• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pruitt's New Rule proposal, this will really make America great again!

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Climate scientists' churlish treatment of Steve McIntyre, their lack of transparency and the scheming revealed in Climategate all laid the groundwork for this.
 
I'm sorry, protecting the "environment" is one issue where it is better to err on the side of caution than throw caution to the "polluted ' wind. The Administrator has obviously aligned himself with the interested parties here. To his financial benefit as well.
 
It will take decades to return to something approaching what the EPA was two years ago....if it ever does.

Bad Timing to say the least.
 
"It's...our responsibility to leave this planet in in better shape for the future generations than we found it." Mike Huckabee

What's changed?
 
"It's...our responsibility to leave this planet in in better shape for the future generations than we found it." Mike Huckabee

What's changed?

money and power.

need i invoke the infamous GIF of the villians of the tom and jerry movie?
 
"It's...our responsibility to leave this planet in in better shape for the future generations than we found it." Mike Huckabee

What's changed?


His daughter is spokesperson for the POTUS?
 
Might as well just quote myself from the other thread since there's nothing new to add at the moment:



____________________________

Oh, yeah, that is a profanity.

As the article notes, it would eviscerate the EPA's ability to do much of anything. Obviously, you cannot ethically expose people to toxic levels of chemicals then see what happens to them.

In addition to the effect of preventing the EPA considering any wide-scale confidential studies conducted on people after environmental disasters, it rules out a tremendous amount of long-term studies that offered confidentiality if they happen to have some use in the EPA's decisions. (ie, there has been a study running for something like 25ish years that started with kids in grade school (signed up w/ parental consent) and follows them through adult hood, with periodic check-ins - that couldn't be used).

So of course the complete scumbag dresses up the decision in "transparency" language. I can only hope the admin yet again ****s up compliance with the APA and this gets tangled up in court for years.









I have doubt that the usual suspects will be along to fill the next X-XX pages with endless repetitions of some form of "yay transparency" or "who needs an environment?" without making the slightest effort to sensibly discuss things. And like so many of the actions the Idiot they blindly support, I can't just shrug it off as something that will only hurt them as they deserve. It'll hurt everyone.

(I'm being extremely and undeservedly kind by using "suspects" in "usual suspects").
 



It's the same position as the European Union and Britain.

[h=3]Carbon Loophole: Why Is Wood Burning Counted as Green Energy ...[/h]https://e360.yale.edu/.../carbon-loophole-why-is-wood-burning-counted-as-green-ene...




Dec 19, 2017 - Burning wood may be close to carbon neutral in some situations, such as where it is clear that cut trees are replaced with the same trees, one for one; but in others it can emit even morecarbon than coal.
 

[h=1]EPA to end “secret science” with new transparency law[/h]This is why liberals are really mad at Scott Pruitt and demand his resignation – he’s demanding accountability and transparency in environmental science, something they didn’t have to do before Video follows. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule on Tuesday to prevent the agency from relying on scientific studies that don’t…
Continue reading →
 
Large scale pyrolyzers at biochar facilities are not BURNING wood, they are pyrolizing it, and there is a huge difference.
Most of the biochar goes into food waste composting systems, which improves the compost process while "charging" the biochar with nutrients, microbes, and water, making it ready to add to soil.
Congratulations, you have just sequestered millions of tons of carbon, and damn near eliminated any need for synthetically made fertilizer.
 
Large scale pyrolyzers at biochar facilities are not BURNING wood, they are pyrolizing it, and there is a huge difference.
Most of the biochar goes into food waste composting systems, which improves the compost process while "charging" the biochar with nutrients, microbes, and water, making it ready to add to soil.
Congratulations, you have just sequestered millions of tons of carbon, and damn near eliminated any need for synthetically made fertilizer.

AFAIK, wood burning power plants are not pyrolizing the wood; they are burning it and emitting as much carbon as burning coal.
 
Large scale pyrolyzers at biochar facilities are not BURNING wood, they are pyrolizing it, and there is a huge difference.
Most of the biochar goes into food waste composting systems, which improves the compost process while "charging" the biochar with nutrients, microbes, and water, making it ready to add to soil.
Congratulations, you have just sequestered millions of tons of carbon, and damn near eliminated any need for synthetically made fertilizer.



Nicely done!
 
AFAIK, wood burning power plants are not pyrolizing the wood; they are burning it and emitting as much carbon as burning coal.

I suspect wood burning power plants ARE large scale pyrolizers.
The wood pellets are made largely from wood waste, not whole trees, think scrap, sawdust, pecan shells, husks, etc.
The pyrolizing process generates heat, wood gas and biochar, which is the toasty carbon-rich leftover component after the pyrolizing process is finished.
The heat might be used to generate steam for turbines, the extra wood gas is also combusted, also to spin the turbines.
Biochar is quite possibly the most important alternative to fertilizer around, and if we don't start making use of it pretty soon, no one will give a damn about produce anymore, because the produce won't have any nutritional value.
That's the problem with natural gas fertilizer processes, which wind up sucking everything of value out of the soil without putting anything back.

Gordon West, aka "Logtroll" of Gila Wood:
Biochar project has potential to boost area soils | Silver City Daily Press

“A pound of woody biomass can produce a half pound of biochar and 60,000 BTUs of thermal energy. If the biochar is used in the soil, it may be sequestered for a thousand years or more. If the energy released during pyrolysis is utilized (displacing an equivalent amount of fossil fuel) and the biochar goes into the soil, for every pound of biomass used, 3.8 pounds of carbon dioxide will be removed from the atmosphere.”

The thing is, we're pretty lousy about capturing the wood gas. If we did a good job of it, the wood gas could also offset a helluva lot of natgas.
Of course then you'd run head first into a moron like Scott Pruitt, who happens to be very protective of the natural gas industry.
But even a moron like Pruitt has some inkling of the process, it's just that he thinks in terms of "BURNING WOOD", because that is as far as his understanding of it goes.
What does one expect from an oil and gas guy?

Disclaimer: Gordon's a friend of mine, and he could probably explain this a whole lot better. ;)
 
I suspect wood burning power plants ARE large scale pyrolizers.
The wood pellets are made largely from wood waste, not whole trees, think scrap, sawdust, pecan shells, husks, etc.
The pyrolizing process generates heat, wood gas and biochar, which is the toasty carbon-rich leftover component after the pyrolizing process is finished.
The heat might be used to generate steam for turbines, the extra wood gas is also combusted, also to spin the turbines.
Biochar is quite possibly the most important alternative to fertilizer around, and if we don't start making use of it pretty soon, no one will give a damn about produce anymore, because the produce won't have any nutritional value.
That's the problem with natural gas fertilizer processes, which wind up sucking everything of value out of the soil without putting anything back.

Gordon West, aka "Logtroll" of Gila Wood:
Biochar project has potential to boost area soils | Silver City Daily Press



The thing is, we're pretty lousy about capturing the wood gas. If we did a good job of it, the wood gas could also offset a helluva lot of natgas.
Of course then you'd run head first into a moron like Scott Pruitt, who happens to be very protective of the natural gas industry.
But even a moron like Pruitt has some inkling of the process, it's just that he thinks in terms of "BURNING WOOD", because that is as far as his understanding of it goes.
What does one expect from an oil and gas guy?

Disclaimer: Gordon's a friend of mine, and he could probably explain this a whole lot better. ;)

You need to review the link in #14. Vast forest areas are being logged for fuel.
 
You need to review the link in #14. Vast forest areas are being logged for fuel.

I am fully aware that we're not doing everything right. Gordon West illustrates HOW TO DO it right.
The article does not make clear whether Drax, for instance is pyrolizing or not.
One would think that would be the most important piece of the puzzle.
Pyrolizing isn't a mysterious process.

So, without that piece of the puzzle, the article doesn't do me much good.
And if most pellets are being made from whole trees, the only solution is to make it more fiscally sound to use wood waste instead.
It's not going to happen any other way.
 
Climate scientists' churlish treatment of Steve McIntyre, their lack of transparency and the scheming revealed in Climategate all laid the groundwork for this.

You're supporting fundamentally undermining our government's ability to assess science objectively because you're mad that science hasn't always gone the way you wished it would.
 
Back
Top Bottom