View Single Post
Old 09-07-2009, 10:50 PM   #135
DMcCunney
New York Editor
DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DMcCunney's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,384
Karma: 16540415
Join Date: Aug 2007
Device: PalmTX, Pocket eDGe, Alcatel Fierce 4, RCA Viking Pro 10, Nexus 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffC View Post
The zero sum equation is correct in some ways; in that what was extracted from the atmosphere in the very recent past is being released back. Hence biomass stations that use, for instance wood - are really only releasing what was there when those trees were growing. In climatological/geological time- scales this was yesterday.

The difference with oil, gas and coal is that the Co2 locked up in these reservoirs are from millions of years ago.
And there is no practical difference in the effects of releasing that CO2.

The critical factors are the amount released and the rate of release, not the age of the material releasing it.

There are good reasons in the case of things like coal to find other fuel sources like biomass, given the processes used to get the coal, but that's a different matter.

X amount of CO2 is X amount of CO2, regardless of the age of the material providing the carbon.
______
Dennis
DMcCunney is offline   Reply With Quote