Saturday, June 12, 2010

Doyle's UW WoodBurner: MORE Carbon Emissions

Good ol' Jimbo. In only 8 years, he became the definition of Blago-Lite; corrupt, grasping, slave to special interests--and not too well-informed, either.

It was Jimbo's Economic Destruction Team that decided burning wood was a GOOD idea.


A new study has found that wood-burning power plants using trees and other biomass from New England forests release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than coal over time.

The six-month study, commissioned by Massachusetts state environmental officials, found biomass-fired electricity would result in a 3 percent increase in carbon emissions compared with coal-fired electricity by 2050.

So UW-Madison, migrating to a wood-burner, will go from polluter to LARGE polluter.

Smooth move, Jimbo!


Deekaman said...

Big surprise. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

jimspice said...

Rather than linking to this article, you should probably site the actual study. Though the entire document is more than 180 pages, the executive summary condenses it, and is quite approachable.

The conclusion of the study is not that biomass introduces "more
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than coal over time." It suggests that biomass would, in fact, eventually produce a net decrease in carbon levels, but not within a time frame mandated by federal law. And this assumes a continuation of current forest management practices; with more aggressive replanting and
conservation efforts, the time frame to produce beneficial returns could be shortened significantly. Short of that, certain types of replacement, e.g. timber for heat, would produce results within ten years.

You will never argue away the fact that the burning of fossil fuels
releases carbon into the active life cycle that had previously been
sequestered away under ground for tens-of-millions of years. We do not have, and will likely never have, the technology to put it back.

Dad29 said...

And YOU, my friend, will never argue away the fact that burning fossil fuels is irrelevant to "global warming."

But it keeps me and mine warm during the winter.

You may choose to freeze.

jimspice said...

Since you did not address my point, may I take that as a concession?

As for your comeback, 97% of scientists have made the case for me. I'll stick with them.

Sorry for the delay; didn't have follow-ups ticked and came across this again by accident.

Dad29 said...

"97% of scientists...."

Majority rules! Sure.

It doesn't comport with Fed standards, regardless of the long-long-long term. Should have the same fate as, say, any OTHER 'non-conforming' power plant.