Comments on: The Bonfire of the Environmentalists http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/ A PennEnergy.com Blog with William Tucker Thu, 17 May 2012 05:19:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: bill cormeny http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-2395 bill cormeny Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:56:42 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-2395 Have you studied the plausibility of thorium reactors? What are your thoughts on this topic? Have you studied the plausibility of thorium reactors? What are your thoughts on this topic?

]]> By: bilgewater http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-1879 bilgewater Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:12:47 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-1879 Let the strikers in Marseilles move forward and raise the rate for petrol.These port strikers should recall the famous 1980 coal strike in England which was based on the famous miners' position: Let them all freeze to death.(This led directly to Margaret Thatcher.) This only leads to more investments in renewable or nuclear power. The same thing was done by the US United Mine Workers leader,John L. Lewis back during WWII and right after the war.He managed to convert the US to oil and gas fueled furnaces. Let the strikers in Marseilles move forward and raise the rate for petrol.These port strikers should recall the famous 1980 coal strike in England which was based on the famous miners’ position:
Let them all freeze to death.(This led directly to Margaret Thatcher.)
This only leads to more investments in renewable or nuclear power.
The same thing was done by the US United Mine Workers leader,John L. Lewis back during WWII and right after the war.He managed to convert the US to oil and gas fueled furnaces.

]]> By: C. Ponnu http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-579 C. Ponnu Sun, 31 May 2009 17:20:30 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-579 Certain more aspects of bio mass energy ( result of bio mass combustion process) needs to be considered before calling this alternative as useless: Calorific value of wood chips with its high moisture content is almost half of coal. Coal or oil, thus, is nature's concentrated energy form.Nature takes millions of years to get such concentrates ready and thus they can not last long unless our consumption is reduced to a very low extent. In case of Wood chips and agricultural residues nature takes less time to get them ready.( from 3 months to 5 years depending what type of agricultural residue or energy wood ). With agricultural productivity continuously increasing all over the world, more and more land would become available for energy plantations which would need lesser resources than agriculture and thus may provide a much needed source of energy. Bio mass is only one form of renewable energy (which does not compete with food) and can not claim to be the complete answer to coal or oil. So also other forms of renewable energy like solar or wind or geo thermal. Targeting energy forms like bio mass without considering all issues would result in diverting efforts in providing more research efforts in this area - like how to grow energy plantations faster or how to design a better boiler which will extract the maximum energy from agricultural residues and wood chips Certain more aspects of bio mass energy ( result of bio mass combustion process) needs to be considered before calling this alternative as useless:

Calorific value of wood chips with its high moisture content is almost half of coal. Coal or oil, thus, is nature’s concentrated energy form.Nature takes millions of years to get such concentrates ready and thus they can not last long unless our consumption is reduced to a very low extent.

In case of Wood chips and agricultural residues nature takes less time to get them ready.( from 3 months to 5 years depending what type of agricultural residue or energy wood ).

With agricultural productivity continuously increasing all over the world, more and more land would become available for energy plantations which would need lesser resources than agriculture and thus may provide a much needed source of energy.

Bio mass is only one form of renewable energy (which does not compete with food) and can not claim to be the complete answer to coal or oil. So also other forms of renewable energy like solar or wind or geo thermal.

Targeting energy forms like bio mass without considering all issues would result in diverting efforts in providing more research efforts in this area - like how to grow energy plantations faster or how to design a better boiler which will extract the maximum energy from agricultural residues and wood chips

]]> By: Geoff Thomas http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-522 Geoff Thomas Mon, 25 May 2009 02:17:17 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-522 It is a pity more thought did not go into the above article, as in reality the so-called Young Carbon, if it is in the natural environment, is rapidly eaten by bacteria, worms, etc, and farted back into the atmosphere. A certain proportion is retained as carbon in humus, and absorbed by plants, but that also significantly returns to the atmosphere when that plant dies. If I may be allowed to submit an article I wrote a few years ago, "In 2005, according to a study done by the Australian CSIRO. a conservative scientific research organisation, the human race managed to throw 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, 2 billion tons more than 1995, - seems pretty grim eh, but in context, the natural world, the world of the plant kingdom, cycles 100 billion tons between the atmosphere and the land vegetation. Every Year. Now this is the natural cycle, plants grow, taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, turning into cellulose erc, then die or lose leaves and that material falls on to the ground, breaks down into compost/mulch, is eventually eaten by worms or bacteria and the carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere, 100 billion tons per year. By diverting some of that carbon through gasifiers, wood stoves, methane digesters, charcoal fuel cells, various fermentation techniques and others I may not know of in such a way as to save electricity generated by fossil fuels, we reduce that 8 billion tons while not significantly interfering with the natural cycle." - This bonfire nonsense is un-informed prejudice, and should be no part of a rational person's opinions. Geoff Thomas. Australia It is a pity more thought did not go into the above article, as in reality the so-called Young Carbon, if it is in the natural environment, is rapidly eaten by bacteria, worms, etc, and farted back into the atmosphere.
A certain proportion is retained as carbon in humus, and absorbed by plants, but that also significantly returns to the atmosphere when that plant dies.
If I may be allowed to submit an article I wrote a few years ago,
“In 2005, according to a study done by the Australian CSIRO. a conservative scientific research organisation, the human race managed to throw 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, 2 billion tons more than 1995, - seems pretty grim eh, but in context, the natural world, the world of the plant kingdom, cycles 100 billion tons between the atmosphere and the land vegetation.
Every Year.
Now this is the natural cycle, plants grow, taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, turning into cellulose erc, then die or lose leaves and that material falls on to the ground, breaks down into compost/mulch, is eventually eaten by worms or bacteria and the carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere, 100 billion tons per year.
By diverting some of that carbon through gasifiers, wood stoves, methane digesters, charcoal fuel cells, various fermentation techniques and others I may not know of in such a way as to save electricity generated by fossil fuels, we reduce that 8 billion tons while not significantly interfering with the natural cycle.”
- This bonfire nonsense is un-informed prejudice, and should be no part of a rational person’s opinions.
Geoff Thomas.
Australia

]]> By: Geoff Thomas http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-521 Geoff Thomas Mon, 25 May 2009 02:03:04 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-521 It is a pity more thought did not go into the above article, as in reality the so-called Young Carbon, if it is in the natural environment, is rapidly eaten by bacteria, worms, etc, and farted back into the atmosphere. A certain proportion is retained as carbon in humus, and absorbed by plants, but that also significantly returns to the atmosphere when that plant dies. If I may be allowed to submit an article I wrote a few years ago, \\"In 2005, according to a study done by the Australian CSIRO. a conservative scientific research organisation, the human race managed to throw 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, 2 billion tons more than 1995, - seems pretty grim eh, but in context, the natural world, the world of the plant kingdom, cycles 100 billion tons between the atmosphere and the land vegetation. Every Year. Now this is the natural cycle, plants grow, taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, turning into cellulose erc, then die or lose leaves and that material falls on to the ground, breaks down into compost/mulch, is eventually eaten by worms or bacteria and the carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere, 100 billion tons per year. By diverting some of that carbon through gasifiers, wood stoves, methane digesters, charcoal fuel cells, various fermentation techniques and others I may not know of in such a way as to save electricity generated by fossil fuels, we reduce that 8 billion tons while not significantly interfering with the natural cycle.\\" - This bonfire nonsense is un-informed prejudice, and should be no part of a rational person\\\'s opinions. Geoff Thomas. Australia It is a pity more thought did not go into the above article, as in reality the so-called Young Carbon, if it is in the natural environment, is rapidly eaten by bacteria, worms, etc, and farted back into the atmosphere.
A certain proportion is retained as carbon in humus, and absorbed by plants, but that also significantly returns to the atmosphere when that plant dies.
If I may be allowed to submit an article I wrote a few years ago,
\\"In 2005, according to a study done by the Australian CSIRO. a conservative scientific research organisation, the human race managed to throw 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, 2 billion tons more than 1995, - seems pretty grim eh, but in context, the natural world, the world of the plant kingdom, cycles 100 billion tons between the atmosphere and the land vegetation.
Every Year.
Now this is the natural cycle, plants grow, taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, turning into cellulose erc, then die or lose leaves and that material falls on to the ground, breaks down into compost/mulch, is eventually eaten by worms or bacteria and the carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere, 100 billion tons per year.
By diverting some of that carbon through gasifiers, wood stoves, methane digesters, charcoal fuel cells, various fermentation techniques and others I may not know of in such a way as to save electricity generated by fossil fuels, we reduce that 8 billion tons while not significantly interfering with the natural cycle.\\"
- This bonfire nonsense is un-informed prejudice, and should be no part of a rational person\\\’s opinions.
Geoff Thomas.
Australia

]]> By: Mike L http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-515 Mike L Sun, 24 May 2009 22:42:07 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-515 I sgree with some of what you say and disagree with some other things. First there are Billions of tons of waste produced by our society every year, and I LOVE IT. We process all manner of waste into clean carbon for fuel for power plants, liquide and gaseous synthetic fuels and a host of other products. You people are paying us to take your waste and turn into gold for us. Please keep up the arguing so I can keep laughiing on my way to the bank. One more thing as a start up company we have broken the $300 million dollar make in sales of products and equipment. MAKE MORE RUBBISH. I sgree with some of what you say and disagree with some other things. First there are Billions of tons of waste produced by our society every year, and I LOVE IT. We process all manner of waste into clean carbon for fuel for power plants, liquide and gaseous synthetic fuels and a host of other products. You people are paying us to take your waste and turn into gold for us. Please keep up the arguing so I can keep laughiing on my way to the bank. One more thing as a start up company we have broken the $300 million dollar make in sales of products and equipment. MAKE MORE RUBBISH.

]]> By: Mike L http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-516 Mike L Sun, 24 May 2009 22:42:07 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-516 I sgree with some of what you say and disagree with some other things. First there are Billions of tons of waste produced by our society every year, and I LOVE IT. We process all manner of waste into clean carbon for fuel for power plants, liquide and gaseous synthetic fuels and a host of other products. You people are paying us to take your waste and turn into gold for us. Please keep up the arguing so I can keep laughiing on my way to the bank. One more thing as a start up company we have broken the $300 million dollar make in sales of products and equipment. MAKE MORE RUBBISH. I sgree with some of what you say and disagree with some other things. First there are Billions of tons of waste produced by our society every year, and I LOVE IT. We process all manner of waste into clean carbon for fuel for power plants, liquide and gaseous synthetic fuels and a host of other products. You people are paying us to take your waste and turn into gold for us. Please keep up the arguing so I can keep laughiing on my way to the bank. One more thing as a start up company we have broken the $300 million dollar make in sales of products and equipment. MAKE MORE RUBBISH.

]]> By: michael johnson http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-491 michael johnson Thu, 21 May 2009 21:57:56 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-491 washington has always been full of nuts, this is just a difference bunch of young nuts . WE HEED TO STOP THIS NEW WAXMAN-MARKEY GOOFBALLS THINKING. washington has always been full of nuts, this is just a difference bunch of young nuts . WE HEED TO STOP THIS NEW WAXMAN-MARKEY GOOFBALLS THINKING.

]]> By: Ed Riffle http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-485 Ed Riffle Thu, 21 May 2009 17:45:04 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-485 The environmentalists have entered a dream state where everything is possible if only you can wish it to be so. Their lawyers have found the perfect clients who will contribute to the cause as long as they can hear the siren song. The rest of us will have to pay the cost of their muddled thinking unless we can take the system back from those who would use it only for their own gain and their own religious beliefs. The environmentalists have entered a dream state where everything is possible if only you can wish it to be so. Their lawyers have found the perfect clients who will contribute to the cause as long as they can hear the siren song. The rest of us will have to pay the cost of their muddled thinking unless we can take the system back from those who would use it only for their own gain and their own religious beliefs.

]]> By: Ken Moore http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-470 Ken Moore Wed, 20 May 2009 19:41:54 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/05/18/the-bonfire-of-the-environmentalists/#comment-470 The other two aspects being overlooked are: 1) widely dispersed fuel sources will result in more transpotation related carbon generation because more and less efficient transportation, i.e. trucks instead of train, etc., is required to feed the plant, and 2) for some biofuels that lost recycling of the fuel stock back into the ground will require increases fertilization to achieve acceptable crop yields. The fertilizer requires energy to generate, distirbute and apply it which all result in carbon generation. The other two aspects being overlooked are: 1) widely dispersed fuel sources will result in more transpotation related carbon generation because more and less efficient transportation, i.e. trucks instead of train, etc., is required to feed the plant, and 2) for some biofuels that lost recycling of the fuel stock back into the ground will require increases fertilization to achieve acceptable crop yields. The fertilizer requires energy to generate, distirbute and apply it which all result in carbon generation.

]]>