To me wood just about defines the word "renewable" as an energy source. Yet when the green advocates talk about "renewables" they seem to be focusing almost exclusively on wind and solar energy with occasional looks at geothermal and tidal energy sources. None of those four are truly "renewable". They are just apparently inexhaustible on human time scales. My interest in wood is due to a recent interest in steam powered cars which new technology would allow to run at higher efficiencies, reach much higher speeds than before (well over 100 mph/160 kph), run virtually silent and with almost completely non polluting exhaust. And start up within seconds (as opposed to several minutes in the past
The "green" energy industry is, itself exhaustible, meaning that the mechanical things, solar panels, wind turbines, etc, all must be both maintained, and replaced as their EOL. Which, begs the question of why these machines aren't actually recyclable, or otherwise reusable. Plant based energy isn't desirable for the green crowd because of it's release of what they feel is evil, you know.. CO2. Trees aren't for energy, they are simply there for 'nature"... Except when they must be clear cut to allow for solar panel factories in places like TN that were heavily wooded.. Oh, and when they are in the way of roads, or their houses... There is zero consistency in the green crowd.
They do. It falls under "biomass". It is not a sustainable fuel to power the whole world for very long, however.
They view it as renewable; in fact they depend on it. North American forests are being logged for biomass fuel in Europe. The Obvious Biomass Emissions Error Europe’s biomass consumption for energy production is up 84 percent. ... For example, biomass fuel produced ... resulting from the growth of new biomass.” In 2007, the EC ruled, “Biomass is considered as CO2 neutral. Wood chips being delivered for a Biomass power plant. Image: USDOE Guest essay by Steve Goreham When Thomas Edison established his Pearl Street power plant in New York City in 1892, he used coal for fuel, not wood. Wood fuel could not compete with the cost of coal in 1892 and it still can’t today. Nevertheless, burning of biomass is widely regarded as sustainable and promoted as a solution for climate change, especially in Europe. Today, Europe produces about 17 percent of its energy and 29 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. Biomass accounts for about 19 percent of the electricity generated from renewables. Since 2000, Europe’s biomass consumption for energy production is up 84 percent. . . .
I doubt we'd be able to grow enough trees to provide wood as fuel at any kind of significant scale (given we struggle to keep up with out current usage). Modern steam turbines may well be viable for some vehicles (after all, that's what is used for most fuel-based power generation), but I'm not convinced wood would be the best choice of fuel in that scenario. I am curious how much your idea for these wonderful steam powered cars is based on proven fact and how much on theory and speculation. It sounds a lot like the over-promising in the early days of a number of alternatives (hydrogen, electric, fusion etc.) which never turn out as flawless as initially imagined, even if they go on to be practical overall.
I googled searched for modern steam powered cars and the concept seems quite doable. https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1042252_cyclone-steam-engine-pushes-closer-to-land-speed-record
Trees takes years to get to maturity and be worthy of cutting down for lumber or fuel. So, while you could make a case that it is a renewable, it's also an unreliable one since a fire, a drougt or a bug infestation can destroy your whole ressources and you don't have any control on those three. Beside, wood as already another use that is more profitable, lumber. You can, of course, use the byproduct of converting trees to lumber to generate natural gas, which is less dirty than burning wood.
Not with wood though. This is just a different (albeit interesting) way of extracting energy from existing forms of vehicle fuel.
It is my understanding that given that steam engines are EXTERNAL combustion engines that they can use a wide variety of fuels. I mentioned wood because I figured it would not set people off as much as coal always does.
But how do you think this poor kid in the backseat would feel in a hot summer day in Arizona with a wood stove directly behind his seat...
Neither is wind or solar... That's why we primarily use sources such as coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. We don't know whether or not coal is renewable, but oil and natural gas most certainly are (they naturally form underground).
modern fireplaces too are better than the old ones, I remember living in a house with a fireplace when younger and you did have to blow your nose more, but modern ones actually burn off a lot of this to create even more heat - the old fireplaces many compare to smoking anymore
My parents house had a wonderfully designed old fashioned fireplace (no flu pipe). It drew wonderfully and generated massive amounts of heat that could heat half the house and would draw huge amounts of air into the den where it was located. We never had smoke or the smell of it seep back into the house.
Yes it does, dude... oil naturally forms underground... How do you suppose that oil wells fill up again after previously running dry? There is no "set limit" of oil.
What "game"? Truth telling? Science? If you wish to ignore me (and my corrections to your errors) and follow some wacky science denying religion (such as the Church of Green) instead, then that's your prerogative...
Actually he has a point. At least a partial one. I saw an article in Discover in the 1990s about a theory advanced by a scientist (who is considered somewhat off the wall by the rank and file) that so called "fossil fuels" were not formed by fossilized plants and animals at all but by extreme heat and pressures during the formation of the Earth. And that means in all likelihood that there are literally hundreds of thousands of years of coal, oil, and gas left on (under) the Earth.
You forgot to qualify by adding oil that can be profotably extract. If it cost more to reach that oil than what you can get from it... you wont extract it.
https://physicsworld.com/a/biomass-energy-green-or-dirty/ --- Under the best-case scenario, when all harvested land is allowed to regrow as forest, the researchers found that burning wood pellets creates a carbon debt, with a payback time of between 44 and 104 years --- That is, biomass burning isn't particularly green. Sounds impossible, starting up a wood-burning steam system in seconds. And the old woodburner cars weren't steam-powered. They were wood-gas powered. Wood is was broken down by heat into wood gas, which is mainly hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which fed an internal combustion engine.
Review of Biomass Calculations in Achieving Net Zero Emissions Scenario. Guest Blogger The current practice of using trees as a renewable and carbon neutral option simple does not make sense in theory or practice. If we want to reduce our carbon emissions…
