Versus China going full speed ahead on nature's wind - the U.S. seems to lack the political wind to use nature's wind beneficially. The U.S. Congress efforts on offshore wind are dismal.
Good old North Carolina. BOTH Madison Cawthorn and Mark Meadows were my so-called representatives in Washington. I consider living here advanced spiritual practice. (Living anywhere these days is advanced spiritual practice, I suppose.)
Bill, I love your work. But please stop with the pogrom against biomass energy. Understand the difference between current and fossil carbon, and recognise that carbon crops are there to do the heavy lifting for us. since we will never come up with a drawdown technology that comes anywhere close to photosynthesis.
Sadly the UK’s only large biomass plant (Drax) which accounts for about 7% of electricity demands, is importing wood from old growth forests in places like Louisiana. The UK government estimates that the emissions of these plants may well be higher than those of. Coal power plant, never mind the biodiversity impacts, and has moved to ensure no comparable plant can get contracts. Unfortunately Drac got their contracts years ago and it hard to get out of them.
Only partially true...the source of the pellets is plantation forestry all across the South. The only old growth left in most of the US is in national parks, well out of reach of energy demands (but unfortunately not from wildfires spurred by a warming and drying climate). Fast-growing loblolly, longleaf and slash pine have been farmed for decades on soils that were degraded by cotton in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's certainly a better pathway to carbon neutrality than gas. It would be better still if Drax would get sources in the UK to plant feedstock crops like willow and cut out the transport.
As to the myth of biomass having higher emissions than coal, this story also needs to die in a fire. Coal is fossil carbon that was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago when atmospheric concentrations were above 1000 ppm, while the carbon in biomass came out of the air comparatively recently. The IPCC accounts for these separately for good reason.
Also, unlike coal, biomass also does not emit heavy metals and radioisotopes when we burn, gasify, or pyrolyse it.
Shows how much you know about the forest cover in the US South. Can you point to a single acre of old growth that's not in a park or reserve? I'll wait.
No, I'm not talking about forest cover in the US (you can be the expert here on that--I'm quite willing to believe that all you entrepreneurs killed ALL the old growth that wasn't protected). I'm talking about the supposed carbon neutrality of growing any kind of trees in one part of the world, then culling them, shipping them far away, and burning them to produce electricity. Open to huge abuses (see Romania), and simply doesn't make CO2 sense, though surely bucks for you.
Readers might contemplate this graphic: "Mapped: Average Wind Speed Across the U.S."
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-average-wind-speed-across-the-u-s/
Versus China going full speed ahead on nature's wind - the U.S. seems to lack the political wind to use nature's wind beneficially. The U.S. Congress efforts on offshore wind are dismal.
perhaps we should spread the rumor that China is trying to steal our wind...
Yes, I could go along with a Madison Avenue Campaign such as:
"Why is China Stealing Uncle Sam's Wind?"
Maybe a piece in the New Yorker!
Need's work ... but some good satire on this could get more in the U.S. aboard to promote wind as a great renewable energy source.
“When the winds of change blow, some people build walls and others build windmills.” – Chinese proverb
https://s4745.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Uncle-Sam.jpg
See artwork and slogan "I want YOU to go WIND"
Big Oil is against offshore WIND in the U.S.
https://worldwarzero.com/magazine/2021/12/big-oil-funds-environmentalists-to-oppose-offshore-wind-farms/
Any thoughts or interest in grassroots to battle Big Oil about their opposition to WIND?
Good old North Carolina. BOTH Madison Cawthorn and Mark Meadows were my so-called representatives in Washington. I consider living here advanced spiritual practice. (Living anywhere these days is advanced spiritual practice, I suppose.)
okay, that is a very good line!
North Carolina Republicans last week moved to destroy EV charging stations unless they also provided free gasoline and diesel fuel.
That's like saying we'll pull out all of the public drinking fountains unless you also provide beer and whiskey fountains.
Bill, I love your work. But please stop with the pogrom against biomass energy. Understand the difference between current and fossil carbon, and recognise that carbon crops are there to do the heavy lifting for us. since we will never come up with a drawdown technology that comes anywhere close to photosynthesis.
Sadly the UK’s only large biomass plant (Drax) which accounts for about 7% of electricity demands, is importing wood from old growth forests in places like Louisiana. The UK government estimates that the emissions of these plants may well be higher than those of. Coal power plant, never mind the biodiversity impacts, and has moved to ensure no comparable plant can get contracts. Unfortunately Drac got their contracts years ago and it hard to get out of them.
Only partially true...the source of the pellets is plantation forestry all across the South. The only old growth left in most of the US is in national parks, well out of reach of energy demands (but unfortunately not from wildfires spurred by a warming and drying climate). Fast-growing loblolly, longleaf and slash pine have been farmed for decades on soils that were degraded by cotton in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's certainly a better pathway to carbon neutrality than gas. It would be better still if Drax would get sources in the UK to plant feedstock crops like willow and cut out the transport.
As to the myth of biomass having higher emissions than coal, this story also needs to die in a fire. Coal is fossil carbon that was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago when atmospheric concentrations were above 1000 ppm, while the carbon in biomass came out of the air comparatively recently. The IPCC accounts for these separately for good reason.
Also, unlike coal, biomass also does not emit heavy metals and radioisotopes when we burn, gasify, or pyrolyse it.
You sure those pellets are not from old growth? Sounds to me like you own one of those "plantations" ...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/07/world/europe/eu-logging-wood-pellets.html
Shows how much you know about the forest cover in the US South. Can you point to a single acre of old growth that's not in a park or reserve? I'll wait.
No, I'm not talking about forest cover in the US (you can be the expert here on that--I'm quite willing to believe that all you entrepreneurs killed ALL the old growth that wasn't protected). I'm talking about the supposed carbon neutrality of growing any kind of trees in one part of the world, then culling them, shipping them far away, and burning them to produce electricity. Open to huge abuses (see Romania), and simply doesn't make CO2 sense, though surely bucks for you.
Wonderful news. Is more work being driven to handle excess capacity during low demand?