Carbon Loophole: Why Is Wood Burning Counted as Green Energy?

3 mile island, fuckstick, one of scores.

Yes how terrible, no one died, but nuclear energy power plant development & deployment in the USA was set back for decades, leaving you lot overdependent on fossil fuels from hostile places, with the attendant carbon emissions. This is a prima facie example of the immense harm that irrational fear can have on a society where eco-nuts and loonys control energy policy.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Yes how terrible, no one died, but nuclear energy power plant development & deployment in the USA was set back for decades, leaving you lot overdependent on fossil fuels from hostile places, with the attendant carbon emissions. This is a prima facie example of the immense harm that irrational fear can have on a society where eco-nuts and loonys control energy policy.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

People are truly irrational when it comes to radiation hazards, they just don't have a bloody clue. Runatic loves to claim to be super intelligent yet he just spouts the same old tired bullshit without any recourse to actual scientific data. He seems to think that Jane Fonda was a nuclear engineer ffs!

323cc060f22a93d252c41ba617ca3e3c.jpg


Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Well fortunately we have had the good sense to get out of the EU nightmare.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

Yes, but this all started before Brexit. Excuse my lack of knowledge on EU and UK politics, but why are the subsides continuing now that the UK is no longer part of the EU?
 
Yes, but this all started before Brexit. Excuse my lack of knowledge on EU and UK politics, but why are the subsides continuing now that the UK is no longer part of the EU?
We are still part of the EU though, till March 2019 at the very least.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Far, far too many.
WHO estimates up to 30,000 deaths from CherNobyl alone.

Again more Norseshit from Runatic. This is the conclusion from the UNSCEAR report 2012. This proves conclusively that he is a lying toad and has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

For the last two decades, attention has been focused on investigating the association between exposure caused by radionuclides released in the Chernobyl accident and late effects, in particular thyroid cancer in children. Doses to the thyroid received in the first few months after the accident were particularly high in those who were children and adolescents at the time in Belarus, Ukraine and the most affected Russian regions and drank milk with high levels of radioactive iodine. By 2005, more than 6,000 thyroid cancer cases had been diagnosed in this group, and it is most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intake. It is expected that the increase in thyroid cancer incidence due to the Chernobyl accident will continue for many more years, although the long-term increase is difficult to quantify precisely.

Among Russian recovery operation workers with higher doses there is emerging evidence of some increase in the incidence of leukaemia. However, based on other studies, the annual incidence of radiation-induced leukaemia would be expected to fall within a few decades after exposure. In addition, recent studies of the recovery operation workers indicate that opacities of the eye lens might be caused by relatively low radiation doses.

Among the 106 patients surviving radiation sickness, complete normalization of health took several years. Many of those patients developed clinically significant radiation-induced cataracts in the first few years after the accident. Over the period 1987-2006, 19 survivors died for various reasons; however, some of these deaths were due to causes not associated with radiation exposure.

Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, and some indication of an increased leukaemia and cataract incidence among the workers, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the exposed populations. Neither is there any proof of other non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not to the actual radiation doses.

There is a tendency to attribute increases in the rates of all cancers over time to the Chernobyl accident, but it should be noted that increases were also observed before the accident in the affected areas. Moreover, a general increase in mortality has been reported in recent decades in most areas of the former Soviet Union, and this must be taken into account when interpreting the results of the accident-related studies.

The present understanding of the late effects of protracted exposure to ionizing radiation is limited, since the dose-response assessments rely heavily on studies of exposure to high doses and animal experiments. Studies of the Chernobyl accident exposure might shed light on the late effects of protracted exposure, but given the low doses received by the majority of exposed individuals, any increase in cancer incidence or mortality will be difficult to detect in epidemiological studies.

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a tragic event for its victims, and those most affected suffered major hardship. Some of the people who dealt with the emergency lost their lives. Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at increased risk of radiation-induced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences due to the radiation from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than annual levels of natural background, and future exposures continue to slowly diminish as the radionuclides decay. Lives have been seriously disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of view, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail.

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Whew, that's good. I'm really grateful for this wood stove; even if the power goes out we'll at least have heat.

We drove down to STL last Tuesday; it was -13F inland and didn't moderate to -7F till we got closer to Lake Michigan around Escanaba. We haven't had a day over 20F in a couple of weeks. Might have to start plugging in the car at night if this keeps up!
My truck has an engine block heater. Starts right up in the morning! I just thawed the trap in my shower! There's cold air getting into places that I've never seen before.
 
Yes, I estimated that number from scanning several sources. Here is one for recycled wood ... in this case, it's only 23%.

Enviva, the world’s largest producer of wood pellets, released data ...

Approximately 23% was sawdust, shavings or residuals from wood product manufacturing.


https://www.woodbizforum.com/enviva-disclosed-its-latest-track-trace-forestry-data/
Thanks for the link. If you read the link, it dispels any claims that forests are being torn down to make wood pellets for European power plants. I believe the argument is that pellets are not carbon neutral due to deforestation. This clearly addresses the flaw in that argument. As I suggested elsewhere, they are using tops/trimming from standard forest management, and refusing top quality wood that could be used in other industries.

Other companies are using sawdust only, as it must be more readily available. Enviva must be set up to turn small diameter limbs into sawdust that is acceptable for premium pellets.
 
I haven’t had to deal with a lot of elm. Gum is actually worse than hickory in my book. Burns great but a royal pain to split
It's virtually impossible to find elm due to Dutch Elm disease. Shame...they were beautiful trees. Now we've got an overseas invader attacking our ash....Emerald Ash Borers.
 
It's surreal watching libs argue IN FAVOR of cutting down entire forests, TO BURN FOR ELECTRICITY. Have I been teleported to bizarro world? What the? Are we being Onioned? Please tell me this is satire. I mean, they're fucking with us, right?
It's satire. I stepped out for a bit last night. The thread has been updated ;)
 
Here's another for you, Al-the-A ...

"In fact, according to Drax’s own website, last year sawdust made up just 9.5 per cent of its pellets."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ions-Britain-s-energy-bill.html#ixzz538DJqT8O
Well...snark aside, if you bother to read the biased article...Daily Mail is useless in general...you'll find that they lied. They're using pellets from Enviva, and you proved the deforestation nonsense wrong when you linked me to the Enviva information.

I don't understand why either side has to lie about this?
 
It doesn't matter fuckstick.
It is still better than coal
fucking tard
I don't typically bother with D.Mail, but he linked us to a direct refutation of the claims made in that nonsensical article. Of course, we know that nobody bothers to read the data, so long as the headline supports the argument.
 
So all of your fellow travelers arguing that this is carbon neutral are just playing along, or were some truly sucked in?
Again...somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I think saying 'most carbon neutral' would go a long way. The Big Dog links actually dispel the lies about deforestation. The whole idea of pellets is to use waste. Just as you or I would burn tops/cull trees, and sell off the furniture/veneer grade trees if we were managing our own woods.
 
Right, fycktard, how many deaths?
You admit to hundreds and offer zero proof that thousands will not yet succumb.

Sorry but it doesn't say hundreds not even close. The true figure is less than 50. Why don't you read the bloody report ffs?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Back
Top