Wait, they're converting from coal back to wood? Isn't that like...going backwards technologically? I mean, I'm no historian, but wasn't the whole industrial revolution fueled by not using wood as a fuel source?
Save the trees by not buring pellets? "Wood" pellets are made out of scrap wood that would otherwise be wasted, thrown out, left to rot. It extends what we get out of timber products that have been harvested. "Wood" pellets can also be made out of almost any other burnable organic fuel. They could be made out of old cornstalks, been plants after harvesting etc. Not to far from my home is a plant that makes "wood" pellets from the cotton plant waste after the cotton bolls have been harvested. It provides another product for the cotton farmer and less environmental damage than burning old plants in the fields.
It looks as though UK Government policy is being driven by the need to hit mandatory targets and keep electrons flowing, rather than by a deep desire to cut CO2 emissions right now.
The closing paragraph of the article. And someone is surprised by this?
Understanding that politics (thus politicians) is not about servicing ideology, but about maintaining and accruing political power...a brick in the road to enlightenment.
Maybe it ought to be a requirement for franchise??
Now, I could see getting upset about GA and FL live oak. Did you know that the last time they re-built Constitution, they had to resort to glue-lam knees because of a dearth of properly curved live oak?
Oh, I hope and trust that the nose has healed perfectly.
P.s. Now, if they concentrated their efforts on Ecuador and Ochroma Lagopus, I could get with them. Have any of you folks looked at the price of balsa lately, and noticed its abysmally poor quality? How is a poor man to build a good-flying model airplane these days?
Wait around, these are switching through coal back to solid wood? Isn't that such as...proceeding in reverse scientifically? After all, Now i'm zero historian, but was not the complete professional emerging trend support simply by not necessarily making use of timber as a gasoline origin?
Have you ever tried to burn a witch on a pyre made of coal? Doesn't work at all, far too much second-hand smoke so the NHS nicked it... and with so many racist, anti-religious, anti-social types saying mean and hurtful things about Youths of North Sfrican and South Asian Descent these days, we're going to need a lot of fire to burn the Anti-Social Behaviors out of them.
We shouldn't tell them they're idiots if they're giving us money.
Still, they're morons in the first instance for thinking that they'll reduce carbon emissions by burning wood. What the hell do they think coal and wood have in common? Carbon! What was coal originally? Vegetation, dipspit! Burning trees is basically the same as burning coal, just skipping the whole geological process that makes it more efficient and economically viable.
The part you are missing is that the carbon in coal was sequestered safely underground somewhere around 300 million years ago. It doesn't factor into the current total amount of carbon in the atmosphere until you dig it up and burn it (thus increasing the current total).
With trees, when you grow the tree, it removes X amount of carbon from the atmosphere (as co2) and when you burn it for energy it (theoretically) releases that same X amount of carbon, which is then pulled out of the atmosphere by growing the next tree. This (at least in theory) does not raise the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
While this is a simplified explanation, from what I've read, it is basically tracks true. SO, there IS a big difference between coal and wood for energy.
That is not to say that more carbon in the atmosphere is really the horrible terrible thing that the environmentalists suggest. Quite frankly, I haven't come across a reasonable explanation either way. "It's bad because CARBON!" seems just as ridiculous to me as "it's evil because GUN!", and is the usual explanation that I have heard.
The whole "Disastrous Climate Change" as a result of "Global Warming" caused by "Anthropogenic" increase in atmospheric CO2 rests on a long chain of questionable logic starting from equally questionable data. What gets me is the number of people who think it is just one simple question that has been answered by a scientific consensus.
Global warming? Not a problem. The northern hemisphere, much of the Eastern part of the US, and all of western Europe at lest is kept (artificially?) warm by action of the North Atlantic current. When the warming in the arctic causes enough melt-off, the specific gravity of the North Atlantic will be sufficient to shut down this current. When that happens, the warming will reverse itself (rather dramatically) and the next climate revolution will begin with another ice age.
See, I can play the vague, true-ish sounding, game too. In all honesty, I have probably gotten the details all wrong since I'm doing this from memory, but this idea came from an article I read years ago (I don't remember where, and haven't been able to find it again). Who knows if any of it is true or not.
"The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it." - P.J. O'Rourke
Oh, and contra Staghounds, neither "shipped across the ocean" nor "island made of coal" are good counterarguments (shockingly).
If there's any bulk-hauler going across from the US to Britain/Europe empty, it makes more economic sense to make a pittance hauling pellets than to deadhead.
Cargo vessels, both land and sea, always prefer even a low-paying cargo to running empty, because as I understand it even with sea vessels, the marginal difference in operating cost for empty vs. full is low enough to justify nearly any cargo.
And coal is such nasty stuff to mine and burn from a real non-hippie-CO2-bullshit point of view that it's probably good to replace it with wood in the interim required to build a lot of nuclear plants.
(Again, see "why hippies ruin everything and are counterproductive" re. their opposition to nuclear power.)
All of you people have completely ignored the problem of getting decent balsa (non-dense, no wind checks) at a reasonable price these days. Look at the prices in a recent Sig catalog, and be shocked!
Sometimes I think some of you people have never built a model airplane which flew. I know, intellectually, that there are people like that, but have a hard time believing they really exist. If you can't make an airplane and make it fly, well, I don't think much of you. It's not hard. There are simple rules you can learn.
I'll bet that hemp would be even more effective than wood pulp. Pity the prohibitionists (who are liberals) won't let such a thing happen.
ReplyDeleteWait, they're converting from coal back to wood? Isn't that like...going backwards technologically? I mean, I'm no historian, but wasn't the whole industrial revolution fueled by not using wood as a fuel source?
ReplyDeleteHaven't they heard? AGW is a mess of hooey.
ReplyDeleteIf we wanted happy trees, shouldn't we be increasing our CO2 levels?
ReplyDelete2n CO2 + 2n DH2 + photons → 2(CH2O)n + 2n DO
Gerry
Save the cows! Go vegan!
ReplyDeleteNo, wait, cows make methane which is bad. Evil people make money by exploiting them, which is bad. Rainforests cut down for grazing, which is bad...
Vegan haz cognitive dissonance... (Frowny face)
Been trying to tell people this for years, but they simply will not listen...
ReplyDeleteStuff like this is why I love my "I Club Hippies" shirt.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rangerup.com/iclhiblt.html
Stupid smug hippies.
Save the trees by not buring pellets? "Wood" pellets are made out of scrap wood that would otherwise be wasted, thrown out, left to rot. It extends what we get out of timber products that have been harvested. "Wood" pellets can also be made out of almost any other burnable organic fuel. They could be made out of old cornstalks, been plants after harvesting etc. Not to far from my home is a plant that makes "wood" pellets from the cotton plant waste after the cotton bolls have been harvested. It provides another product for the cotton farmer and less environmental damage than burning old plants in the fields.
ReplyDeleteCan't we just burn environmentalists?
ReplyDeletehttp://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-03-29/
Seriously, it's all "renewable sources mandate", then they complain about "This is among the most effective tree farming in the world"...
ReplyDeleteWhat do those god-damn geniuses think "renewable" means?
(It's like the people in the US who think toilet paper is made from old-growth forests.
No, they make those into lumber, though some of the sawdust/scrap makes it into paper, because lack of waste, yo.
We get paper pulp from farmed trees, hippie!)
Contrary to the propaganda, trees are not especially hug-able.
ReplyDeleteIt looks as though UK Government policy is being driven by the need to hit mandatory targets and keep electrons flowing, rather than by a deep desire to cut CO2 emissions right now.
ReplyDeleteThe closing paragraph of the article. And someone is surprised by this?
Understanding that politics (thus politicians) is not about servicing ideology, but about maintaining and accruing political power...a brick in the road to enlightenment.
Maybe it ought to be a requirement for franchise??
Thanks,
JSG
Jennifer
ReplyDeleteContrary to the propaganda, trees are not especially hug-able.
That was posted while I was typing my reply, but it's just too fantastic to ignore.
I tip my hat, and my head, ma'am.
JSG
Now, I could see getting upset about GA and FL live oak. Did you know that the last time they re-built Constitution, they had to resort to glue-lam knees because of a dearth of properly curved live oak?
ReplyDeleteOh, I hope and trust that the nose has healed perfectly.
P.s. Now, if they concentrated their efforts on Ecuador and Ochroma Lagopus, I could get with them. Have any of you folks looked at the price of balsa lately, and noticed its abysmally poor quality? How is a poor man to build a good-flying model airplane these days?
ReplyDelete@Micki: I kick myself for not buying the Tshirt that said "I eat vegan!!! Cows are vegan, right?"
ReplyDeleteNot just converting back to wood, but wood SHIPPED ACROSS THE OCEAN.
ReplyDeleteAll on an island made of coal.
Maybe they could pelletize muslims?????
ReplyDeleteWe have to burn the forest in order to save it.
ReplyDeleteWait around, these are switching through coal back to solid wood? Isn't that such as...proceeding in reverse scientifically? After all, Now i'm zero historian, but was not the complete professional emerging trend support simply by not necessarily making use of timber as a gasoline origin?
ReplyDeleteHave you ever tried to burn a witch on a pyre made of coal? Doesn't work at all, far too much second-hand smoke so the NHS nicked it... and with so many racist, anti-religious, anti-social types saying mean and hurtful things about Youths of North Sfrican and South Asian Descent these days, we're going to need a lot of fire to burn the Anti-Social Behaviors out of them.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't tell them they're idiots if they're giving us money.
ReplyDeleteStill, they're morons in the first instance for thinking that they'll reduce carbon emissions by burning wood. What the hell do they think coal and wood have in common? Carbon! What was coal originally? Vegetation, dipspit! Burning trees is basically the same as burning coal, just skipping the whole geological process that makes it more efficient and economically viable.
Nathan,
ReplyDeleteThe part you are missing is that the carbon in coal was sequestered safely underground somewhere around 300 million years ago. It doesn't factor into the current total amount of carbon in the atmosphere until you dig it up and burn it (thus increasing the current total).
With trees, when you grow the tree, it removes X amount of carbon from the atmosphere (as co2) and when you burn it for energy it (theoretically) releases that same X amount of carbon, which is then pulled out of the atmosphere by growing the next tree. This (at least in theory) does not raise the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
While this is a simplified explanation, from what I've read, it is basically tracks true. SO, there IS a big difference between coal and wood for energy.
That is not to say that more carbon in the atmosphere is really the horrible terrible thing that the environmentalists suggest. Quite frankly, I haven't come across a reasonable explanation either way. "It's bad because CARBON!" seems just as ridiculous to me as "it's evil because GUN!", and is the usual explanation that I have heard.
s
The whole "Disastrous Climate Change" as a result of "Global Warming" caused by "Anthropogenic" increase in atmospheric CO2 rests on a long chain of questionable logic starting from equally questionable data. What gets me is the number of people who think it is just one simple question that has been answered by a scientific consensus.
ReplyDeleteYeah I know, someone already said it was hooey.
Jennifer said...
ReplyDeleteContrary to the propaganda, trees are not especially hug-able.
You just haven't met the right tree.
Global warming? Not a problem. The northern hemisphere, much of the Eastern part of the US, and all of western Europe at lest is kept (artificially?) warm by action of the North Atlantic current. When the warming in the arctic causes enough melt-off, the specific gravity of the North Atlantic will be sufficient to shut down this current. When that happens, the warming will reverse itself (rather dramatically) and the next climate revolution will begin with another ice age.
ReplyDeleteSee, I can play the vague, true-ish sounding, game too. In all honesty, I have probably gotten the details all wrong since I'm doing this from memory, but this idea came from an article I read years ago (I don't remember where, and haven't been able to find it again). Who knows if any of it is true or not.
s
Not to worry; when the muzzlims take over in Britain, they're going to outlaw electricity anyway. Something about it being the Work of Shaytan.
ReplyDelete"The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it."
ReplyDelete- P.J. O'Rourke
Yah, yah, I know, concur, etc., but what does all of this have to do with the price of balsa?
ReplyDeleteI dunno, I might somewhat agree with them with a minor edit..."Save the trees (for us)", "Save the corn (for us)!
ReplyDeleteOh, and contra Staghounds, neither "shipped across the ocean" nor "island made of coal" are good counterarguments (shockingly).
ReplyDeleteIf there's any bulk-hauler going across from the US to Britain/Europe empty, it makes more economic sense to make a pittance hauling pellets than to deadhead.
Cargo vessels, both land and sea, always prefer even a low-paying cargo to running empty, because as I understand it even with sea vessels, the marginal difference in operating cost for empty vs. full is low enough to justify nearly any cargo.
And coal is such nasty stuff to mine and burn from a real non-hippie-CO2-bullshit point of view that it's probably good to replace it with wood in the interim required to build a lot of nuclear plants.
(Again, see "why hippies ruin everything and are counterproductive" re. their opposition to nuclear power.)
All of you people have completely ignored the problem of getting decent balsa (non-dense, no wind checks) at a reasonable price these days. Look at the prices in a recent Sig catalog, and be shocked!
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think some of you people have never built a model airplane which flew. I know, intellectually, that there are people like that, but have a hard time believing they really exist. If you can't make an airplane and make it fly, well, I don't think much of you. It's not hard. There are simple rules you can learn.