it for power makes no sense. Doesn't matter to the ardent eco-frauds at the EPA who use the Zero Carbon fuzzy math for cyclic fuels.

    In the case where it is not desired to interfere with food and agriculture and NEW land is set aside for biofuel production --- the same simple argument is valid. The Zero Carbon lie still doesn't work. Likely the unused land was an AMPLE absorber or even a SUPERIOR absorber of CO2 before you put the biofuel crop on it. So there is no net uptake from a yearly production of your favorite biomass for combustion.

    The CO2 uptake was already working just fine.

    Even if the biofuel is a SUPERIOR uptaker of CO2, say by 20% -- that's still not ZERO CARBON. It means that you MIGHT deserve a partial credit for the improvement.

    Simple truth is -- Biomass combustion for power is a dirty incinerator. Many stakeholders have ample motivation to propagate the NET Zero Carbon lie. Once the dirty incinerators are built in YOUR neighborhood, there will be NO distinction about WHAT exactly they use for fuel.. EPA doesn't care. The generator doesn't care. As long as the fuel is "renewable". What a sham. They can burn ANYTHING from woodchips to hemp to garbage under that definition. That sets up a circus of garbage operators, timber & paper folks, agricultural interests, and a whole TENT full of clowns trying to "green-up" the incinerator concept. The BIGGEST Clowns to benefit from this bastardization of science are the coal plant operators who can now get EPA exceptions to CO2 emissions guidelines if they throw some wood chips or corn stalks on the fire.. Unfreaking believeable -- ain't it?

    I hate this idea. The Sierra Club and most honest environmental groups who aren't composed of mostly lawyers hate this idea. It need to removed from the "clean and green" alternative energy list along with other dirty ideas like geothermal mining.

    Right now I could use a special SnookersBill "FAIL" demonstration..

    Gotta be one of the perverse abuses of science and truth in advertising out there.

    :cool:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2012
  2. RGR
    Offline

    RGR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,339
    Thanks Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +133
    Can you please name one of these "honest" environmental groups? All the ones most of us hear around advocating one position or another are the other kind.
     
  3. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,026
    Thanks Received:
    4,653
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,343
    You're asking a tough question here.. 2 years ago -- I would have said "The Nature Conservancy". A group I still admire. They lost their way and started campaigns to "mitigate effects of Global Warming in the Hudson river valley". I wrote them a love note that if they continue to subsidize this nonsense, they'd be written out of my will. Haven't seen them push this since..

    The Sierra Club is basically honest, open to debate, and not composed of lawyers selling teddy bears and shopping bags. Their problem is democratic anarchy. The level of debate is SO high that the various chapters can't agree on much..

    Beyond that -- I'd have to take after Diogenes and go search for an HONEST group -- that wasn't just parroting the bible of the eco-nauts.

    But ON BIOMASS --- there are HUNDREDS of left-oriented enviro groups that have gotten the picture of how phoney this project is. In G.Britain for instance, they've had a taste of Biomass (about 18 plants) and they now know the "special interests" USED THEM to build incinerators in their cities with help from the eco-frauds at our EPA and the equiv G.B. Agencies...

    We need to do the same.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
  4. starcraftzzz
    Offline

    starcraftzzz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,263
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +120
    So you think the only way to call somenthing zer carbon is if it reduces carbon emissions.. jesus
     
  5. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    So some people think reducing carbon emissions is not worth any sort of effort, complete with 'shouting,' to make non-points, during circular rants.

    I suppose you don't think re-greening of deserts or polluted lands and waters is any good, either. I bet this has to do with let's pretend the CO2 isn't at 400 ppm, and then we'll pretend the methane isn't leaking out of unfrozen and heating water and land, and then we'll pretend this doesn't accelerate warming, and we have puckey but no stickey. So why don't you skeptics just admit, you are gay as Christmas and ask Santa to throw a party?

    And you know, we face carbonic acidification, extinctions, reduction of food chains. And why aren't you skeptics of warming, acidification, biomass, and re-greening like Log Cabin gays, who won't marry, but you want to go back into bath-houses, shoot speed, turn tricks, bang each others' infected asses, ignore the plague of HIV, and go out to die in traffic, of full-blown AIDS?
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
  6. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,026
    Thanks Received:
    4,653
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,343
    <StarCraftZZZZZ>
    No -- the only way it's Zero Carbon is if the net carbon emitted when combusted for fuel is totally balanced by the act of absorbing carbon whilst growing it. Because the "growing it" occurs on the same land that was absorbing carbon just fine before you switched crops, all you've done with cyclic carbon fuels for biomass -- is you've starved a cow or a Mexican somewhere...

    <BobGNote>

    I've already told you that the acidification angle of CO2 IS the most disturbing aspect of the AGW alarm. I DO worry about this. And I am all for concentrating on REAL solutions and cleaning up REAL polluting. That's why I want to kill off all the BAD solutions like biomass and the phoney pollutants like CO2 so that we don't time and resources on them or make things worse.

    In the case of ocean acidification (OA) -- I need more evidence that CO2 absorption is the major cause of PH change. Absolutely CLEAN FRESH stream water is PH 7.0 -- the ocean is currently PH 8.1 or so. THAT ALONE could be the factor. Where is all the clean fresh water in melting ice going? Eh genius?

    Same for the possibility that SOx and NOx (real pollution) is a more powerful contributor to OA or that SOx and NOx from volcanic vents or NATURAL sources is playing a part here.

    We made massive strides in acid rain by understanding the REAL problem. We're not there yet on OA.
     
  7. Middleoftheroad
    Offline

    Middleoftheroad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +54
    Your whole point seems to be focused on the presumption that they would be removing corn to replace it with switchgrass. This is not the case. The point of switchgrass is that it can be grown on non-arable land. Corn cannot.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,465
    Thanks Received:
    5,410
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,303
    Flat is simply against anything that Granpa wasn't doing. Doesn't like anything that does not emit lead, mercury, arsenic, and various other goodies.
     
  9. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    YOU are not 'there,' on O.A., since you still don't know how to hit 'search.' I know you have Google in Tardytown, where you live, so get it on, search some criteria, fuckup.

    You might just read the other threads, at Energy or Environment, USMB. I reccommend O.R. posts, since I am busy calling you a bath-house hustler, with your wingnutty wingmen, who all want to deny warming, acidification, acceleratiion, and urgency.

    How many of your posts and your friends' posts mention the 'hockey stick,' without CH4 prognosis? You are a duimbshit, trying to cover your former cruise, with gay wingnuts.

    You and your fellow winggeeks all are fucking stupid, unable to put together CO2, H2CO3, CH4, and reports. You want to circle-spank all over this forum, running down AGW, running down re-greening and biomass, running down logic, running up your gay, neo-con rhetoric, without the decency to admit your bath-house cruise makes you look like a full-blown fuckup, trying to spread the AIDS, all over the planet. Out of the closet, choo-choo bitch! 'Engineer,' right. Engine-queer!
     
  10. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,026
    Thanks Received:
    4,653
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,343
    To be rigid and complete -- non-arable means land that cannot be cultivated for crops. This is fine to consider for biofuel crops, but there are implications. And if you were considering becoming a switchgrass farmer in a semi-arid desert -- you should understand the implications. Access to the land, infrastructure for harvesting, storage, supplies, possibly additional irrigation may need to be improved and maintained. The crop will generally be FARTHER from where it needed after harvest. The crop YIELD WILL suffer and there are additional resources that need to be employed. Those resources and costs and emissions are NOT GENERALLY considered when someone pushes a biomass study under your nose. You'd have to RECALCULATE the production costs in terms of CO2, materials, labor, infrastructure and revise the GLOWING figures for growing switchgrass in more favorable conditions.

    If NOTHING is growing on your non-arable plot, the Carbon Credit is easily calculated but you have a bigger job trying to eek out a crop.. Otherwise, existing vegetation and carbon sinks count against the option of sinking carbon into your biocrop..

    Have at it.. After all, we have folks farming in the desert. Nature is hinting you shouldn't..
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012

Share This Page