BioMass -- the Zero Carbon Myth.

[flacaltenn]

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.

 

[RGR]

I hate this idea. The Sierra Club and most honest environmental groups who aren't composed of mostly lawyers hate this idea.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

I hate this idea. The Sierra Club and most honest environmental groups who aren't composed of mostly lawyers hate this idea.

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.

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.

 

[starcraftzzz]

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.

So you think the only way to call somenthing zer carbon is if it reduces carbon emissions.. jesus

 

[bobgnote]

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?

 

[flacaltenn]

<StarCraftZZZZZ>

So you think the only way to call somenthing zer carbon is if it reduces carbon emissions.. jesus

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>

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'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.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

<StarCraftZZZZZ>

So you think the only way to call somenthing zer carbon is if it reduces carbon emissions.. jesus

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>

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'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.

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[bobgnote]

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>

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'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.

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!

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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..

 

[flacaltenn]

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>

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'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.

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!

Got news for ya stoner... The articles I read for information on topic might as well be in Klingon for your purposes. I've got YEARS of links, but sometimes I don't feel the need to vet stuff until a coherent, intelligient being starts to converse with me..

I just told you how concerned I am about the planet. You know -- a person can do that without the nonsensical hate you display above..

 

[bobgnote]

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.

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..

I guess nature wants us to fund 100 nuclear power plants, for fathead, the drawling fucktard, to manage. Then we could set the salmon free! Squish a fish, fatty.

Fathead doesn't want anything his granpa didn't shove into his fat, spotted ass. Even if you are a drawling, stupid fucktard, you should be able to break down how switchgrass can make marginal land profitable and CO2 cyclic. Even if you are a 3-dollar-hillbilly from Tennessee, you should be able to see, how hemp fits into crop rotations, since hemp leeches pollution, from salted lands. Even if you are a dumbass choo-choo bitch, who cannot watch TV and type at the same time, you should be able to grok why we need to set systems in favor, of CO2 reduction and then removal.

But fathead the fucktard cannot do that! Fatty has to CAPITALIZE, for us to hop over. Fuck you, fat bitch!

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

C''mon Ole Rocks... I spent a lot of hours accumulating info on Biomass and making a considered judgement. I have rarely encountered a fraud of this magnitude in the "error-prone" enviro community. Even THY now realize the logical faults and side effects. There are MANY fallacies to be busted in Biomass, but THIS ONE is sufficient.

You know what I found when I freshened my "link library" on the topic?? SInce I last checked there are about 40 ultra-left enviro-whack orgs YELPING about how they were co-opted into being shills for the biomass industry. They got a taste of about 10 of these plants in their backyard and with the help of the morons in UK govt, they discovered that biomass is synonymous with burning trash and wood chips thanks to reasoning of govt. They are mad. The purple-haired, tattooed, Goths are being led by their noserings into service of big-biomass. Just like Fed-Ex forest forest fairies, these know-nothings believed in hope fairies. Now they are mad and educated and ready to fight for REAL enviro-issues.

Just like me..

Need a link for these assertions? Of course you do...

Biomass Incineration | Energy Justice Network

"Green" biomass (like energy crops) is often a foot in the door for more toxic waste streams. Plants that start off burning "clean wood chips" can easily turn to burning more contaminated fuels (which may be cheaper or even free), or get paid to take really dirty wastes like trash or tires. Economic pressures encourage use of these dirtier fuels.

http://www.zerocarbonsociety.org/wo...oads/2010/03/biofuels-are-not-the-answer1.pdf

Plant-growth on land is one of main ways in which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.
Land is therefore a resource in the fight against global-warming. Even under optimistic assumptions, growing biofuel crops will not reduce atmospheric levels of CO2 over any timescale of up to more than a century, compared to preventing deforestion or even simply leaving already cleared land alone and allowing natural plant growth to capture carbon.

Forested land stores at least 100 tonnes more carbon per hectare than does cropland (12).
...... Biofuel crops would have to be grown for at least 130 years (100 tonnes divided by 0.75 tonnes per year) to justify cultivating the land rather than growing a forest.

... Even in areas where abandoned farmland reverts to grassland or scrub, it would eventually store around 70 tonnes more carbon per hectare than as cropland.

Please at least check this org out and look at the UK map on the page.

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/biomass_map/

OleRocks -- you know I'm fair. I know your motivations are pure. But OMG, your minions are being duped and manipulated. Just like Vanuatu has it's hand in my wallet for AGW. Not to SOLVE the problem, but to add to their General Fund..

 

[KissMy]

Extracting ethanol from waste biomass like corn stover makes sense. This is already grown for food production & left to rot in the fields. This can be bailed at harvest & hauled to a local plant & turned into energy.

Like wise growing Switchgrass on marginal land for erosion control makes sense. This is land that currently just grows grass that just gets mowed off every year.

 

[editec]

Let us assume that the carbon neutral system could work.

Let us consider human (perhaps we ought to consider corporate) nature.

IN order for the proposed theory to work we have to ONLY BURN as much as we grow and not before we grow it, either.

We can't be greedy and burn stuff BEFORE we've grow it.

Now does that sound like something humankind's energy corporation are likely to do? Wait patiently when there's profits to be made burning stuff NOW?

Here in Maine we build garbage burning electricity plants and guess what?

Maine experienced a GARBAGE SHORTAGE.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

C''mon Ole Rocks... I spent a lot of hours accumulating info on Biomass and making a considered judgement. I have rarely encountered a fraud of this magnitude in the "error-prone" enviro community. Even THY now realize the logical faults and side effects. There are MANY fallacies to be busted in Biomass, but THIS ONE is sufficient.

You know what I found when I freshened my "link library" on the topic?? SInce I last checked there are about 40 ultra-left enviro-whack orgs YELPING about how they were co-opted into being shills for the biomass industry. They got a taste of about 10 of these plants in their backyard and with the help of the morons in UK govt, they discovered that biomass is synonymous with burning trash and wood chips thanks to reasoning of govt. They are mad. The purple-haired, tattooed, Goths are being led by their noserings into service of big-biomass. Just like Fed-Ex forest forest fairies, these know-nothings believed in hope fairies. Now they are mad and educated and ready to fight for REAL enviro-issues.

Just like me..

Need a link for these assertions? Of course you do...

Biomass Incineration | Energy Justice Network

"Green" biomass (like energy crops) is often a foot in the door for more toxic waste streams. Plants that start off burning "clean wood chips" can easily turn to burning more contaminated fuels (which may be cheaper or even free), or get paid to take really dirty wastes like trash or tires. Economic pressures encourage use of these dirtier fuels.

http://www.zerocarbonsociety.org/wo...oads/2010/03/biofuels-are-not-the-answer1.pdf

Plant-growth on land is one of main ways in which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.
Land is therefore a resource in the fight against global-warming. Even under optimistic assumptions, growing biofuel crops will not reduce atmospheric levels of CO2 over any timescale of up to more than a century, compared to preventing deforestion or even simply leaving already cleared land alone and allowing natural plant growth to capture carbon.

Forested land stores at least 100 tonnes more carbon per hectare than does cropland (12).
...... Biofuel crops would have to be grown for at least 130 years (100 tonnes divided by 0.75 tonnes per year) to justify cultivating the land rather than growing a forest.

... Even in areas where abandoned farmland reverts to grassland or scrub, it would eventually store around 70 tonnes more carbon per hectare than as cropland.

Please at least check this org out and look at the UK map on the page.

UK biomass plants

OleRocks -- you know I'm fair. I know your motivations are pure. But OMG, your minions are being duped and manipulated. Just like Vanuatu has it's hand in my wallet for AGW. Not to SOLVE the problem, but to add to their General Fund..

First, as I have posted many times, there is not a solution to our clean energy route, but many solutions. Biomass is one small part of that solution. There are many sources of waste biomass that can supply small amounts of energy locally. And the plants utilizing the biomass should have to follow the same pollution laws as anyone else.

We cannot grow enough biomass by standard farming methods to make a real differance in our energy needs. Waste biomass can supplement the local needs, just as many other minor sources can. We are going to have to look at all the solutions, including conservation through higher efficiency use of electrical power.

People that outright demonstrate hostility to minor sources that are available are just as much at fault as those that push these sources as the solution.

 

[KissMy]

Let us assume that the carbon neutral system could work.

Let us consider human (perhaps we ought to consider corporate) nature.

IN order for the proposed theory to work we have to ONLY BURN as much as we grow and not before we grow it, either.

We can't be greedy and burn stuff BEFORE we've grow it.

Now does that sound like something humankind's energy corporation are likely to do? Wait patiently when there's profits to be made burning stuff NOW?

Here in Maine we build garbage burning electricity plants and guess what?

Maine experienced a GARBAGE SHORTAGE.

Why would anyone be against a garbage shortage? We could have free trash pick-up or even get paid for our trash!

 

[bobgnote]

Why would anyone be against a garbage shortage? We could have free trash pick-up or even get paid for our trash!

Garbage is like CO2; we have to do something about it, productive. When you do not do something, you are like a defense in football, which lets the enemy offense score and score, again, when you should intercept or force a fumble, and score, on defense.

That produces a 'swing,' of 14 points.

If people were all smart enough to play D, they wouldn't be DDDs, who cannot do any biomass, since that won't replace petroleum, no way for hemp, since that would leech pollution from salted fields and relieve CO2, with any switchgrass we could grow on really marginal land, and we don't try to reclaim desertified lands or polluted lands and bodies of water, which are going to hell, fast.

But people cannot play defense, in American armored rugby, and they cannot throw the fucking ball, down the field. Our football is a game we watch, but we don't play it. Like environmental science. That is, most of us don't play. I happen to be able to play.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

C''mon Ole Rocks... I spent a lot of hours accumulating info on Biomass and making a considered judgement. I have rarely encountered a fraud of this magnitude in the "error-prone" enviro community. Even THY now realize the logical faults and side effects. There are MANY fallacies to be busted in Biomass, but THIS ONE is sufficient.

You know what I found when I freshened my "link library" on the topic?? SInce I last checked there are about 40 ultra-left enviro-whack orgs YELPING about how they were co-opted into being shills for the biomass industry. They got a taste of about 10 of these plants in their backyard and with the help of the morons in UK govt, they discovered that biomass is synonymous with burning trash and wood chips thanks to reasoning of govt. They are mad. The purple-haired, tattooed, Goths are being led by their noserings into service of big-biomass. Just like Fed-Ex forest forest fairies, these know-nothings believed in hope fairies. Now they are mad and educated and ready to fight for REAL enviro-issues.

Just like me..

Need a link for these assertions? Of course you do...

Biomass Incineration | Energy Justice Network



http://www.zerocarbonsociety.org/wo...oads/2010/03/biofuels-are-not-the-answer1.pdf

Plant-growth on land is one of main ways in which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.
Land is therefore a resource in the fight against global-warming. Even under optimistic assumptions, growing biofuel crops will not reduce atmospheric levels of CO2 over any timescale of up to more than a century, compared to preventing deforestion or even simply leaving already cleared land alone and allowing natural plant growth to capture carbon.

Forested land stores at least 100 tonnes more carbon per hectare than does cropland (12).
...... Biofuel crops would have to be grown for at least 130 years (100 tonnes divided by 0.75 tonnes per year) to justify cultivating the land rather than growing a forest.

... Even in areas where abandoned farmland reverts to grassland or scrub, it would eventually store around 70 tonnes more carbon per hectare than as cropland.

Please at least check this org out and look at the UK map on the page.

UK biomass plants

OleRocks -- you know I'm fair. I know your motivations are pure. But OMG, your minions are being duped and manipulated. Just like Vanuatu has it's hand in my wallet for AGW. Not to SOLVE the problem, but to add to their General Fund..

First, as I have posted many times, there is not a solution to our clean energy route, but many solutions. Biomass is one small part of that solution. There are many sources of waste biomass that can supply small amounts of energy locally. And the plants utilizing the biomass should have to follow the same pollution laws as anyone else.

We cannot grow enough biomass by standard farming methods to make a real differance in our energy needs. Waste biomass can supplement the local needs, just as many other minor sources can. We are going to have to look at all the solutions, including conservation through higher efficiency use of electrical power.

People that outright demonstrate hostility to minor sources that are available are just as much at fault as those that push these sources as the solution.

You are pretty much right about that last sentence. Except that I've been clear about my interest in Geothermal and Biomass as "minor supplements". So i'm not hostile to the concept. I've just been bitchin about the MASSIVE fraud of convincing the public that the eco-whacks have all kinds of ALTERNATIVES. And your hottub needs are perfectly handled. (unless it's after 7PM and the wind isn't blowing)

I'd rep you here for the sudden burst of clarity and honesty, but you still owe me for all the work I do for you...

 

[flacaltenn]

Let us assume that the carbon neutral system could work.

Let us consider human (perhaps we ought to consider corporate) nature.

IN order for the proposed theory to work we have to ONLY BURN as much as we grow and not before we grow it, either.

We can't be greedy and burn stuff BEFORE we've grow it.

Now does that sound like something humankind's energy corporation are likely to do? Wait patiently when there's profits to be made burning stuff NOW?

Here in Maine we build garbage burning electricity plants and guess what?

Maine experienced a GARBAGE SHORTAGE.

Why would anyone be against a garbage shortage? We could have free trash pick-up or even get paid for our trash!

Sounds Great! Except for the toxic waste stream that's now concentrated by the incineration.. But the MAIN conceptional error here is :

If burning trash is perfectly all right, what's wrong with burning coal? Can't that be done just as cleanly?