Is Biomass Really Carbon Neutral?

[bhobba]

Downplay as "liberal opinions" or alike doesn't make it go away.

I do not now what legit news outlets elsewhere, like the weather channel here in Aus, are saying, but the story I hear is of course you are correct - it is caused by deforestation - possibly even farmers clearing more land. But evidently it was a problem last year, the year before etc etc. Deforestation of the Amazon, and the paltry money spent trying to stop it without success, is a big problem - but it has been a big problem for years. Even conservative talk shows admit that - they just do not think its worse than any other year and make a big deal of why this year is not any different. Its obviously politically charged - some say it provides 6% of our oxygen, others 20% - when I see discrepancies like that I just shake my head. Either way when its gone - and eventually it will - things will not be good,

Thanks
Bill

 

[fresh_42]

Either way when its gone - and eventually it will - things will not be good,

In my opinion there is a far bigger problem than carbon dioxide: the loss of biodiversity, uncounted unknown plants and with them potential drugs. Not to mention the moral crime this represents for the indigenous populations.

 

[bhobba]

I can not recall having ever heard anyone say this.
Sounds like straw-man argument to me.

Its all over the internet and talk shows etc eg:
https://www.sustainability-times.co...w-cheaper-than-coal-but-new-challanges-await/
Renewable enthusiasts make a big deal of it, and as time goes by it will get cheaper still.

What they ignore, and the anti-renewable people are now using it in their arguments, is renewables have different characteristics than coal or nuclear that make balancing a lot harder and more expensive so overall it's not cheaper - yet. To me its obvious we will not have a totally renewable energy supply for quite a while - it will be a mixture. Even the South Australia link I gave, while claiming 100% renewables, admits they need gas generators to kick in every now and then, and to sometimes import power from other states in Australia. And then of course there is the possibility of Fusion power that could change everything.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Z0dCHiY8]

carbon neutral solution doesn't exist == if we take extra energy somewhere (even from our Sun), it always provides extra heating or cooling for Ambient. those changes of temp always affects mass rate of carbon around. The very solution to prevent collapse of Biosphere is, to reduce energy consumption down to reasonable values.

 

[fresh_42]

Its all over the internet and talk shows etc

I guess this isn't even wrong. The question is: what do you take into account? Coal and nuclear energy is pretty expensive if you calculate long term total costs. However, there will be still the problem to evaluate a human life.

 

[bhobba]

I guess this isn't even wrong.

Where is another Pauli when we need him (I am certain Fresh knows this but not even wrong was a favorite saying of his, especially to other top tier scientists like Landau - but than again by all reports Landau's personality didn't click too well with Pauli). He could cut through BS like a hot knife though butter. Who is right and who is wrong - its just so politically charged its hard to get the facts.

What I do know for sure is they finally did a survey I have been suggesting for a long time. They went to some less affluent and more working class suburbs and asked how much would you pay extra for your electricity to fight climate change. The answer was zero. They then went to affluent suburbs and asked the same question - the answer was 25%. Yet over the last 10 years electricity prices here in Aus have gone up 117%. Are people willing to pay the price - I suspect no. Remember though most people here live in democracies - if you believe in the democratic process you must expect people to vote for their own interests - its just human nature, What can be done? I think we just have to accept some damage to this poor Earth of ours. Already engineers are working on how to minimize it and when the consequences are catastrophic enough it will be tackled. This is the view of Professor Lomborg and Freeman Dyson. although Dyson believes its doing some good by making the planet greener.

Where I live in Brisbane we are having extinction event marches a court just ruled, correctly, are perfectly legal. I will let our justice system sort that out when they infringe on other rights such as the freedom to go unmolested about your lawful business, but I have zero idea where they are getting the idea we are approaching an extinction event - even an IPCC author wrote an article condemning it. The link I will dig up later.

As promised here is the link by Myles Allen, Leader of ECI Climate Research Program, Oxford
https://theconversation.com/why-pro...12-years-to-climate-breakdown-rhetoric-115489

Thanks
Bill

 

[fresh_42]

I only have a problem with subsidies. The damages of accidents, severe or just incidental emissions, air and water pollution, waste storage etc. are not fully covered by the price. In this sense, the prices are not really comparable. This is also true for solar energy and wind energy where we do not have sound long term data for maintenance and substitutions. I guess this would be an economic thesis to figure out the total cost balance sheet on a macroeconomic if not global level.