[MbrExchange] Re: [ RadSafe ] Scientific Consensus

Don Jordan DonJordan at ramservicesinc.com
Fri Mar 16 19:35:25 CDT 2007

This may not be strictly true because:

(a)  If the biomass is not replaced, then there is a net increase in the CO2
and also a decrease in the sink (i.e., rain forest).

(b) the chemical and biological kinetics of the new growth may lag behind
the production rate for a while.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc+ at pitt.edu>
To: <RuthWeiner at aol.com>
Cc: <mbrexchange at list.ans.org>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>;
<hjsmith at bushschool.tamu.edu>
Sent: 16 March, 2007 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MbrExchange] Re: [ RadSafe ] Scientific Consensus

> RuthWeiner at aol.com wrote:
> > .  Forcing a state like New Mexico to get a fraction of electricity
> > from "renewables" (including biomass which produces more CO2 per BTU,
> > not less, than coal) does nothing except make electricity more
> > expensive.  And so on.
> >
>        ---Burning biomass does not add any net CO2 to the Earth's
> atmosphere, because the CO2 it emits was originally removed from the
> atmosphere in growing the biomass.
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list