Burning wood is absolutly not carbon neutral it is closer than burning fossil fuels without a doubt but when left to decompose a very large percentage of the carbon goes into the soil not the air.Wood burning is carbon neutral because trees absorb just as much carbon in life as they release after they die.
On the other hand, if we burn all the known fossil fuel reserves, the planets climate reverts back to an earlier time period and is uninhabitable. Planet earth is a wonderful place for humans precisely because so much carbon was sequestered (locked up) over billions of years. You don't want to undo that in 200 short years. The science on this is solid and, contrary to disinformation campaigns designed to maintain the dollar value of those reserves, even the uncertainties with the current science are miniscule in terms of the bigger picture. Specifically, these reserves took billions of years to sequester so much carbon, whether the climate takes 20 years, 100 years or even 200 years to completely transform, that is irrelevant. It is an unacceptable change for the human species (which is adapted to live in our current climate).
If it is impossible to consume all known petroleum reserves without creating a planet that is uninhabitable by humans, then what is the true economic worth of those reserves? Currently they are being valued at many billions of dollars and, when you buy stock in an oil major, those reserves (and the future income streams from those reserves) are what you are paying for. But if they can't be burned without eliminating most or all humans, than the bulk of those vast reserves are literally worthless and the oil companies annual statements that value those reserves at many billions of dollars are essentially fraudulent. By using disinformation to discredit that global warming is even an issue, the value of those reserves is supported. And oil has created a major part of the wealth that exists today. So, by believing and supporting those disinformation campaigns, and by electing people who say they aren't convinced GW is due to burning of fossil fuels, people are actually supporting the wealthy families who became wealthy through oil and still have major portions of their wealth in oil. To sell it all would trigger huge capital gains liabilities so they must transfer the wealth slowly and sell it off as fast as they are able to create matching tax credits to balance the capital gains. With wealth this large that can take decades. They are hoping that by the time it is widely realized those reserves can't be consumed (which makes the estimated future worth of those reserves fraudulent) they will have unloaded their vast oil empires onto the people via pension funds and the like. As long as they can plausibly claim their is no problem with burning all their known reserves, it is not fraudulent to value them as if they can be used. So, yes, help them sow their doubt and spread their seeds of disinformation and see how that helps you, the common man. They have you fooled that, by being a GW skeptic, you are sticking it to "the man".
Currently, they only have the most gullible 35% supporting them. But that is enough to help them unwind their oil interests in a more profitable manner and avoid a lot of tax that would be due if they unwound their positions at once. It really is all about money yet some can't see it.
Grand Solar Minimum - Is a mini ice age upon us?
- Thread starter RFarm
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
Burning wood is absolutly not carbon neutral it is closer than burning fossil fuels without a doubt but when left to decompose a very large percentage of the carbon goes into the soil not the air.
The idea that low solar output caused the last ice age has been completly disproven many times. It is a myth.
Science should always be skeptical and self-examining. On the other hand, cherry picked data, deflection and deception is not science. When paid for to obscure or distract from the truth it is agenda driven disinformation.
Currently, overpopulation and critical climate change appear to be on concurrent paths and due to collide. One scenario could be that pandemic disease caused by climate change may bring about notable population decline.
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
What percentage of the carbon goes into the soil? Because soil microbes actually release the carbon over time. Where I collect wood it happens very quickly because it's a rainforest. Sure, there are lot's of ways one could nit-pick that wood heating is not quite carbon neutral because it depends on whether you're cutting live trees or downed trees, whether you use a chainsaw or bowsaw, etc. etc. etc. A solaar panel is not carbon neutral either because raw materials must be mined, panels must be transported, the installers must get to the job site, etc. etc. etc. But the bottom line is a tree absorbs exactly as much carbon as it releases. The carbon a decaying tree releases into the soil is also liberated eventually. Growing trees absorb carbon from the forest floor too. After my wood is burnt, I put the ashes back into the forest floor.
Your not going to spoil the carbon neutral smile I get every time I have a fire that easily.
Like i said it is close but you cant claim neutral if it isnt. It is inaccuracies like that that give fuel to the climate deniersWhat percentage of the carbon goes into the soil? Because soil microbes actually release the carbon over time. Where I collect wood it happens very quickly because it's a rainforest. Sure, there are lot's of ways one could nit-pick that wood heating is not quite carbon neutral because it depends on whether you're cutting live trees or downed trees, whether you use a chainsaw or bowsaw, etc. etc. etc. A solaar panel is not carbon neutral either because raw materials must be mined, panels must be transported, the installers must get to the job site, etc. etc. etc. But the bottom line is a tree absorbs exactly as much carbon as it releases. The carbon a decaying tree releases into the soil is also liberated eventually. Growing trees absorb carbon from the forest floor too. After my wood is burnt, I put the ashes back into the forest floor.
Your not going to spoil the carbon neutral smile I get every time I have a fire that easily.
pretty good read on what ended the last one. http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/
Squirrel1410
New Member
Squirrel1410
New Member
Good then what's the problem? For someone accusing others of lackling scientific knowledge, you should know that renewables are not YET as efficient.
And yes NOAA did alter historical temperature data.
Last edited:
Renewables are already more efficient, but it depends on the sector and location. Solar production is now at $.045/ kWh and is continuing to get cheaper every year. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/03/this-is-the-biggest-news-in-electricity-since-the.aspx
This is causing some areas to rethink future investment in fossil fuel or gas plants.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-93497988/
Other studies show renewables holding their own.
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Ene...are-more-Efficient-than-Traditional-Ones.html
This is an interesting collection of thoughts by a number of experts:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324485004578424624254723536
But the cheapest efficiencies are often found not by alternative energy sources, but by reducing consumption. We still have a long way to go there too.
This is causing some areas to rethink future investment in fossil fuel or gas plants.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-93497988/
Other studies show renewables holding their own.
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Ene...are-more-Efficient-than-Traditional-Ones.html
This is an interesting collection of thoughts by a number of experts:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324485004578424624254723536
But the cheapest efficiencies are often found not by alternative energy sources, but by reducing consumption. We still have a long way to go there too.
Last edited:
Squirrely
Feeling the Heat
Belief in catastrophic human caused global warming is a secular political religion, where only the believer's god of government can save the Earth through taxation regulation and litigation.
Squirrel1410
New Member
It really depends where the plant is, if we're talking about a solar farm.
The third article you posted talks about efficiency in terms of energy lost as heat during conversion to electricity. That's a little misleading when a solar plant of 100 acres can only power about 2,400 homes at 12 megawatts (on a sunny day). The grand coulee dam puts out 6,809 MW per year in comparison! But there's only so many places hydroelectric can be used, and the same with solar. Even if roughly half of the energy is lost as heat relating to coal / nuclear, the overall amount converted to energy far exceeds that of solar for a similar sized plant.
So in terms of efficiency, I was referring to overall energy production, not energy lost during conversion to electricity.
Here's a fascinating article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ants-in-america-not-what-everyone-claims/amp/
As for cost (that first article), sure, it can and will save money once all these solar farms are developed. I'm not saying don't build some of them, but they do take up a tremendous amount of space and are not efficient everywhere (places with lots of rain etc). And windmills lining mountains like they do now up near North Conway NH, is pretty ugly.
Agreed, as noted :
Yes, compared to a pristine landscape, they may be unattractive, but plunk a large coal or nuke plant there and it wouldn't be too pretty either.
Seasoned Oak
Minister of Fire
The last line is telling "in a few centuries" I would think by that time we will have figured the whole thing out. Im all in favor of solar ,we will get there eventually.
Seasoned Oak
Minister of Fire
That would leave volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes to reverse the warming trends. Volcanic eruptions seem to be the most frequent with the super volcano eruptions every few hundred thousand years. One of these will be a lot worse for the population than the warming trend itself.
Yes it would be much worse. But we cant do anything about that we can change our habits that contribute to the problem. And you are wrong there are many other natural factors that effect our climate.
The author did not calculate the dramatic effects of population growth, world wars, energy consumption nor transportation and agricultural changes.
Seasoned Oak
Minister of Fire
I agree with all that BG but with unchecked population growth and an economy built on a mountain of debt, it will be hard to achieve all that without addressing the things that are making it worse at a faster pace. Global warming may be the biggest problem we have in 50-100 years but we will have bigger problems before that. That list is a good goal with or without warming.
Seasoned Oak
Minister of Fire
One elephant in the room of pollution is the ocean quickly filling up with plastic .That plastic slowly breaking down into smaller pieces and showing up in almost every marine creature ,a lot of which wind up on our dinner table. We really need to do something about this NOW . Put deposits or taxes on plastic bags or just plain find degradable substitutes quickly. We could prevent a lot of new plastic from entering the waterways and any money raised from this should only go to cleaning up what is already in the waterways ,and not siphoned off into someones pension plan.
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
Do you part to clean it up. No one is stopping anyone from picking up trash in the street, organizing cleanup campaigns and educating the ignorant.
Waiting for regulation is a silly way of getting results on an issue you are passionate about.
Yes and many of us do that. But that is not going to clean up what is in the oceans already.
- Status