@ Steve----" Utopian niceties are not likely to provide us with the energy we need so we are going to have to entertain some less agreeable options. "----------
How much energy do we need?
---------" Fred, it's not the methane that is the problem, it is the source. Fossils source s add carbon, surface sources do not. There is no problem with carbon fuels, there is a terminal problem with fossils fuels."-----------
Thank you Brian----I am well aware of the Carbon Energy Exchange Cycle, in fact, I was the one who first introduced it here.
I've just been over and over it until I'm blue in the face----just to be ignored.
Yeah, I've gotten a bit sarcastic.
Bill Scutt------" I am a biological scientist, and the mainstream biological community would not agree that alpha emitters are much worse than beta or gamma emitters.
I have seen the lung histology with the embedded alpha-particle as quoted by Brian Donovan. The amount of damage involved is bad and it is spread over an area of somewhere between 10 & 50 micrometers. It's very unlikely the person died of it and it's almost certain it was an incidental finding. 10000 cells is not so much out of a 100 billion lung cells. It's quite certain that cigarettes damage > 10000 cells each and every day in a smoker. My guess is that a resident of Beijing would suffer >10000 cells damaged each and every day from air pollution even if they don't smoke. "------------
I don't know what you are, but you are NOT a biological scientist. No biologist alive would make such stupid statements.
The completely flawed and off the wall logic tends to indicate a political huckster or special interest hack writer.
Bill Scutt---------" Sorry Gelbert - Bioaccumulation of specific isotopes is IMPOSSIBLE. Think about it. Mercury bioaccumulates under some circumstances, Cadmium does too. There may be some circumstances under which Cesium bioaccumulates but Cs137 doesn't!!! "------
Opening statement. Read it carefully. Then judge for yourself the logic of the rest of his long winded tirade. (hint Cesium 137 IS Cesium)
The importance of Cs 137 is not its chemical properties. Cs 137 is not a natural isotope. The only source of Cs 137 is nuclear weapons or reactors. The presence of Cs 137 means that radiation can only be man made.
Chemical properties are a function of atomic number and an elements place on the periodic table.
Isotopes have differing atomic weights but they are still the same element.
Deuterium and Tritium differ from hydrogen in that they have atomic weights of 2 and 3 respectively but they all have the same atomic number 1, and all the chemical properties of hydrogen.
Ohio makes a giant step..............................backwards.
If need be, it should not be extremely difficult to disassemble and relocate solar assets.
Hello Bob[Robert Ashworth], what is a coal person like you doing over here? I'd have thought by your tirades that this is the last place on the internet you'd ever set finger to keyboard........................................could you explain something to me?
Exactly HOW do solar panels kill butterflies? And how do wind turbines kill fish?
-------" Dr. A. Cannara
Biofuels has always been a bad, unscientific, un-environmental idea. Pay them off and shut it down."--------
I used to think that a posting like this would fall under the rules of the sanity clause.
Now, however, I find that:
--------" Much is made of dioxin and HCL in the report, but virgin wood does not contain more than trace amounts of chlorine, a necessary element in in both pollutants."------------
Not to mention the fact that dioxin is used to kill plants. It was the active ingredient in agent orange, used to defoliate large swaths of jungle in Viet Nam.
----------" The vast majority of biomass fuel in the United States remains residue and waste material from the agriculture and forest products industries, and that is not expected to change. These materials do not contain the precursors for the HAPs of greatest concern. And, if the wood fuel contains no mercury to begin with, it is not going to be formed in the combustion process.”--------
If you put dioxin on food or fiber crops, you will have no crops............................or biomass fuel from crop waste. Only dead crops.
Carbon is not soil fertilizer. Plants absorb no carbon from the soil. There are certain bacteria that "fix" nitrogen from the atmosphere and make it available to plants in the soil as nitrates. The analysis of "soil carbon content" is an indirect measurement of the presence of these bacteria. The use of liquid ammonia(NH3) as a fertilizer kills these bacteria-----it is a deadly poison if inhaled. The loss of soil carbon content is a gauge of the over use of liquid ammonia fertilizer. The use of liquid ammonia kills the bacteria and nemotodes in the soil, and therefore, the soil carbon content is lower.