Same Crap -- Renamed...

[flacaltenn]

Speaking of coal --- I ran into this bull nugget whilst being marooned on the Daily Kos..

Turns out that the Eco-Flakes have RENAMED garbage incineration to make this bad idea more palatable on their list of "not alternatives".. It is NOW reborn as BIO-COAL..

Along with the outright FLAT OUT straight up LIE about burning trees being "carbon neutral".
Yup ----- they've got ALL the (wrong) answers and a lot of whining..

Daily Kos: Sunday Train: Unleashing the Political Power of Bio-Coal

Note the title.. Leftists really don't give a shit about ANYTHING if it's not got "POLITICAL POWER" in it's title..

 

[Moonglow]

I'll burn what I want on my land. Screw the eco-terrorists.

 

[mamooth]

Flac, why did you deliberate attempt to mislead everyone by claiming that an article about biomass burning was about "garbage incineration"?

Those are two very different things. Why did you pretend they were the same? Oh, that's right, it was a lie for your political cult, and with you, the ends always justify the means.

 

[flacaltenn]

Flac, why did you deliberate attempt to mislead everyone by claiming that an article about biomass burning was about "garbage incineration"?

Those are two very different things. Why did you pretend they were the same? Oh, that's right, it was a lie for your political cult, and with you, the ends always justify the means.

1) What makes you think you can burn bio-coal any cleaner than coal?

2) Ask the useful eco-idiots in Britain who backed a major bio-mass effort and found that this DID LEAD to burning garbage in incinerators RIGHT IN THEIR BACKYARDS. Burning biomass is not limited to trees and brush..

3) Why? Because the EPA says so.. They allow biomass plants to burn a whole LIST of crap INCLUDING municipal refuse..

IT IS essentially garbage incineration.. Or it BECOMES that -- shortly after approvals.

I can back this up.. Done it before.. I'm not MIS-leading. I'm warning the morons who still push this stuff..

 

[Mr. H.]

New vocabulary, new glossary, new rules. It's how ethanol burst upon the scene all those many years ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

Massachusetts Chapter Sierra Club


Impacts of Biomass Energy include:
Large scale biomass used primarily for electricity generation is extremely inefficient and emits 1.5 times as much CO2 than a coal-fired power plant.
Claims of “carbon neutrality” for biomass do not account for externalities and full lifecycle accounting of carbon, including harvesting processing and transportation of fuels. Truckloads of biomass fuel would need to be transported on regional roads, adding to diesel particulate pollution and additional fuel use.
Large scale biomass calls for the harvesting of millions of trees on tens of thousands of acres - some of it on state forest lands. Multiple facilities proposed in MA all claim competing areas for harvesting fuel at a rate that is not sustainable.
Biomass consumes and removes organic forest material, including that which would normally remain behind and contribute to the forests ongoing ability to sequester carbon.
Burning biomass can release carcinogenic substances and particulates in our air water.
Biomass facilities evaporate and/or otherwise use massive volumes of water to operate and can impact rivers, streams, and water supplies.

Conclusion
The Sierra Club has significant concerns over the production of energy from biomass, including the net emissions of CO2 and airborne toxins, the inefficiency of biomass energy production, impact on ecosystems and public health, and assumptions made regarding “carbon neutrality” of such operations.

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.

UK biomass industry under fire over incinerators - 28 Jul 2008 - News from BusinessGreen

Plans for a huge increase in waste-to-energy plants across the UK are at risk of being "derailed" as a result of protests from green groups campaigning against local waste incinerators.

That is the stark warning from David Williams, chief executive of renewable energy specialist Eco2 and chairman of the Biomass Sub Group on the government's Renewable Advisory Board.

Speaking to BusinessGreen.com, Williams said that groups such as Friends of the Earth were seeking to stir up public opposition to waste-to-energy facilities at a time when the government has just signalled its support for the technology as part of its new renewable energy strategy.

"Every few years the government puts forward a renewables strategy including incineration, only for groups like Friends of the Earth to campaign against it, " he said. "Every time the government has backed down and there is always a chance it could happen again."

His comments came as Friends of the Earth last week joined with campaign group the UK Without Incineration Network (UK WIN) to release a map showing that over 100 waste incinerators are currently being planned across the UK.

Michael Warhurst, senior resource use campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said that the planned incinerators would lead to high levels of pollution for local communities and result in millions of tonnes of recyclable material being wasted.

Yep ---- garbage incineration...