Re: Re: Domestic wind turbine

[Kevin Ellis <forum_mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All biomass fuels are considered CO2 neutral, that is they release
the same amount of CO2 as they absorb during growth, so increasing
the amount of biomass used makes no difference to the CO2 levels.
What makes the difference is the reduction in the burning of fossil
fuels so that is where the net saving is made.

We must also be very careful with the view that planting more trees
etc. will help. These carbon sinks only help as long as they remain
alive, as soon as they are cut down and biodegrade then they release
the CO2 back into the atmosphere. One idea is to grow timber for
production of houses etc. that way the carbon is locked into
structure of the house.

Just to throw another issue in, when climate change happens and the
earth warms up, which to some people is a good idea, the massive
amounts of CO2 locked in the polar ice caps will be released, thus
creating a potential positive feedback loop, which in turn will
increase the planets temperature and could cause the forests to die
out releasing more CO2 etc.

No mater what your view is,  this issue is going to effect us all,
possible in our lifetimes but deficiently in the next generations
lifetime.

Just my two cents, I have actually left a job to study this in more
detail, so I am very interested in this discussion.

If you really want a shock try to see ' The end of suburbia'
available from powerswitch. It deals with the issue of 'Peak Oil' and
the massive impact that it will have on the US.

Kevin


On 27 Oct 2005, at 10:12, Jim Noble wrote:

> Jim Noble wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That's a very peculiar argument. The eco system can deal with a
>> certain
>> amount of CO2 production (in fact it requires it). The problem is
>> that
>> we're possibly upsetting the balance. Slowing down the burn rate
>> might
>> be sufficient to keep that balance, especially if the alternatives
>> sources of energy increase the rate of CO2 consumption...
>>
>
>
> Actually, I take that back. Burning fossil fuels will always result in
> net CO2 production. Can't avoid that. I still see no point in speeding
> up the rate of production though.
>
> Jim
>