The Off Topic Topic

[Malthus]

Presumably, that's steam from the cooling towers, so it is in fact pretty 'green'. 

Yes, of course. But it looks cool.

Anyway, that's a 3 GW lignite power plant, so I am sure it creates an ungodly amount of greenhouse gases and toxins.

EDIT: And there is the massive lignite open pit mining:
https://goo.gl/maps/1QLq21xBP8B2

Heh, fair enough. Lignite isn't the cleanest by any means.  I was just chuckling because the scare pic was actually showing a process that is pretty innocuous. 

[mongers]

Germany - the land of green energy 

Nice escarpment or is that slag heaps?

Based on other photos of the same powerplant I would say it's a forest. I found some photos of the plant that show how perspective is relevant. One is from Vattenfall, who operates it. One is from opponents of the plant. Guess which. 

.....

Thanks for that.

Nice both are equally misleading or telling only half the story.

[Grey Fox]

Coal, such archaism.

[mongers]

Coal, such archaism.

IIRC that sort of coal isn't, lignite is making an unfortunate comeback, it's deep coal that's suffered in the industrialised West.

[Grey Fox]

I am still amazed at how people are using anything but Hydro plants to make electricity. I feel like Tyr.

[Admiral Yi]

I am still amazed at how people are using anything but Hydro plants to make electricity. I feel like Tyr.

I believe most dammable rivers have already been dammed.

[Syt]

My energy supplier said in a magazine that their biomass plants are clean, because they're powered by wood pellets, a renewable energy source that only emits as much CO2 as it previously absorbed, and is therefore CO2 neutral. Anyone know if the claim is true?

[Admiral Yi]

My energy supplier said in a magazine that their biomass plants are clean, because they're powered by wood pellets, a renewable energy source that only emits as much CO2 as it previously absorbed, and is therefore CO2 neutral. Anyone know if the claim is true?

Wouldn't that be true of any fossil fuel as well?

[mongers]

I am still amazed at how people are using anything but Hydro plants to make electricity. I feel like Tyr.

I believe most dammable rivers have already been dammed.

Yes it's a rather problematic form of energy production and I'm guessing it only contributes a couple of percent of worlwide energy supply; coal, gas and oil easily each do a magnitude more.

[mongers]

My energy supplier said in a magazine that their biomass plants are clean, because they're powered by wood pellets, a renewable energy source that only emits as much CO2 as it previously absorbed, and is therefore CO2 neutral. Anyone know if the claim is true?

Wouldn't that be true of any fossil fuel as well?

Not that I believe the claim, but I guess the argument is the wood pellets are from trees that have been removing CO2 from the atmosphere in recent decades, whereas fossil fuels are fossil stores of carbons from millions of years that haven't formed part 'our' carbon cycle.

[Zanza]

I am still amazed at how people are using anything but Hydro plants to make electricity. I feel like Tyr.

Germany is smaller than Newfoundland and Labrador and has 2.5 times as many people as Canada. We just don't have enough suitable rivers to produce sufficient hydro power.

[Zanza]

My energy supplier said in a magazine that their biomass plants are clean, because they're powered by wood pellets, a renewable energy source that only emits as much CO2 as it previously absorbed, and is therefore CO2 neutral. Anyone know if the claim is true?

Sounds reasonable. I doubt that plants could get much carbon from earth, so virtually all of it would come from the atmosphere.

[mongers]

My energy supplier said in a magazine that their biomass plants are clean, because they're powered by wood pellets, a renewable energy source that only emits as much CO2 as it previously absorbed, and is therefore CO2 neutral. Anyone know if the claim is true?

Sounds reasonable. I doubt that plants could get much carbon from earth, so virtually all of it would come from the atmosphere.

Though there has been recent research that suggests burning in processed trees can't be assumed to be carbon neutral as is the claim.

[Zanza]

Why? Where would the additional carbon come from?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

My energy supplier said in a magazine that their biomass plants are clean, because they're powered by wood pellets, a renewable energy source that only emits as much CO2 as it previously absorbed, and is therefore CO2 neutral. Anyone know if the claim is true?

Wouldn't that be true of any fossil fuel as well?

Not that I believe the claim, but I guess the argument is the wood pellets are from trees that have been removing CO2 from the atmosphere in recent decades, whereas fossil fuels are fossil stores of carbons from millions of years that haven't formed part 'our' carbon cycle.

The problem I have with people who want to hand-wave these concerns away with the "carbon cycle makes everything neutral" canard is that it neglects the overall size of the cycle.  Emissions from burning wood are not instantaneously captured by a growing tree somewhere.  There is a lag wherein the carbon is suspended in the atmosphere.  The more carbon in the cycle, the more is concentrated in the atmosphere at any given time.  That it is "accounted for" in the cycle is irrelevant.