bioenergy- carbon tax - more buzzz words for something we have had for eighty years The karrick process was perfected by 1920 and was producing fuel for the vechicles of the day. Some early banksters bought up most of the equipment, the depression of the thirtys - but it surfaced in germany & england and was producing fuel from the begining of ww2 until a decade & a half ago, get this process out of sight before the banksters get some competition against the fuel monoply that is coming into total control.I say revive it in every village, town, farm ,cottage and don't let them fall into the hands of the monopolies again. individual people can build these low temperature carbonization plants in the 1000 pound size which will yield about one barrel of fuel comparable to the low sulphur diesel of today along with 1400 pounds of high temperature coking coal and a 100 pounds of tar which the plastic companies need for raw material.raw stock can be low grade coal, peat bog bales and tree chips, anybody know a place that has this carbon source?now the banksters need to gain control of this resource before it can become real competition to their monoply.the process workings can be found on the internet but no do it yourself plans yet.want to save fuel? - run your car with water.com - is a good place to start.

What kind of kickback do you get for referring that website at the end of yoru post taxpayer? What a scam.

I recently drove through Williams Lake and there were huge burn piles burning on the south side of the lake where the Walmart is to be constructed.

If 'bioenergy' was viable you would think, that with 'North America's largest bioenergy plant' being less than 3 km's away they would have hauled the debris there. (Epcor cogen plant)

As they didn't I have to think it's exactly that NORTHERN TAXPAYER, just buzzwords.

Mention bioenergy in this town and all the Clean Air groupies start holling that it will kill them! Just burn diesel until the last drop is gone.

bioenergy ...... we eat vegies .... we eat animules ..... and we get energy to move for another day ..... some of us even get enough energy to think for another day .....

;-)

The world has used bioenergy for millions of years, with us or without us ...

Build a campfire ..... voila!!! ... bioenergy!!!

The question is, how much fuel do we need to get the feedstock off the land. In other words, what is the efficiency of so called bioenergy versus hydroenergy, solarenergy, windenergy, geothermalenergy, tidalenergy, runoftheriverenergy ...

One of the things I know for sure, none of those others cause greenhouse gases, for those who might care. None of those others cause food prices to rise because land is being used to create feedstock for transportation energy instead of for people energy.

The only reason bionergy is such a big hit these days is because some people think that mother nature says to the vegetationfibre produced CO2 .. "hey, I am going to ignore you when it comes to including you in the greenhouse effect ... I am just going to include the fossil fuel derived CO2 ...

yeah right!! ...

I think bioenergy makes alot of sense. The carbon is going into the aptmosphere anyway, whether in a huge forest fire or in a boiler, might as well be a boiler.

Solar, wind and tidal all have huge issues with dependability and efficiency. The best process is still good old turbines driven by steam or hydro.

As for it being a huge employer, I dont know about that. I am sure a bioenergy enterprise would never replace NCP, much less all the other lumber/plywood operations.

Hey isn't Oil Bio Energy. Didn't a bunch of trees and dinosaurs make oil for us.

If I eat too much pasta, I got Bio energy coming out of the lower orfice. does this count.

"I think bioenergy makes alot of sense. The carbon is going into the aptmosphere anyway"

Not quite all of it. Some gets returned to the soil and with human intervention, some gets sequestered.

The oil and gas which we extract come from animal and vegetable matter of millions of years ago.

In recent centuries and especially decades, the carbon cycle is no longer in the same balance as it was say a thousand years ago. More carbon is going into the atmosphere than before. What the source of that carbon is, whether from vegetation or from fossil fuels does not matter. What matters is that there is more of it.

Thus, what needs to be done is that we have to bring the cycle back to what would be the non-human influenced cycle equilibrium. To do that, we have to concentrate efforts to increase the production of energy from non organic sources.

By burning up our forests for energy and planting our fields with energy crops rather than food crops (BTW, the removal of trees and planting of annual biofuel crops will be much more efficient use of the land for biofuels. So say goodby to our forests if we head in the biofuels direction in a major way)

At the same time, the living organic sources should be used for things which will sequester the carbon as much as possible - wood for construction, furniture, etc. rather than burned for energy. Or simply keep it in the forests so that the trees can mature long enough to act as living carbon sinks.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/CarbonCycle.html

"Solar, wind and tidal all have huge issues"

The first two do not seem to have huge issues in Europe. The main issue is that it takes some time to build up manufacturing capacity and to retrofit buildings. It does not happen overnight. And yes, backup systems are required, the same as with hydro and other systems.

A hurricane hits the USA where 30% of its refineries are located and the price of gasoline shoots up overnight.