i understand it...it's a silly justificaton for wood burning
Harris wants to reclaim abandoned land mines
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
No you don't. That is why you find it bizarre.
lemme see.
the trees have already absorbed carbon, so burning wood is carbon neutral- right?
how about we dont burn trees? doesn't that REDUCE carbon output?
The answer lies with nukes, but Progs hate nukes.. so we burn carbon instead
1. Burning trees releases carbon that the tree absorbed during it's lifespan, doesn't change the amount.
2. Burning nat gas releases carbon absorbed millions of years ago, increasing the status quo.
Now is where it gets even trickier; The truth is that burning wood for heat is actually carbon negative.
That's right.
When wood is burned instead of fossil fuels, it is carbon negative because approximately half of the tree remains underground, sequestered.
Pellet are even moreso, much more in fact. When products are made from wood, even more carbon is sequestered (in the forms of homes, furniture etc.)
When the pellets are burned in place of fossil fuels, far less carbon than the trees absorbed is released.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
That’s fucking hilarious coming from pod people who swallowed the ten’s of thousands of lies vomited out of your god/kings mouth. Both of you swallowed that shit like it’s tasty. The really good news is that your brainless loyalty to a clown has stripped you and your hillbilly clan of any illusion of integrity, honest, and intelligence. Ignoring your butt-hurt sniveling has never been easier.
There were times when I believed that both of you were smart and had good sense, now you’ve made YOURSELVES into idiots who are now aligned with people who believe in Jewish funded laser beams from outer space, and democrats who steal babies su they can drink their blood. That’s what your team, and possibly YOU believe. Alll you have left to add to adult political conversation is minor slips of the tongue or speech from the other side, the side with brains.
I come here for the comedy, but I never expected that you two would end up being the clowns.
WHAT A FUCKIN' MORON. SHE'S THE GREATEST LIFE INSURANCE BIDEN HAS....
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Wood pellets during manufacture release huge quantities of VOC's into the atmosphere. This is so bad that at least one German company moved their major production operation to Texas where they've been repeatedly fined by the state and federal EPA's for air quality violations...
Then there's the difference in BTU's per unit of material burned. Natural gas is far more energy efficient than wood pellets by volume. This means it takes less natural gas to produce a particular amount of heat. That in turn means that natural gas produces less CO2 by volume than wood pellets.
Add to that that as the use of pellet stoves increases, the rate at which trees can be grown compared to the amount of wood needed for pellets goes negative. That is, you can't grow enough trees to replace the ones you use to make wood pellets. So, it's a lie in the form of a sweeping generality that wood pellets are carbon neutral or negative.
This graph is for PM 10, another air pollutant:
Natural gas is more energy efficient and costs less:
And natural gas produces less CO2 per kwh used.
And, you can't believe the "True Believers" who have settled on a "solution" for a second. They play loose and fast with their data...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/wood-green-source-energy-scientists-are-divided
Oh, add in that the maintenance on a pellet stove is nearly infinitely greater than a gas heater. One service a year on a gas heater is usually sufficient for it to run efficiently. Pellet stoves require daily maintenance like removing ash (something you don't get with natural gas) from it daily...
Shit fer brains; That is why we have an EPA and why pellet plants burn excess VOCs (which are also released by standing timberWood pellets during manufacture release huge quantities of VOC's into the atmosphere. This is so bad that at least one German company moved their major production operation to Texas where they've been repeatedly fined by the state and federal EPA's for air quality violations...
Then there's the difference in BTU's per unit of material burned. Natural gas is far more energy efficient than wood pellets by volume. This means it takes less natural gas to produce a particular amount of heat. That in turn means that natural gas produces less CO2 by volume than wood pellets.
Add to that that as the use of pellet stoves increases, the rate at which trees can be grown compared to the amount of wood needed for pellets goes negative. That is, you can't grow enough trees to replace the ones you use to make wood pellets. So, it's a lie in the form of a sweeping generality that wood pellets are carbon neutral or negative.
This graph is for PM 10, another air pollutant:
Natural gas is more energy efficient and costs less:
And natural gas produces less CO2 per kwh used.
And, you can't believe the "True Believers" who have settled on a "solution" for a second. They play loose and fast with their data...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/wood-green-source-energy-scientists-are-divided
Oh, add in that the maintenance on a pellet stove is nearly infinitely greater than a gas heater. One service a year on a gas heater is usually sufficient for it to run efficiently. Pellet stoves require daily maintenance like removing ash (something you don't get with natural gas) from it daily...
Shut the fuck up, RETARD
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Lol!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He's been touting that bullshit for years, I put him straight before but he still come back for more!!
Wood pellets: Renewable, but not carbon neutral
by Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
A return to firewood is bad for forests and the climate. So reports William Schlesinger, President Emeritus of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, in an Insights article published today in the journal Science.
In the race to meet clean energy standards, biomass energy is often touted as carbon neutral. To satisfy European Union (EU) demand, forests in the United States are turned into wood pellets and shipped overseas, to the tune of 7 million metric tons annually. When these pellets are burned in the EU, the electricity they generate helps fulfill Paris Agreement commitments.
The stage is also being set for a potential uptick in biomass energy in the US, as Congress may declare biomass carbon neutral in an effort to revive the American forest product industry. A tax on fossil carbon would further incentivize US demand for wood pellets.
But turning forests into fuel has hard limitations. Accounting for biomass energy often ignores the critical role forests play as a sink for carbon dioxide that might otherwise accumulate in the atmosphere. As Schlesinger reports, each year, an estimated 31% of the carbon dioxide emitted from human activities is stored in forests.
Native forests store more carbon dioxide than their plantation counterparts. Harvested pellets require fossil energy during manufacturing and overseas shipping. As Schlesinger explains, "The benefits of wood power must be discounted by the loss of the carbon sequestration that would have occurred in the original forests if they had not been harvested."
Wood pellets: Renewable, but not carbon neutral
The Southern US is more intensively harvested and has far fewer forest reserves than the North and West. At the same time, the region is a hotspot for plant and animal biodiversity. Credit: David Allen
He notes, "It makes no sense to have Europeans embracing wood pellets as carbon neutral, while overlooking the carbon dioxide emitted during shipment and the losses of carbon storage from forests in the United States."
Then there is biodiversity to consider. In the southeastern US, pine plantations are a major source of pellet wood. Yet pines are of limited value in preserving the region's rich biodiversity. As demand for wood pellets rises, old growth forests are also put under pressure of harvest. A myriad of species rely on these globally rare ecosystems.
Schlesinger concludes, "Ultimately, the question is what kinds of forests are most desirable for the future. Recent research indicates that unless forests are guaranteed to regrow to carbon parity, production of wood pellets for fuel is likely to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and preserve fewer species on the landscape during the next several decades."
Biomass shortfalls include:
Fossil fuels power wood pellet export. Wood pellets produced in managed forests in the southern hemisphere are shipped to Europe where they are burned. The amount of energy required to power this shipping process can account for 25% of the total carbon emissions associated with biomass-fueled energy generation in Europe.
Timber plantations do not store as much carbon as natural forests. It would take 40-100 years for a managed forest to store as much carbon as a natural one. Trees planted to produce wood pellets are often cut within 20 years, which is not enough time for them to take in the carbon released by the harvest and combustion of the previous 'generation' of natural forest.
Monoculture degrades biodiversity. Timber plantations, which are typically dominated by a single tree species, cannot support the diversity of life found in natural forests. Also, increasing demand for wood pellets drives up the price of raw wood, incentivizing the harvest of biologically diverse old-growth forests.
Cleared forests are vulnerable to non-forest development. New trees are not always planted where forests have been cut for fuel. In such cases, the carbon sequestration potential of the existing forest is completely eliminated.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-wood-pellets-renewable-carbon-neutral.html
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He hasn't mellowed with age, has he? Still a major league fuckwit.
Hoosier Daddy
Verified User
but does she believe in windmill cancer? does she think nuking hurricanes to keep them from hitting this country makes sense? does she agree with trump when he said on July 4th the colonists defeated the Brits in 1776 by controlling the airports, manning the skies and ramming their ramparts? oh, i see. she made a simple gaffe, land mines, instead of just mines. wow. good catch, stupid fuck bitch.
Hoosier Daddy
Verified User
which puts her about 5000 calibers smarter than trump and all his feather-brained, easily played voters. like you, stupid.
Wood pellets: Renewable, but not carbon neutral
The Southern US is more intensively harvested and has far fewer forest reserves than the North and West. At the same time, the region is a hotspot for plant and animal biodiversity. Credit: David Allen
He notes, "It makes no sense to have Europeans embracing wood pellets as carbon neutral, while overlooking the carbon dioxide emitted during shipment and the losses of carbon storage from forests in the United States."
Then there is biodiversity to consider. In the southeastern US, pine plantations are a major source of pellet wood. Yet pines are of limited value in preserving the region's rich biodiversity. As demand for wood pellets rises, old growth forests are also put under pressure of harvest. A myriad of species rely on these globally rare ecosystems.
Schlesinger concludes, "Ultimately, the question is what kinds of forests are most desirable for the future. Recent research indicates that unless forests are guaranteed to regrow to carbon parity, production of wood pellets for fuel is likely to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and preserve fewer species on the landscape during the next several decades."
Strange, now the right are outraged when someone makes a speaking gaff, but for four years they ignored the continuous gaffs by the orange one, must be another one of those changes that happens the instant someone else is in office.
What is funny is watching the right desperately trying find anything everything to whine about the new administration, wait until Biden or Harris put their feet up on their desk or even worse chew gum in public, same old stupid whine by the same old stupid people.
What is funny is watching the right desperately trying find anything everything to whine about the new administration, wait until Biden or Harris put their feet up on their desk or even worse chew gum in public, same old stupid whine by the same old stupid people.
no. she went there to pressure Manchin in his own back yard
and made a fool of herself for trying to explain new jobs for WV