Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

How f#cking dumb do they think we are?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Roarin, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. I was a bit late reading the local rag this week. As I was browsing through it at lunch time today, I could not believe my eyes when I read the following article.
    WTF is going on here? Can someone explain to me the difference between burning wood that has been buried for the last thousand years or so, or plants and organic matter in liquid form for that matter, and burning these man made energy consuming wood pellets?
    Why are coal and oil so evil, yet this product classed as "clean energy" and "renewable biofuel"?
    And get this, they even have Government grants to fund their "research" For f#cks sake. Do they think we are complete f#ckwits with no capacity for logical thought process? Someone please help me out here.

  2. Yes,they do!
  3. What's the issue? Waste scrap wood turned into pellets backs out coal. The waste was going to landfill before this. Sounds like a win win.

    - - -
    Tapatalking loud, saying somethin'
  4. That works well for the government (esp NSW) who want to tax fuel for woodheaters because they apparently cause $6B in health problems somehow (load of sh1t if you ask me).
    In my mind burning timber is carbon dioxide nuetral as you are only releasing carbon dioxide that the growth of that timber took out in the first place.
    Important to also remeber Carbon Dioxide is not toxic and is actually essential for life.
  5. You have one source of fuel that takes thousands/millions of years to produce, and that cannot be extracted without making a big mess, and another source that is being produced in days, and saves making a big mess.

    When the wood is grown that makes the pellets, CO2 is being taken out of the air. When it is burnt, CO2 is put back into the air.

    When you burn fossil fuels, CO2 is released that was taken out of the air thousands/millions of years ago and wouldn't be released if we didn't dig/pump it out of the ground.
  6. Ha ha ha ha ha. Surely you jest. Your masters will be most pleased with your subservient attitude.
  7. I was under the impression that Govt's were trying to do away with wood heaters as they pollute the air, Smog for one,

    I live in the hills, The smoke from home wood heaters can get so thick you can hardly breathe,

    Its a win win allright, they can chop down all the trees now to make pellets, as well as what they did put in the land fill.
  8. You guys... Sigh.

    What is the point of growing trees to make pellets. Where's the marketing advantage in that?

    Roarin scathing sarcasm? Really? Shhh is right.

    - - -
    Tapatalking loud, saying somethin'
  9. Why? What part of what he wrote was wrong? As for burning pellets rather than branches, well that's a different question.
  10. Cant tell if trolling or really stupid.
  11. Ha ha ha ha ha. How so. According to his/her logic, it is okay to burn sh!t that grew in the last hundred years or so, but not okay to burn sh!t that grew 1000 or so years ago. Not only that, but he is using energy from the sh!t that grew 1000+ years ago, to make energy from the newer sh!t that is supposedly "green"
    Whereas by burning the old sh!t, we are only using the energy from the same carbon cycle. Not compounding it.
    Also, what deadman said. Rather hypocritcal that the gubbermint fund the exact thing they are legislating against and taxing in the form of the Carbon tax.
  12. I think Roarin's right. If the forest was purpose-grown for fuel it would be carbon neutral. But this is just waste. No extra trees are being grown.

    I'm not against bio-fuels per se, but they aren't necessarily green.
  13. Errr most of the NSW coal is permian-triassic. Which is 200-300 million years old. I'm not sure about other fossil fuels around the world but I would take a guess that most of it hasnt been atmospheric co2 for at least 50 million years.
  14. Same as gas for cars, Etc, it was and is still a waste product. but they can make a quid out of it, So they now sell it instead of just burning it off.

    The sawdust is just a start to get it off the ground, Then they will move into the forests when there is not enough waste to maintain their output,

    Same as woodchips, They turn trees into wood chips and then convert it back to wood with very nasty chemicals to make it stick together,
  15. On second thoughts, I may have been a little hasty in my condemnation. On re reading the article, I noticed that they are actually going to be exporting the pellets to Asian markets. You know, the same ones we export thousands and thousands of tonnes of coal to to be burnt each year. They must have some special type of burning process over there that doesn't produce any of those nasty greenhouse gases that burning it here produces. He he he he he. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Pay those Carbon taxes fools, and keep feeling good about it. You're saving the world. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
  16. So the waste is better rotting in landfill producing methane - a much worse GHG - than it is being converted into a useful product??

    Trees can be regrown within a time frame you can understand. Coal on the other hand... just a tad longer.

    Your objection doesn't make sense, especially since I know how resourceful you are & I'd guess that normally you'd get a kick out of something useless being turned into something useful.

    Deadman, LPG is a great example of a waste byproduct turned into something useful. Why hang shit on it?

    - - -
    Tapatalking loud, saying somethin'
  17. Not hanging shit on it, Its a very good point of using it, But if they couldnt make a quid out of it, It would still be just burnt off, creating Global warming,

    Land fill is being used in the same way, harnessing methane to make power,

    I am just pissed off that a waste product is so expensive to buy, When they changed from coal gas to natural gas, the price of gas was supposed to go down a lot, But all it did was go up, and it still continues to go up.
  18. "Making a quid out of it"... why is this such a negative thing?

    In the petrochemical game, anything they send up the flare is a pure loss. They spent money extracting it out of the ground and out of their process so what do they do with it? If it has no economic value all they can do is dispose of it which is an added cost. (Before carbon tax the cost was just increased maintenance on piping, control systems and flare tips...) Finding a useful purpose for LPG has created a market for it. Better it makes GHG's by moving cars around which backs out a volume of petrol, than by just burning it at the flare out of necessity.

    Just on the price thing, when a good becomes a market commodity, the price is no longer set by the manufacturer or supplier. The price becomes a simple supply and demand thing.
  19. I don't get this. The waste is going into landfill. It's going to rot and cause methane. It's now potentially going into pellets with the same energy density as coal. So it backs out fire wood and coal. How is this a bad idea? How is this not greener than the status quo?

    Most of the coal goes into steel smelting. Australia has hardly any steel production left. Any expansion or new construction projects in Australia are almost certainly using steel produced from overseas. Get used to it, this is becoming a global economy.
  20. Both is my guess.