"bert" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
lid writes
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder..
they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


Into?
And before it does that it is a worse greenhouse gas.
You certainly wouldn't want much of it in the atmosphere.
And rotting veg adds a continuous supply.
BAIUI not as much as farting cows

Still rotting veg, just rotting inside the farting cows.

And it isnt just farting cows either, quite a bit
of it comes out the front of the cow, not the arse.

It most definitely is worse, it just isn't significant compared to water.

--
bert

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 17:36:45 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 16:11:09 UTC, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 13:33:31 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W
Some carbon capture involves dissolving the CO2 in water.
This is done under high pressure.
The water is then pumped underground.
The CO2 then stays dissolved because it is under high pressure (all the other water on top of it.)
The problem is that it's hot down there.


How it works out as regards energy consumed toachieve this, have no idea.

There has been a few failed projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...e_CCS_projects

It takes energy to do it, and eenrgy to produce the equipment used to do it, transport the people involved etc etc. Energy comes from producing CO2, thus doing it produces more CO2 - not less. Now, CO2 isn't going to stay underground for ever, so what you've done is to add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Not just for no gain, but at significant cost.

It's the sort of thing that appeals to people with no grasp of basic engineering. It's the fashionable non-sense of the day and curries votes.


NT

CO2 remains dissolved in water for ever.
The higher the pressure, the more can be disolved.


Natural gas remained underground for millions of years with no leakage.
Why shouldn't CO2?

The questions revolve around the energy balance, not whether we can permanently "bury" it.

On Thursday, 5 January 2017 09:35:57 UTC, harry wrote:

Natural gas remained underground for millions of years with no leakage.
Why shouldn't CO2?

THIS IS WHY, YOU THICKO KIPPER.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Clean_coal

On 05/01/17 11:35, harry wrote:


Natural gas remained underground for millions of years with no leakage.
Why shouldn't CO2?

perhaps because to get it there, needs a hole.

And of course 99.99% of natural gas escaped years ago. It's the 0.1%
that is left that managed to find a gas tight place that we tap...


....did you know that 99.99% of all species that became extinct did so
before man appeared at all?


The questions revolve around the energy balance, not whether we can permanently "bury" it.


So you say, but the you are a bit of a clot.

On 04/01/2017 22:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 20:15, dennis@home wrote:
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder..
they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


Into?

water and carbon dioxide.

And before it does that it is a worse greenhouse gas.

for an hour or so.

You certainly wouldn't want much of it in the atmosphere.

you wont get much of it in the atmosphere, because it breaks down

And rotting veg adds a continuous supply.

which is almost immediately broken[ down.

It most definitely is worse, it just isn't significant compared to water.

It isnt worse, because there can never be much of it as long as there is
oxygen to break it down.


You need to investigate how long methane lasts if you think its gone in
an hour.

On 05/01/2017 09:35, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 17:36:45 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 16:11:09 UTC, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 13:33:31 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W
Some carbon capture involves dissolving the CO2 in water.
This is done under high pressure.
The water is then pumped underground.
The CO2 then stays dissolved because it is under high pressure (all the other water on top of it.)
The problem is that it's hot down there.


How it works out as regards energy consumed toachieve this, have no idea.

There has been a few failed projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...e_CCS_projects

It takes energy to do it, and eenrgy to produce the equipment used to do it, transport the people involved etc etc. Energy comes from producing CO2, thus doing it produces more CO2 - not less. Now, CO2 isn't going to stay underground for ever, so what you've done is to add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Not just for no gain, but at significant cost.

It's the sort of thing that appeals to people with no grasp of basic engineering. It's the fashionable non-sense of the day and curries votes.


NT

CO2 remains dissolved in water for ever.
The higher the pressure, the more can be disolved.


Natural gas remained underground for millions of years with no leakage.
Why shouldn't CO2?

Why shouldn't radioactive waste?
If you can store CO2 for millions of years by pumping down a well you
can do the same with radioactive waste.
See you have solved your own problem.

On 05/01/17 19:23, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/01/2017 09:35, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 17:36:45 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 16:11:09 UTC, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 13:33:31 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic
level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but
itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat.
Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing
the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you
make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is
not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more
energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing
more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon
Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse
than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny,
and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive
pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't
achieve anything.


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that
tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different
matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W
Some carbon capture involves dissolving the CO2 in water.
This is done under high pressure.
The water is then pumped underground.
The CO2 then stays dissolved because it is under high pressure (all
the other water on top of it.)
The problem is that it's hot down there.


How it works out as regards energy consumed toachieve this, have no
idea.

There has been a few failed projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...e_CCS_projects


It takes energy to do it, and eenrgy to produce the equipment used to
do it, transport the people involved etc etc. Energy comes from
producing CO2, thus doing it produces more CO2 - not less. Now, CO2
isn't going to stay underground for ever, so what you've done is to
add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Not just for no gain, but at
significant cost.

It's the sort of thing that appeals to people with no grasp of basic
engineering. It's the fashionable non-sense of the day and curries
votes.


NT

CO2 remains dissolved in water for ever.
The higher the pressure, the more can be disolved.


Natural gas remained underground for millions of years with no leakage.
Why shouldn't CO2?

Why shouldn't radioactive waste?
If you can store CO2 for millions of years by pumping down a well you
can do the same with radioactive waste.
Hmm. Pressure of radioactive waste.....
See you have solved your own problem.

On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


AIUI - it is, but it breaks down very quickly.

A constant feed of methane means a constant atmospheric level. I burn
the wood, save the oil, and know my heating is carbon neutral.

Andy

On 05/01/2017 21:55, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


AIUI - it is, but it breaks down very quickly.

A constant feed of methane means a constant atmospheric level. I burn
the wood, save the oil, and know my heating is carbon neutral.

How many years does it take to grow the wood you burn?
Unless it is instant or you planted it years ago to burn then you have
burnt x tons of wood and produced x tons of CO2 that is now in the
atmosphere.
Greens may claim its carbon neutral but it isn't.

You can buy carbon credits and make anything carbon neutral these days
even though its another lie.

On 06/01/2017 13:06, dennis@home wrote:
How many years does it take to grow the wood you burn?
Unless it is instant or you planted it years ago to burn then you have
burnt x tons of wood and produced x tons of CO2 that is now in the
atmosphere.
Greens may claim its carbon neutral but it isn't.

You can buy carbon credits and make anything carbon neutral these days
even though its another lie.

Mostly it's offcuts from tree surgeons. If nobody burned it it would
have to be composted. Which would take years, and make loads of methane.

Andy

On 1/4/2017 12:04 PM, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

[...]
Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


I dare say some people say stupid things sometimes, and what you do with
wood makes no difference to the amount of fossil fuel we consume which
is the main driver of the greenhouse thing by a long way.


Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill
goes down.

On Thursday, 5 January 2017 21:55:25 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


AIUI - it is, but it breaks down very quickly.

A constant feed of methane means a constant atmospheric level. I burn
the wood, save the oil, and know my heating is carbon neutral.

Andy

Almost ten years.
All you need to know he-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosp...greenhouse_gas

On Thursday, 5 January 2017 17:23:56 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/01/2017 09:35, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 17:36:45 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 16:11:09 UTC, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 13:33:31 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process.. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W
Some carbon capture involves dissolving the CO2 in water.
This is done under high pressure.
The water is then pumped underground.
The CO2 then stays dissolved because it is under high pressure (all the other water on top of it.)
The problem is that it's hot down there.


How it works out as regards energy consumed toachieve this, have no idea.

There has been a few failed projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...e_CCS_projects

It takes energy to do it, and eenrgy to produce the equipment used to do it, transport the people involved etc etc. Energy comes from producing CO2, thus doing it produces more CO2 - not less. Now, CO2 isn't going to stay underground for ever, so what you've done is to add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Not just for no gain, but at significant cost.

It's the sort of thing that appeals to people with no grasp of basic engineering. It's the fashionable non-sense of the day and curries votes.


NT

CO2 remains dissolved in water for ever.
The higher the pressure, the more can be disolved.


Natural gas remained underground for millions of years with no leakage.
Why shouldn't CO2?

Why shouldn't radioactive waste?
If you can store CO2 for millions of years by pumping down a well you
can do the same with radioactive waste.
See you have solved your own problem.

Because you're not pumping the waste down a hole.
And it's not water soluble.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 5 January 2017 17:23:56 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/01/2017 09:35, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 17:36:45 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 16:11:09 UTC, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 13:33:31 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic
level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but
itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat.
Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing
the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you
make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not
entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy
per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It
just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon
Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was
about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations
in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse
than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and
guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps
etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve
anything.


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that
tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different
matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W
Some carbon capture involves dissolving the CO2 in water.
This is done under high pressure.
The water is then pumped underground.
The CO2 then stays dissolved because it is under high pressure (all
the other water on top of it.)
The problem is that it's hot down there.


How it works out as regards energy consumed toachieve this, have no
idea.

There has been a few failed projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...e_CCS_projects

It takes energy to do it, and eenrgy to produce the equipment used to
do it, transport the people involved etc etc. Energy comes from
producing CO2, thus doing it produces more CO2 - not less. Now, CO2
isn't going to stay underground for ever, so what you've done is to
add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Not just for no gain, but at
significant cost.

It's the sort of thing that appeals to people with no grasp of basic
engineering. It's the fashionable non-sense of the day and curries
votes.


NT

CO2 remains dissolved in water for ever.
The higher the pressure, the more can be disolved.


Natural gas remained underground for millions of years with no leakage.
Why shouldn't CO2?

Why shouldn't radioactive waste?
If you can store CO2 for millions of years by pumping down a well you
can do the same with radioactive waste.
See you have solved your own problem.

Because you're not pumping the waste down a hole.
And it's not water soluble.

CO2 is in fact water soluble.

On 08/01/17 20:48, newshound wrote:
On 1/4/2017 12:04 PM, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

[...]
Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


I dare say some people say stupid things sometimes, and what you do with
wood makes no difference to the amount of fossil fuel we consume which
is the main driver of the greenhouse thing by a long way.


Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill
goes down.


Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by
plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral if
the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing you
do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner

TW

In message , TimW
writes
On 08/01/17 20:48, newshound wrote:
On 1/4/2017 12:04 PM, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

[...]
Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


I dare say some people say stupid things sometimes, and what you do with
wood makes no difference to the amount of fossil fuel we consume which
is the main driver of the greenhouse thing by a long way.


Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill
goes down.


Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by
plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral
if the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing
you do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner

I am actually burning stuff that is 200+ years old so I'm not doing much
to help currently. There are new saplings growing in nearby locations
and the otherwise suppressed stretch of hedgerow gets a lot more light.

--
Tim Lamb

On 12/01/17 12:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , TimW
wrote:

[...]

Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons
by plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon
neutral if the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a
fine thing you do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner

What do you mean by "wasted" in this context? Trees just dying and
rotting down naturally? Why would that not be carbon neutral?



A forest in its natural state with vegetation growing, dieing back and
rotting would be carbon neutral or even carbon positive as long as the
organic matter is accumulating and increasing in the growth and in the
soil.

I don't have any special knowledge on this subject but that is my
understanding.

TW

TimW wrote:

newshound wrote:

Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill
goes down.

Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by
plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral if
the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing you
do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner

So given the gas/coal/oil that gets burnt also releases CO2 that allows
new wood to grow, isn't that good too? The only difference being between
a few decades and a few hundred million years!

On 12/01/17 20:53, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:31:28 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

TimW wrote:

newshound wrote:

Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill
goes down.

Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by
plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral if
the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing you
do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner

So given the gas/coal/oil that gets burnt also releases CO2 that allows
new wood to grow, isn't that good too? The only difference being between
a few decades and a few hundred million years!

Presumably the total carbon content of the world has been constant,
pretty much since it was formed, with the possible exception of the
addition of a few carbonaceous chondrites over the millennia, which
probably haven't changed the overall percentage by very much.

well there's a bit of carbon 14 that gets formed from nitrogen here and
there.

Mind you it turns back to nitrogen after a few thousand years.

More of God's Nuclear Waste eh harry?


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone