Read the whole thing: To put it in perspective, in order to provide power for the factories and electric cars in Europe, Canadian and US forests are being cut down, often at an unsustainable rate, resulting in the destruction of valuable habitat and loss of ecosystem diversity. What is most ironic is that the power used by Greenpeace in Europe to fight the “tar sand’s” theoretical destruction of boreal forests is provided by the cutting down and grinding up of actual Canadian boreal forests.
h/t Kevin B
Wrong link.
This the page you were trying to link to?
http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.ca/2014/12/on-renewables-and-need-for-compromise_28.html?m=1
Around Prince George, there are several pellet plants that use logging slash that would otherwise be disposed of by burning, or if they do cut virgin forest, it’s already dead beetle kill, so the pellet industry here isn’t part of the destruction.
Thanks, link fixed.
They have been salvage logging in our area these last few months froma fire that happned last year and bringing out some scortched looking logs and this time no eco-freaks sitting in the trees like we had a few years ago a bunch of tree huggers/granola munchers only it ended when a judge issues eviction notices to the tree sitters. Sorry Julia(Butterfly)Hill but were not a bunch of tree huggers like you and your nutty freinds areBack a few years ago some wackos in Southern California got all weepy eyed over some chopped down trees i dont suppose they would do thesame for aborted babies
Some of us here have been pointing out the fallacies of using food producing cropland for raising crops used for ethanol for quite some time. Crops not fit for human or animal consumption could be used in ethanol production rather than being burnt as in the example Dirtman gives about logging slash.
There is/are no boreal forests where the oil sands are.
The next time a greentard says “tar” sands, tell it to go to the La Brae Tar pits, or just off-shore Santa Monica. Frig, the stupidity hurts.
Read the whole blog. (There are about a dozen entries.) Scientific illiteracy and the tendency to export bad environmental effects to third-world countries (for rare earth production) are highlighted, and the exposition is very informative.
a very informative article. It should be used in every class on the environment as an example of “right speak” gone bad!
In just about every sense you can think of, any “green” venture always evolves into an economic and environmental catastrophe once it passes the do-it-at-home project stage. Windmills, ethanol, solar panels, wood pellets, etc.
Some additional quantification would help. The US is the world’s largest producer of corn and canola. It is also true that many Greens advocate the use of E80 as vehicle fuel rather than gasoline or diesel. If you take the entire US corn and canola crop and convert all of it into ethanol, the result is about 10 days fuel supply for the US vehicle fleet.
10 days, that’s it. No fuel for the rest of the year. I don’t need to remind most folks here that the principal use of corn is for animal feed and cornstarch, which is found in just about everything. So it seems clear that if E80 was made the fuel standard, the vehicle fleet in North America would have to drop to about 3% of its current total. (An E20 requirement which some firmly advocate today would require the reduction of the US vehicle fleet to about 12% of its current total.) And that total would be entirely required for the farm equipment harvesting the corn and canola to make the E80. This is nothing more than a Dunderbeck’s Machine.
The fact is that raw biomass is an extremely low density energy source. And as a low density energy source its collection system is enormous for the energy produced.
A couple of local restruants in my rea have cook grease bins to collet cooking grease and we would have good amout of oil but the memebers of the STUPID JACKASS PARTY(Demacrats)dont want to get the Eco-Freaks upset
Good article but wrong.There are no good intentions in the eco-nasty camp.
cgh, a couple of years ago the US postal service used E85 exclusively, the result being that not only did they use more fuel, the gas component of the E85 was greater than it would have been if they had used straight gas. It just doesn’t get any stupider.
Saskatchewan has cut their ethanol subsidy from 15 cents to 10 cents a litre but are still spending 16 million per year to provide a 7.5% gas mix that will reduce your mileage by at least 3%.
This might be a great time to lobby the government to eliminate the ethanol completely considering the present fuel surplus.
http://www.producer.com/daily/sask-reducing-ethanol-subsidy/
Funny thing is, here’s this guy righty pointing out the ethanol and wood pellet BS, but he obviously supports the pile of horseshit that it’s all built on: AGW.
The Oil Sands operations are all within the Boreal Forest as shown by this map: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/boreal/13075
1.3 million tonnes of pellets is a relatively small amount of residual product and represents around 1/2% of Canadian forest production, virtually all of which is sustainable. It is happening due to EU and UK green theocracy and not free market economics.
The author, though informed on the ethanol nonsense, shows green bias in the company he keeps when it comes to forestry (FSC) and CAGW – true believer.
Was away from the computer and just noticed the SDA bump on my mini-blog.
Thanks for all the useful feedback.
Justthink, a quick note, the reference was FSC-Watch and my earlier posts pretty clearly indicates where I stand on CAGW. As for forestry, I agree that based on their size the Canadian boreal forests are safe, the US bottomland hardwoods on the other hand need better protection.
John Robertson, I always assume that the people I am discussing have good intentions until they prove otherwise.
I like to run a tank of ethanol b!end every 4 or 5 tanks in the cold weather8 to pull the condensation out
Thanks Blair, how much evidence do you need?
The road to hell being well paved in the case of this global scam.
Sure it could well be mass hysteria and idiocy, except it has gone on for far too long and involves far too many bureaucrats.
Too much propaganda and deceit.
If CO2 emissions were the great evil these eco-nasties claim, the source should be irrelevant.. No?
How does the concept of burning living trees =good, but burning long fossilized trees(coal) =bad, make it through any logic thought?
“I always assume that the people I am discussing have good intentions until they prove otherwise.”
I’d say that the proof of the Greenie’s intent has been well and truly established by this point. All that is necessary for Evil to flourish, etc and so forth. Inconvenient to take an unfashionable stand I know, but there it is.
Likely one of the best studies undertaken on the efficacy – usefulness – dors it make sense… on Biofuels is this study:
“The False Promise of BioFuels”
By: T. A. “Ike” Kiefer, Captain, USN.
This 80 page report was in response to the US military seeking to establish whether Biofuels were an option.
Seems not to me…but one wonders with a total moron in the WH..who knows.?