you are correct, they will need a new name as this is much worse
Trump energy policy key to reviving economy — Biden plan destroys jobs, raise costs
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
you are correct, they will need a new name as this is much worse
you gotta 'splain everything for the village idiot Rune.
It's nasty stuff -makes my eyes water/ cough the few times wood stoves are used here in the winter
You just don't understand the carbon cycle anywhere well enough to post on this thread.
The know it all you quoted knows a lot more than you, but sadly he can't see the forest for the trees either.
Here is how it works.
The fuels you wish to burn, oil, natural gas and presumably coal are called fossil fuels because they literally are, including the gas.
They are not just millions of years old though. They also required millions of years to form, regardless of how old they are. They formed from carbon based life, plant or animal,
Not trying to be pedantic, this is the foundation of the cycle.
The point of this is that when fossil fuels are burned, the collected carbon of millions of years is released all at once. Considering this view even burnin natural gas is a bad idea,
and there are other reasons we shouldn't burn natural gas but those are not relevant here.
Don't forget though, some want to sequester CO2 underground...much cheaper to just leave it all ready sequestered. Again there are other, very import reasons, but not relevant.
Moving on to wood, which will be slightly more elaborate but try to keep up.
The wood cycle contains many variations but we will cover only what we judge to account for the majority of the use.
By far the largest users of wood actually own the woodlots. This group includes paper mills (#1 on the list in the very recent past)
Lumber manufacture follow by furniture/home building factories. Logging is a long slow dying trade for a variety of reasons, primarily
a result of green initiatives but also a result of the collapse of the paper industry which in addition has left billions of acres of wood growing
land lay fallow.
Let's look then at the lumber process and why burning wood in most cases is carbon negative.
The nature of a tree. The root system total mass is approximately the same as the crown or upper tree.
Once a tree is harvested, 30-40 percent of the carbon it collected during it's 20 year lifespan is sequestered.
this is also true of forest grown trees. In other words, the root system is buried underground, where it stays
The tree is processed into the product. The vast majority of the tree's carbon is now sequestered, it will not be released in the forseeable future, perhaps never.
The remains of the tree are now (in an ideal world) extruded into pellets. It is this part of the process that some idiots are most against.
The raw materials for these pellets have required no mining, pumping or delivery to the site. Without a market the piles of sawdust are left to rot, breaking down into methane, CO and CO2 which is released into the atmosphere instead of displacing at least some fossil fuel use. The tiny amount released by burning the pellets at 06% moisture content (the ideal if the pellets are to resist powdering) is more than recaptured by the next planting of trees and far, far less than that captured during the lifespan of the tree, from today's atmosphere.
The net result is that pellets are environmentally sound to burn.
If any of this is unclear or I left something out, ask me and I will clarify it.
Last edited:
The stupidity of this claim or lie, is almost childish.
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
You don't know what you're talking about.
Nope, we are already there, fuckface.
Another lib who doesn't understand economics.BattleofHodow
New member
How are we supposed to pay for Trump's Stimulus freebies & debt? Eventually somebody has to pay for it.
lol .. you're not supposed to ask that- nobody GAF about debt anymore. Maybe we'll just default on China
I know it. Germany believes that shit too -
why they have a fucking nat. gas direct pipeline to Russia but live in the middle ages with wood pellets
learn some definitions. clammer
First of all, Stain, You should always read articles you link to.
There is no need to destroy them, simply utilize them in Africa and or other deserts where they can provide refrigeration and illumination. If a down market is unavailable they should be stored until the price of scrap rises sufficiently to justify deconstruction.
Also, the article you linked to is incorrect about cobalt. First of all, it doesn't wash away, in fact it is used as a protective plating, but not on solar panels. There is no (zero) cobalt used in solar panels.
You truly are a fool. Researching is not reading one opinion article from a biased source, my nearly illiterate friend.
Research requires years of study, dozens of books, hundreds of articles and unknown multitudes of papers.
For God's sake, stop embarrassing yourself.
By the way, why do you disparage clam diggers? Do you disdain all those that work with their hands in nature? What of truck drivers and carpenters, are they less than to you as well? Why are such an arrogant bigot?
Do you actually believe that selling cheap garbage made in China to gullible elderly woman is somehow honorable? Maybe it is time to dial back the opiate use somewhat.
There is no need to destroy them, simply utilize them in Africa and or other deserts where they can provide refrigeration and illumination. If a down market is unavailable they should be stored until the price of scrap rises sufficiently to justify deconstruction.
Also, the article you linked to is incorrect about cobalt. First of all, it doesn't wash away, in fact it is used as a protective plating, but not on solar panels. There is no (zero) cobalt used in solar panels.
You truly are a fool. Researching is not reading one opinion article from a biased source, my nearly illiterate friend.
Research requires years of study, dozens of books, hundreds of articles and unknown multitudes of papers.
For God's sake, stop embarrassing yourself.
By the way, why do you disparage clam diggers? Do you disdain all those that work with their hands in nature? What of truck drivers and carpenters, are they less than to you as well? Why are such an arrogant bigot?
Do you actually believe that selling cheap garbage made in China to gullible elderly woman is somehow honorable? Maybe it is time to dial back the opiate use somewhat.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Typically, PV solar panels have a 20 to 30 year service life at which point they need to be replaced.
https://www.engineering.com/Designe...75/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx
This is patently untrue. Conventional electrical generators use steel for the armature and stator cores and copper wire for the windings. They require zero rare earth elements in their construction. Solar alone requires this.
Natural gas is far better. It produces more BTU's per unit weight and volume--about 30% more, burns cleaner, and doesn't leave fly ash behind. Natural gas is also more environmentally friendly to extract than production of wood pellets. Worse, wood pellets are more difficult and expensive to transport than natural gas that can be shipped by pipeline in most cases.
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Then prove it, because right now you got nothing but ad hominem.
solar panels are manufactured using hazardous materials — including sulfuric acid and phosphine gas — making them difficult to recycle. They also contain toxic metals like lead, chromium, and cadmium, which can be harmful to humans and are likely to leak from electronic waste dumps into drinking water supplies.
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1002631/the-dark-side-of-chinas-solar-boom-
Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time.
Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts.
While the European Union has long required solar panel manufacturers to collect and dispose of solar waste, in the U.S. until very recently only Washington State had any recycling requirements. Yet even their standards did not address costs.
Proponents like to cite the small size of the industry to date as a reason to ignore recycling requirements and costs in their business plans. But the deeper truth is that the costs for solar waste disposal can be huge. As Cara Libby, senior technical leader of solar energy at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), put it, “I’ve heard that [recycling] will have to be mandated because it won’t ever be economical.”
Japan is also facing a growing solar waste problem. In a November 2016 article, Osamu Tomioka stated that Japanese solar panel waste will likely grow from the current 10,000 tons a year to 800,000 tons a year – and that just to recycle all of the waste produced through 2020 will take 19 years. How long will it take, and at what cost, to recycle 80 times that amount?
A 2018 report from the Institute of Energy Research suggests imposing a recycling fee on solar panel purchases. A federal disposal and decommissioning fund would then dispense funds to state and local governments to help pay for removal and recycling or long-term storage of solar panel waste. [Similar fees help recover costs for nuclear waste disposal and coal mine reclamation for bankrupt facilities.]
But how much of a fee would be needed? IER admits that recycling costs are generally more than the economic value of the materials they recover. And bankruptcies have been all too common in an industry that has relied so heavily on disappearing subsidies.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/
Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts.
While the European Union has long required solar panel manufacturers to collect and dispose of solar waste, in the U.S. until very recently only Washington State had any recycling requirements. Yet even their standards did not address costs.
Proponents like to cite the small size of the industry to date as a reason to ignore recycling requirements and costs in their business plans. But the deeper truth is that the costs for solar waste disposal can be huge. As Cara Libby, senior technical leader of solar energy at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), put it, “I’ve heard that [recycling] will have to be mandated because it won’t ever be economical.”
Japan is also facing a growing solar waste problem. In a November 2016 article, Osamu Tomioka stated that Japanese solar panel waste will likely grow from the current 10,000 tons a year to 800,000 tons a year – and that just to recycle all of the waste produced through 2020 will take 19 years. How long will it take, and at what cost, to recycle 80 times that amount?
A 2018 report from the Institute of Energy Research suggests imposing a recycling fee on solar panel purchases. A federal disposal and decommissioning fund would then dispense funds to state and local governments to help pay for removal and recycling or long-term storage of solar panel waste. [Similar fees help recover costs for nuclear waste disposal and coal mine reclamation for bankrupt facilities.]
But how much of a fee would be needed? IER admits that recycling costs are generally more than the economic value of the materials they recover. And bankruptcies have been all too common in an industry that has relied so heavily on disappearing subsidies.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/