Seems to me that if Christys predictions of five or six huge LNG plants on the West Coast materialize, and other LNG plants around the world, there will be less use for biomass, to produce electricity, as these Countries will use LNG.

Soooo. Will LNG kill off the pellet industry????

Wood pellet energy is far more expensive than natural gas per million btu’s. The saving grace for pellets is the carbon neutral theory.

Kind of like saying lumber producers are environmentalists. If a tree is left to decay in the forest it releases greenhouse gases as it decays. Making dimension lumber from the tree eliminates the decaying process and resulting greenhouse gases.

I doubt if those Countries that buy Natural Gas to produce electricity are overly concerned about the carbon neutral theory.

So lets see greenhouse gases and bioenergy just another taxpayer money sucking scam. Bioenergy cannot stand on its own with out gobs of taxpayer money.

So its a bad thing that a tree or plant dies and then gives of GHG. My how did we last this long.

Mann caused C02 makes up 2% of the total so you believe that 2% is going to burn us up. Oh by the way there has been no global warming for over 16 years now the computer models did not see that coming.

How come computer models only see so called mann caused warming and not real world observations. I guess that is why real world observations are adjusted to match computer models.

Why do I care about this scam, because it is costing us billions.

I borrowed this,

I must always ask, how can supposedly educated people buy into ideas so obviously lacking in truth or basis in fact – so obviously false? Whatever happened to critical thinking? One doesn’t have to even be a scientist to see the failings of AGW -it is so readily, absolutely disproven by simple observation and even simpler arithmetic. And what kind of hubris does it take to say that you can control climate by controlling 20 percent (that’s the US share of CO2 emissions) of an infinitesimal factor that is itself an infinitesimal factor in climate change?

It was said that climate change/global warming is a religion to some people. And in this day and age ya don’t mess with some peoples “religion”. Me? I’m a denier. Before it becomes fashionable. There is change. But it ain’t my fault.

bio energy:
The process whereby they use heavy equipment (diesel) to harvest raw materials, then transport it long distances via trucking (diesel) to a processing facility that uses industrial scale electricity to manufacture the product and package it is consumer volumes wrapped in plastic (diesel), then transported again by heavy truck (diesel) to distribution centers (heated by natural gas and using commercial electric volumes), where the consumer takes it home (gas or diesel) to convert to thermal energy (burn it).

We used that fire wood. But, wood burning appliances are banned due to particulates and the pleasant odor of a wood fire.

Bio energy, brought to you by Mega Corp.

baah

oops:
plastic (diesel)
should read plastic (crude oil product)

Just gotta love the way this story preceeds
this one
WoodStove Exchange Program Returns

If Bc or Canada in general were really concerned with GHG would expansion of ports for the export of coal be taking place. Would coal mining even be allowed.
I guess in the wisdom of our political leaders the GHG and particulate matter created in asian countries stays only in the polluting countries airshed.
Of course we got Gordon Campbell and the liberal’s carbon tax to fix those nasty GHG problems.
Carbon tax and the exporting the dirtiest fuel all from the same province. Does this really compute.

My understanding is that most countries using the wood pellet do not make their decision based on carbon neutrality. Maybe a side benefit at best.

My understanding is that the choice to use wood pellets is due to the fact the coal it is used to replace has a high mercury poisoning effect that the wood pellets do not have. Its about the environmental impacts of the immediate surrounding areas where it is used, and has very little to do with global carbon emission issues.

Mercury poisoning of land and water is a very real problem in some parts of the world where coal is in heavy use.

BTW new studies show that natural gas derived from fracking presents a new threat of uranium poisoning as the fracking process releases uranium into the now mobile gas that was previously locked up. A new poison not unlike the mercury contamination of coal use….

IMO fracked gas if used at all should only be used in industrial electricity production and not sent to heat homes due to the potential for widespread radioactive contamination of our homes.

The uranium is not in the gas but in the liquid recovered from fracturing. That uranium is recovered in many cases to produce yellow cake.

I too am very skeptical of what the world is being told are the expensive solutions to an elusive problem.

The fact that outfits such as the Fraser institute will not touch the economic arguments of this is very telling to me.
The money is the “green” thing in all this and more than ever the driving force that justifies everything that science tells us we should do.

Remember that not so long ago it was scientifically determined that we were entering an ice age? Remember that not so long ago that the most advanced societies in the world had scientifically determined that the world was flat..like a giant pizza with edges and everything so the water didn’t run off the sides???