Wood is not a biofuel. Where is this coming from? There was a ruling by the EPA in 2009 indicating burning wood is not alternative energy.
Wood is less efficient than any other fuel on the market. It takes far more wood to produce one kilowatt of energy.
By
MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: November 3, 2013
...For companies like Minnesota Power, (click here) co-firing will be one of the leading
options if the E.P.A., which recently proposed limits on carbon
emissions for new plants, follows through on its plan to develop limits
for old ones. Using modest amounts of wood at a large number of coal
plants could be a relatively quick way to phase in renewable energy. And
unlike wind or solar power electricity from a boiler, burning wood is
easy to schedule and integrate into the grid.
The E.P.A. is in the midst of “listening sessions” in 11 cities around
the country, to gather ideas from the public about putting carbon limits
on existing plants. Last week it held an eight-hour session in Denver....
The EPA needs to uphold the standard of CO2 at the smokestack. Wood produces CO2. Wood is best resolved to compost, quite frankly. The definition of biomass in regard to wood is very specific. There simply is no reason for any violation of this standard. Burning wood is not going to eliminate CO2 in the troposphere. In a natural progression of any forest, dead trees are consumed by detritivores and turned into the soil. The dead trees within any forest never return to the atmosphere anywhere. So, to believe burning wood is the best and prudent alternative is hideous.
The EPA needs to uphold the standard of CO2 at the smokestack. Wood produces CO2. Wood is best resolved to compost, quite frankly. The definition of biomass in regard to wood is very specific. There simply is no reason for any violation of this standard. Burning wood is not going to eliminate CO2 in the troposphere. In a natural progression of any forest, dead trees are consumed by detritivores and turned into the soil. The dead trees within any forest never return to the atmosphere anywhere. So, to believe burning wood is the best and prudent alternative is hideous.
The final rulemaking for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2010.
Can woody residues (click here) from a sawmill or paper mill be used as a feedstock for renewable fuels under the RFS2 program?
A: For fuel to qualify under the RFS2
program, it must be derived from feedstocks that meet the definition of
renewable biomass. Woody residues from saw mills and paper mills may
meet the definition of renewable biomass in certain circumstances. If
the woody residues are from planted trees from actively managed tree
plantations on non-federal land cleared at any time prior to December
19, 2007, the residues are considered "tree residue" under RFS2 and
therefore fall within the definition of "renewable biomass."
Try raising earthworms and you'll finally get it.
Wood is not a biofuel or an alternative energy. It is a fact that when the public allows such plants in their neighborhoods there is never enough wood to support the plant and all kinds of garbage is then burned, including rubber tires, etc. There ain't no way this form of energy is healthy from any avenue approached.
There is no way a forest can support a wood burning plant. It will never equate to alternative based in the idea wood is a biomass source of energy. The MATH is not there. The equation never balances to zero emissions.
Those that are trying to cut corners are best to abandon the effort. This isn't about politics. This is about protecting Earth's sustainability in order for people to live and work. This is about the future as much if not more than the present. This is about children and the world they inherit. It is stewardship required of a planet that will sustain life without threats of death due to tropospheric changes. It is about a sustainable climate, not profit, but the best way forward to prevent devastating effects in ways that will cause further destruction of a livable troposphere. This is not an option. It is imposed on the people because of the nature of the planet. It is nothing that can be mitigated. There is no wiggle room.
Try raising earthworms and you'll finally get it.Wood is not a biofuel or an alternative energy. It is a fact that when the public allows such plants in their neighborhoods there is never enough wood to support the plant and all kinds of garbage is then burned, including rubber tires, etc. There ain't no way this form of energy is healthy from any avenue approached.
There is no way a forest can support a wood burning plant. It will never equate to alternative based in the idea wood is a biomass source of energy. The MATH is not there. The equation never balances to zero emissions.
Those that are trying to cut corners are best to abandon the effort. This isn't about politics. This is about protecting Earth's sustainability in order for people to live and work. This is about the future as much if not more than the present. This is about children and the world they inherit. It is stewardship required of a planet that will sustain life without threats of death due to tropospheric changes. It is about a sustainable climate, not profit, but the best way forward to prevent devastating effects in ways that will cause further destruction of a livable troposphere. This is not an option. It is imposed on the people because of the nature of the planet. It is nothing that can be mitigated. There is no wiggle room.
