Another green energy hoax

[Colin norris]

We must chop the forest down to save the planet............why does every green energy solution end up in the ridiculous and hypocritical zone?

Hardwood forests cut down to feed Drax Power plant, Channel 4 Dispatches claims

A Dispatches investigation has uncovered evidence of hardwood forests being chopped down to provide 'green energy' for the UK. Experts say unique habitats rich in wildlife are under threat as Britain’s power stations switch from burning coal to wood, writes BRENDAN MONTAGUE

theecologist.org

Really?
Youd believe anything.

 

[Crick]

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.

Explain to us how burning a tree produces more CO2 than that same tree decaying on the forest floor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Explain to us how burning a tree produces more CO2 than that same tree decaying on the forest floor.

Explain how a ton of tree CO2 absorbs less IR than a ton of coal or natgas CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 535780

Yep! A trillion or more to develop green energy sources when investing that same amount in nuclear power will provide hundreds of times more energy is very progressive.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Now that is one dumb statement. Nuclear is a dirty and very expensive way to produce electricity. We can produce all the energy with need with solar and wind. VPP's and agri-voltaics are far cheaper than nuclear or any fossil fuel plants. And both serve a dual purpose.

Levelized Cost of Energy+

Levelized Cost of Energy+

www.lazard.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Greenies have stupid ideas all the time.

So says the fellow that loves the fact that pollution from the burning of fossil fuels kills about 8 million people a year.

Air Pollution Kills Far More People Than Covid Ever Will

More than 10 million people die every year from a problem that doesn’t receive the attention it should.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Explain how a ton of tree CO2 absorbs less IR than a ton of coal or natgas CO2.

Well, the standard explanation is that since another tree will grow and use that CO2, whereas coal, oil, or gas are already sequestered. However, a tree takes a long time to grow, and it takes little time to burn one. So, cutting trees just to burn is a losing proposition. However, when you mill trees for lumber, there is a fair amount of waste. Bark, and the inevitable waste wood. Most of the tree is made into lumber, and that is effectively sequestered for decades. So burning the waste from that operation is a good use.

 

[Old Rocks]

These assholes are truly despicable.

Not to worry, you lovers of fossil fuels are changing the climate rapidly enough that we are losing stretches of forest measured in thousands of square miles, so you won't have to worry about that. Aren't you boys so proud of yourselves.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you're cutting it down in your backyard and burning it, it's carbon neutral.
If you're cutting it down and shipping it thousands of miles, because you think that
makes you green, you're a fucking moron.

Oh, damn, I see. You are now blaming the capitalists who are just trying to make a buck. Shame on you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So says the fellow that loves the fact that pollution from the burning of fossil fuels kills about 8 million people a year.

Air Pollution Kills Far More People Than Covid Ever Will

More than 10 million people die every year from a problem that doesn’t receive the attention it should.

www.bloomberg.com

How many lives are made possible by burning fossil fuels?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, the standard explanation is that since another tree will grow and use that CO2, whereas coal, oil, or gas are already sequestered. However, a tree takes a long time to grow, and it takes little time to burn one. So, cutting trees just to burn is a losing proposition. However, when you mill trees for lumber, there is a fair amount of waste. Bark, and the inevitable waste wood. Most of the tree is made into lumber, and that is effectively sequestered for decades. So burning the waste from that operation is a good use.

Well, the standard explanation is that since another tree will grow and use that CO2, whereas coal, oil, or gas are already sequestered.

You're right, trees never sequester CO2 from coal, oil or gas.

However, a tree takes a long time to grow, and it takes little time to burn one.

I agree, claiming biomass doesn't add CO2 when burned is beyond moronic.

However, when you mill trees for lumber, there is a fair amount of waste. Bark, and the inevitable waste wood.

If you proved they were only burning the waste, not the entire tree, the idea would be slightly less moronic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, damn, I see. You are now blaming the capitalists who are just trying to make a buck. Shame on you.

Capitalists? The only reason they're doing it is because of the goverment subsidy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not to worry, you lovers of fossil fuels are changing the climate rapidly enough that we are losing stretches of forest measured in thousands of square miles, so you won't have to worry about that. Aren't you boys so proud of yourselves.

How many square miles are lost for each PPM of added CO2? How do you know?

 

[elektra]

Explain to us how burning a tree produces more CO2 than that same tree decaying on the forest floor.

No, you explain yourself. You keep posting all this nonsense. You prove you know nothing. Now you explain yourself. Do what you demand of others. And do it with references as you demand of me and others.

And when you explain, make sure you state which tree, how many years old. Be exact. Because all trees are different.

Show us how trees are dont pollute when they burn. Show us, with links, all you have claimed.

You made the claim now it is time for you to prove it, put up or shut up. Do what you demand, or are simply a hack hypocrite.

 

[Crick]

No, you explain yourself. You keep posting all this nonsense. You prove you know nothing. Now you explain yourself. Do what you demand of others. And do it with references as you demand of me and others.

And when you explain, make sure you state which tree, how many years old. Be exact. Because all trees are different.

Show us how trees are dont pollute when they burn. Show us, with links, all you have claimed.

You made the claim now it is time for you to prove it, put up or shut up. Do what you demand, or are simply a hack hypocrite.

Is it better for the environment to burn a dead tree (and offset propane for home heat) or leave it to decompose?

Answer (1 of 7): There are a few competing desires here. Forest ecologists have finally been making it known that dead trees, both standing and fallen, provide habitat for a number of forest residents. Therefore at least some wood should be left alone. However, the decomposition of a tree produc...

www.quora.com

Does wood release more carbon when burned or when left to decompose?

Answer (1 of 3): Over time, wood will release its carbon one way or another, though under certain circumstances, it may become sequestered, or locked up for a while. Wherever there are bogs, this process happens. Old wood accumulates and is turned into peat, then lignite, then finally into coal. ...

www.quora.com

Does organic decay release the same CO2 as burning?

Does a fallen tree left to decay release essentially all of its stored carbon as $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ to the atmosphere? Or is the carbon uptaken by termites and bacteria, preventing its release t...

earthscience.stackexchange.com

Is It Better To Burn Wood or Let It Rot? - The Hiking Authority

I live in a rural area where I have to clear and deal with brush every year. The bigger stuff gets cut, split and stacked for my wood burner, but what should I do with the smaller debris? Is it better burn the brush or stack it up and let it decompose? Decomposition produces methane… Read More...

thehikingauthority.com

Climate Curious: Is burning wood for heat carbon neutral?

Many Minnesotans still use wood as either a primary or secondary source of heat for their homes. So, what’s the impact on carbon emissions?

www.mprnews.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is it better for the environment to burn a dead tree (and offset propane for home heat) or leave it to decompose?

Answer (1 of 7): There are a few competing desires here. Forest ecologists have finally been making it known that dead trees, both standing and fallen, provide habitat for a number of forest residents. Therefore at least some wood should be left alone. However, the decomposition of a tree produc...

www.quora.com

Does wood release more carbon when burned or when left to decompose?

Answer (1 of 3): Over time, wood will release its carbon one way or another, though under certain circumstances, it may become sequestered, or locked up for a while. Wherever there are bogs, this process happens. Old wood accumulates and is turned into peat, then lignite, then finally into coal. ...

www.quora.com

Does organic decay release the same CO2 as burning?

Does a fallen tree left to decay release essentially all of its stored carbon as $\small\mathsf{CO_2}$ to the atmosphere? Or is the carbon uptaken by termites and bacteria, preventing its release t...

earthscience.stackexchange.com

Is It Better To Burn Wood or Let It Rot? - The Hiking Authority

I live in a rural area where I have to clear and deal with brush every year. The bigger stuff gets cut, split and stacked for my wood burner, but what should I do with the smaller debris? Is it better burn the brush or stack it up and let it decompose? Decomposition produces methane… Read More...

thehikingauthority.com

Climate Curious: Is burning wood for heat carbon neutral?

Many Minnesotans still use wood as either a primary or secondary source of heat for their homes. So, what’s the impact on carbon emissions?

www.mprnews.org

This CO2, from burning wood, is perfectly harmless.

This CO2, from burning coal, is the devil.
It's going to kill your children and drink all your beer.

 

[elektra]

Explain to us how burning a tree produces more CO2 than that same tree decaying on the forest floor.

You are not picking up and using the decaying trees. This is what we call a false premise. This is something that is not happening.

So, how about sticking to the truth, the facts, and not some argument that is fake.

 

[Old Rocks]

How many lives are made possible by burning fossil fuels?

How many live were made possible by using horses for transportation?

 

[Old Rocks]

This CO2, from burning wood, is perfectly harmless.

View attachment 540934


This CO2, from burning coal, is the devil.
It's going to kill your children and drink all your beer.

View attachment 540935

What an asinine statement. CO2 from plants decaying has been happening as long as there have been plants. Plants using that same CO2 to create more plants has been happening as long as there have been plants. In other words., a cycle with little loss or gain to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Taking sequestered CO2 out of the ground and burning it increasing the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been done by humans only for the last 200 years. And in that 200 years we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 410+ ppm. Increased the CH4 from about 600-700 ppb to over 1850 ppb. That is about ten times as fast as happened in periods of extinctions caused by excursions in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many live were made possible by using horses for transportation?

Fewer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What an asinine statement. CO2 from plants decaying has been happening as long as there have been plants. Plants using that same CO2 to create more plants has been happening as long as there have been plants. In other words., a cycle with little loss or gain to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Taking sequestered CO2 out of the ground and burning it increasing the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been done by humans only for the last 200 years. And in that 200 years we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 410+ ppm. Increased the CH4 from about 600-700 ppb to over 1850 ppb. That is about ten times as fast as happened in periods of extinctions caused by excursions in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

What causes more warming, a ton of CO2 from burning wood, or a ton of CO2 from burning coal?