Re: US lawmaker, environmentalist spar over nuclear power

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

That again depends on what biomass you are talking about.  Trees take
decades to grow, for example.  In addition, burning carbohydrates (e.g.,
cellulose or lignins) releases more CO2 per calorie (or per BTU, if you
prefer) than burning a fossil fuel.  I don't argue that modern
industrialized society releases CO2 from fossil fuel at a much faster rate
than the original fixation, but only that the "net"  CO2  is zero in any
case.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: GlennACarlson@aol.com <GlennACarlson@aol.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 15, 2000 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: US lawmaker, environmentalist spar over nuclear power


>When evaluating the impact on CO2 production rates, timing makes all the
>difference.  The production of biomass fuels is contemporaneous with
>utilization to within a couple of growing seasons (?).
>
>This has two impacts:  1) CO2 removal millions of years ago produces no
>benefit now as compared to biomass which produces a present benefit, and 2)
>the rate of CO2 generation from combustion of fossil fuels is many times
>greater than the rate of absorption of CO2 during its production as
compared
>to biomass which, when considering the time scale for affecting atmospheric
>CO2 concentrations, absorbs CO2 at effectively the same rate as it releases
>when burned.
>
>Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
>glennacarlson@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 4/15/2000 11:35:29 AM Central Daylight Time,
>ruth_weiner@email.msn.com writes:
>
><< Subj:     Re: US lawmaker, environmentalist spar over nuclear power
>
> That's of course equally true for fossil fuels, which are "biomass"
fossils.
> All of the carbon was at some time CO2 incorporated as biomass by
> photosynthesis.
>
> Ruth Weiner
> ruth_weiner@msn.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GlennACarlson@aol.com <GlennACarlson@aol.com>
> Date: Friday, April 14, 2000 5:45 PM
> Subject: Re: US lawmaker, environmentalist spar over nuclear power
>
> >Perhaps, it should read no "net" carbon dioxide since the carbon dioxide
> >removed from the air during production (i.e., growth) of the biomass fuel
> may
> >be greater than the carbon dioxide released during combustion.
> >
> >Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
> >glennacarlson@aol.com
> >
> >In a message dated 4/14/2000 3:26:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
> >neildm@id.doe.gov writes:
> >
> ><< Subj:     RE: US lawmaker, environmentalist spar over nuclear power
> >
> > "The alternative energy sources which produce no carbon dioxide -
> renewable
> > sources like solar and wind power, biogas from landfills, and crops to
> burn
> > in power stations " - Paul Brown, Environment Correspondent
> >
> > Say what?  The last two are renewable, but they darn well DO produce
CO2;
> > it's just a different carbon source.
> >
> > Dave Neil      neildm@id.doe.gov
> >
>
>  >>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html