Another green energy hoax

[Blues Man]

When did burning wood for electricity become a green energy operation?

Since they started calling it "biomass"

 

[westwall]

What moron told you burning wood was green?

Bill McKibben for one, dumbass.

 

[Crick]

What moron told you burning wood was green?

The reason burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere is because the carbon they contain was originally sequestered underground. Almost all the carbon released by the burning or the decay of a dead tree came from the atmosphere and is returned to the atmosphere. It is certainly not good for the creation of soot and other aerosols, but as far as carbon, it is essentially neutral.

 

[westwall]

The reason burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere is because the carbon they contain was originally sequestered underground. Almost all the carbon released by the burning or the decay of a dead tree came from the atmosphere and is returned to the atmosphere. It is certainly not good for the creation of soot and other aerosols, but as far as carbon, it is essentially neutral.

Until you transport it. You keep ignoring that most important part of the equation.

You also ignore the fact that while alive the tree PROCESSES CO2. Burnt and it is merely an inefficient fuel compared to coal, or nat gas, or oil.

 

[The Irish Ram]

What moron told you burning wood was green?

Didn't you read the article? The government and their scientists...

 

[Crick]

Didn't you read the article? The government and their scientists...

What do you believe burning wood does to the CO2 level of the Earth's atmosphere?

 

[Crick]

Until you transport it. You keep ignoring that most important part of the equation.

You also ignore the fact that while alive the tree PROCESSES CO2. Burnt and it is merely an inefficient fuel compared to coal, or nat gas, or oil.

Oil, gas and coal get transported as well. And you have completely ignored the most important point: fossil fuels take sequestered carbon from the Earth and put it into the atmosphere. Trees take CO2 from the atmosphere and, eventually, return it to the atmosphere. Whether a tree is burnt or decays naturally, the result as regards CO2 is the same: NO NET CHANGE

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oil, gas and coal get transported as well. And you have completely ignored the most important point: fossil fuels take sequestered carbon from the Earth and put it into the atmosphere. Trees take CO2 from the atmosphere and, eventually, return it to the atmosphere. Whether a tree is burnt or decays naturally, the result as regards CO2 is the same: NO NET CHANGE

If you burn 1000 trees that turned into coal or 1000 trees that haven't turned into coal,
can the IR tell the difference?

 

[Crick]

Yes. As I said earlier, the difference is that one is releasing CO2 it gathered from the atmosphere and the other is releasing CO2 that had been sequestered underground.

 

[elektra]

The reason burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere is because the carbon they contain was originally sequestered underground. Almost all the carbon released by the burning or the decay of a dead tree came from the atmosphere and is returned to the atmosphere. It is certainly not good for the creation of soot and other aerosols, but as far as carbon, it is essentially neutral.

you are a complete idiot, cutting down forests increases the co2, you no longer have trees that "eat" co2 from the atmosphere, and when you burn them they release co2. That is a lose, lose, lose, situation.

But it really does not matter, you can not change the climate

 

[elektra]

And from the Climate Circus we have high flying moronics

Oil, gas and coal get transported as well. And you have completely ignored the most important point: fossil fuels take sequestered carbon from the Earth and put it into the atmosphere. Trees take CO2 from the atmosphere and, eventually, return it to the atmosphere. Whether a tree is burnt or decays naturally, the result as regards CO2 is the same: NO NET CHANGE

and like in the other thread where you expressed you beliefs and were wrong on the basics of steel making hence green energy, this is another fantasy in the head of crick.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. As I said earlier, the difference is that one is releasing CO2 it gathered from the atmosphere and the other is releasing CO2 that had been sequestered underground.

As far as the atmospheric levels of CO2 at the moment it's burned, there is no difference.

 

[Crick]

You miss the point Todd. That tree, during the course of its lifetime, took CO2 OUT of the atmosphere. It didn't just disappear. It became fundamental portions of the tree. What it gets oxidized through combustion OR decay, that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. Trees are not magic Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You miss the point Todd. That tree, during the course of its lifetime, took CO2 OUT of the atmosphere. It didn't just disappear. It became fundamental portions of the tree. What it gets oxidized through combustion OR decay, that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. Trees are not magic Todd.

That tree, during the course of its lifetime, took CO2 OUT of the atmosphere. It didn't just disappear

Exactly. Just like the tree that turned into coal.

What it gets oxidized through combustion OR decay, that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere.
Exactly. Just like the tree that turned into coal.

If you kill trees, burn them and release 1 ton of CO2, does it retain more, less or the same amount of LWIR as 1 ton of CO2 released from burning coal?

 

[elektra]

That tree, during the course of its lifetime, took CO2 OUT of the atmosphere. It didn't just disappear

Exactly. Just like the tree that turned into coal.

What it gets oxidized through combustion OR decay, that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere.
Exactly. Just like the tree that turned into coal.

If you kill trees, burn them and release 1 ton of CO2, does it retain more, less or the same amount of LWIR as 1 ton of CO2 released from burning coal?

Crick forgets about the oxygen that the trees exhale. Crick wil inadvertently kill himself if people aint around to stop him.

 

[Crick]

The tree that turned into coal did so far underground. That CO2 was removed from the atmosphere as long as that coal remained underground and uncombusted.

I see none of you addressing the point that the tree's carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere whether it is burned or sits on the forest floor and decays.

And look, I'm not in favor of burning trees for power. I'm just trying to correct another bit of denier misinformation. Burning wood produces more than CO2. The ash and soot create aerosols, some of which absorb solar radiation and some reflect it. The aerosols and particulate are certainly bad for human and animal health and Forests support a much larger number and quantity of plant and animal life than does an open field. But burning trees does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere and so does not lead to more global warming. And since most of you deny that CO2 causes warming, I really don't know why you've got your panties in such a bind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The tree that turned into coal did so far underground. That CO2 was removed from the atmosphere as long as that coal remained underground and uncombusted.

I see none of you addressing the point that the tree's carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere whether it is burned or sits on the forest floor and decays.

And look, I'm not in favor of burning trees for power. I'm just trying to correct another bit of denier misinformation. Burning wood produces more than CO2. The ash and soot create aerosols, some of which absorb solar radiation and some reflect it. The aerosols and particulate are certainly bad for human and animal health and Forests support a much larger number and quantity of plant and animal life than does an open field. But burning trees does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere and so does not lead to more global warming. And since most of you deny that CO2 causes warming, I really don't know why you've got your panties in such a bind.

The tree that turned into coal did so far underground. That CO2 was removed from the atmosphere as long as that coal remained underground and uncombusted.

Hey, thanks for not explaining the difference, as far as the LWIR is concerned.

I see none of you addressing the point that the tree's carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere whether it is burned or sits on the forest floor and decays.

Sure does return. Plus the CO2 released to send it on a ship from the US.
I'm glad the EU thinks burning trees doesn't release CO2.

But burning trees does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere

LOL!

And since most of you deny that CO2 causes warming, I really don't know why you've got your panties in such a bind.

If the morons in the EU want to waste billions to burn biomass, instead of coal, who am I to stop them? I'd just prefer we didn't do the same just to make our morons feel better.

 

[basquebromance]

i don't fear global warming...i fear global government

 

[elektra]

The tree that turned into coal did so far underground. That CO2 was removed from the atmosphere as long as that coal remained underground and uncombusted.

I see none of you addressing the point that the tree's carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere whether it is burned or sits on the forest floor and decays.

And look, I'm not in favor of burning trees for power. I'm just trying to correct another bit of denier misinformation. Burning wood produces more than CO2. The ash and soot create aerosols, some of which absorb solar radiation and some reflect it. The aerosols and particulate are certainly bad for human and animal health and Forests support a much larger number and quantity of plant and animal life than does an open field. But burning trees does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere and so does not lead to more global warming. And since most of you deny that CO2 causes warming, I really don't know why you've got your panties in such a bind.

why are our panties in such a bind, weird that you are sniffing there, but it is simple, it is because you just reiterating another one of your comments that is extremely stupid.

We can not believe you are that dumb.

 

[Blues Man]

Wood is not a good choice because we burn it far faster than we can replace it.

We could burn every tree in the country and only get a fraction of the power we use in a year and then it would take 30 years or more to grow the same amount of wood.

Cutting down trees to make electricity is just plain dumb.