Exxon accurately predicted GW in the 70s but kept casting doubt for decades

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now, it’s only carbon neutral renewable if you burn wood byproducts that if left on the ground would release more co2 then burning it.

Dope doesn't understand stoichiometry.

 

[Dagosa]

Dope doesn't understand stoichiometry.

Is that anything like pig Latin ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that anything like pig Latin ?

For you, that's it exactly.

 

[Dagosa]

For you, that's it exactly.

Another feeble attempt at sounding like you knew what you were talking about. Woo woo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another feeble attempt at sounding like you knew what you were talking about. Woo woo.

Liberals are really bad at math.

 

[Dagosa]

In other words, the science is not mattering in the real world....fails to transcend beyond its own field...d0y

It’s too bad so much real science disagrees with you. There are no science related fields in any gov, university or related corporation that agrees with you. Solar energy is cheaper, more available and more reliable then any fossil fuel or nuclear power plant. It’s technology is in its infancy and it’s already cheaper and inexhaustible.

 

[Dagosa]

Liberals are really bad at math.

I’ll take that challenge. Bring it on. No fake made up shit now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I’ll take that challenge. Bring it on. No fake made up shit now.

Show how wood byproducts left on the ground would release more CO2 then burning it.

Use your best stoichiometry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar energy is cheaper, more available and more reliable then any fossil fuel or nuclear power plant.

What's solar nameplate capacity versus actual output?

 

[Dagosa]

Show how wood byproducts left on the ground would release more CO2 then burning it.

Use your best stoichiometry.

Here it is, wood burning in the form of pellets from wood byproducts from Yale.

Carbon Loophole: Why Is Wood Burning Counted as Green Energy?

A loophole in carbon-accounting rules is spurring a boom in burning wood pellets in European power plants. The result has been a surge in logging, particularly in the U.S. South, and new doubts about whether Europe can meet its commitments under the Paris accord.

e360.yale.edu

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here it is, wood burning in the form of pellets from wood byproducts from Yale.

Carbon Loophole: Why Is Wood Burning Counted as Green Energy?

A loophole in carbon-accounting rules is spurring a boom in burning wood pellets in European power plants. The result has been a surge in logging, particularly in the U.S. South, and new doubts about whether Europe can meet its commitments under the Paris accord.

e360.yale.edu

Thanks for the useless link.

Show how wood byproducts left on the ground would release more CO2 then burning it.

 

[Dagosa]

What's solar nameplate capacity versus actual output?

Your question is immaterial. Once it’s converted to electricity which is fungible and easily compared to ANY FUEL.
Kwh is the common unit of comparison.
.
“Electricity from fossil fuels costs between 5 and 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar energy costs average between 3 cents and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour and are trending down, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.”

 

[Dagosa]

Show how wood byproducts left on the ground would release more CO2 then burning it.

Use your best stoichiometry.

Incorrect question. You’ve already introduced a fallacy. It’s burning wood by products by processing it first.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your question is immaterial. Once it’s converted to electricity which is fungible and easily compared to ANY FUEL.
Kwh is the common unit of comparison.
.
“Electricity from fossil fuels costs between 5 and 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar energy costs average between 3 cents and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour and are trending down, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.”

Your question is immaterial.

And there's more evidence you're a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Incorrect question. You’ve already introduced a fallacy. It’s burning wood by products by processing it first.

You made a claim, now prove it.

Now, it’s only carbon neutral renewable if you burn wood byproducts that if left on the ground would release more co2 then burning it.

Which wood byproducts could possibly release more CO2 if left on the ground then burning it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Saw this yesterday and thought of Crick...

The boy is in deep...


Judge Dismisses Lawsuit About Big Oil Conspiracy | ZeroHedge


Whoooops

Didn't even open your own link, did ya? Totally irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now, it’s only carbon neutral renewable if you burn wood byproducts that if left on the ground would release more co2 then burning it.

Dang that is dumb. Some seriously low IQ trolling.

 

[Dagosa]

Incorrect question. You’ve already introduced a fallacy. It’s burning wood by products by processing it first.

Your question is immaterial.

And there's more evidence you're a moron.

Just burning wood produces without processing it from any bio mass is much less efficient. The managed trees use for other uses easily converts more CO2 to 02 then the processed wood by products produce CO2 when burning.
That’s why the EPA has declared pellet burning stoves as carbon neutral from bio mass

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dang that is dumb. Some seriously low IQ trolling.

Yeah, Dagosa is a moron.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, Dagosa is a moron.

You are embarrassing yourself with your low IQ trolling