Skip to comments.Study: Biomass Worse for Environment than Fossil Fuels
Posted on 07/26/2014 10:31:37 AM PDT by Bratch
Power stations that burn biomass are worse for the environment than those that burn coal, new analysis suggests.
According to David MacKay, the governments chief scientific advisor on energy, burning wood imported from North America in British power stations produces more greenhouse gases than burning coal.
As previously reported on Breitbart London, American scientists wrote a letter to the British government in May to protest the policy of subsidising power firms to import wooden pellets from the U.S. They said that this was anything but carbon neutral as the forests from which the pellets are taken act as a carbon sink, taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Using pellets from these forests therefore not only depletes the size of the sink, it releases the absorbed carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
"Forbes reports on a peer-reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated. In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:"
That article explains why no Hot Spot has been found.
Those five articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.
That article kills any thought of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign of rising sea levels how could the planet be warming? The rise in sea level in the last 100 years is far less than the average over the last 40,000 years caused by the inter-glacial period we are in.
It depends on the source of the wood pellets. If they are from live, growing tress, he may be correct. However, if they are from fallen trees that would be left on the ground, then he is wrong. This latter wood would be converted into CO2, anyway, by the termites and other creatures who eat it. Using it s pellets reduces CO2 by taking the energy for humans’ use instead of termites’, et al., thereby reducing the use of other fuels.
I swear... You just CANNOT please these people.
They want us living in the Caves or Mud-brick houses.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the suns planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Oh, oh, oh I have my hand up, pick me!
We pass legislation to build this big curtain in space in front of Earth, you see, and it blocks all that nasty heat. Naturally we'll need to burn a whole lot of pellets to generate the energy to build the curtain. Hey, my idea is as good as any that these global-warming "experts" think of!
Don’t you dare to start making mud bricks, you will change the environment of the dirt.