Global Warming News

[dave1949]

But was it a good use of tax dollars? Were the old boilers reused, left in place or replaced. If the old boilers were kept and able to use either oil or wood then it might make money sense. But if new boilers had to purchased was that a wise use of money?

I looked at pellet stoves. There was no reason to own one to save money. In fact it would likely cost me more money compared to heating with electric because of the high cost of the pellets. And I studied the stoves before the pellet prices increased. Getting the pellets can be erratic. The WSJ had a story a year or so back about the shortage of wood pellets due to the lack of demand for lumber. No lumber means there is no sawdust to make into pellets. Lack of pellets but lots of demand drove up prices. Like any commodity.

I dont see how the use of forest biomass amounts to a poot in a hurricane compared to the overall energy requirements of the US. If it makes money sense in a given area that is great it should be used. But I don't see how it will effect national energy usage.

Later,
Dan

The pellet boilers were part of new buildings or when the old oil-fired boilers had to be replaced or extensively rebuilt.

The availability and quality of pellets does vary. The worst periods are when oil prices skyrocket and everyone runs out and buys a wood burner of some type.


As to cost and local benefits, here is an excerpt from the linked article (Mar 2008): Wood pellets, oil compete for heating

The task force is expected to make its recommendations to the governor by June. Early calculations suggest, for example, that producing and burning an additional 300,000 tons a year of wood pellets could generate $150 million in benefits for Maine linked to harvesting revenue, lower heating costs and local spending, according to Les Otten, the task force chair. Otten, former owner of the Sunday River and Sugarloaf ski areas, recently formed a business looking at alternative energy investment opportunities.

The task force has just begun collecting information, Otten said, and many questions remain unanswered. Among them is how much a cash-strapped state government can or should do to promote a major conversion from oil to wood, and what should be left to the private market.

There is wide agreement on one point: Wood heat is much cheaper today than oil. To get the heat output of 1 million BTUs, figuring the same efficiencies and current prices, it costs $19.05 with wood pellets, compared to $29.53 with oil.

At the time of this article, oil was trading for $110/bbl. We could easily see that oil price again if the global economy improves.

Certainly forest biomass energy is no panacea for a national energy strategy. But, in some locations, it can work economically. It also allows a local community to keep some of it's income at home rather than sending it outside. That can mean a lot to a rural economy. Like you say, if it works, then use it our advantage.
Dave.

 

[Pilot]

There are a few things to note in the quoted article.

"...could generate $150 million..." doesn't mean will. Depends on validity of assumptions.

Take a look here: www.eia.doe.gov/neic/experts/heatcalc.xls You can input your own numbers for the fuel costs and then compare the cost per million BTU. With the numbers the Dep't of Energy used, pellets cost $22.28 per million BTU and oil was $21.29. Those costs are so close I would make a decision on other criteria, two of which would be reliability and consistency of supply. As was noted, pellet supply varies with logging activity since it is a byproduct.

"Otten, former owner of the Sunday River and Sugarloaf ski areas, recently formed a business looking at alternative energy investment opportunities." Note that he has a financial interest in the state's decision.

 

[Jstpssng]

The pellet boilers were part of new buildings or when the old oil-fired boilers had to be replaced or extensively rebuilt.

The availability and quality of pellets does vary. The worst periods are when oil prices skyrocket and everyone runs out and buys a wood burner of some type.


As to cost and local benefits, here is an excerpt from the linked article (Mar 2008): Wood pellets, oil compete for heating

The task force is expected to make its recommendations to the governor by June. Early calculations suggest, for example, that producing and burning an additional 300,000 tons a year of wood pellets could generate $150 million in benefits for Maine linked to harvesting revenue, lower heating costs and local spending, according to Les Otten, the task force chair. Otten, former owner of the Sunday River and Sugarloaf ski areas, recently formed a business looking at alternative energy investment opportunities.

The task force has just begun collecting information, Otten said, and many questions remain unanswered. Among them is how much a cash-strapped state government can or should do to promote a major conversion from oil to wood, and what should be left to the private market.

There is wide agreement on one point: Wood heat is much cheaper today than oil. To get the heat output of 1 million BTUs, figuring the same efficiencies and current prices, it costs $19.05 with wood pellets, compared to $29.53 with oil.

At the time of this article, oil was trading for $110/bbl. We could easily see that oil price again if the global economy improves.

Certainly forest biomass energy is no panacea for a national energy strategy. But, in some locations, it can work economically. It also allows a local community to keep some of it's income at home rather than sending it outside. That can mean a lot to a rural economy. Like you say, if it works, then use it our advantage.
Dave.

While I have my own opinions on global warming I didn't read the entire 97 pages of this thread. However, I do feel that my position as a Maine forester gives me knowledge to expand on Dave's post. I especially liked his last comment, as I feel the same way. Let's start to use whatever alternative to oil is available to produce electricity and heat our homes, so we can save the oil for our autos and equipment.

The biomass industry in Maine flucuates with the price of oil; we have several wood waste to electricity plants scattered throughout the state. (Is the Gorbel plant still operating down there in Athens, Dave?)
Recently President Obama (motto; spend all you want... we'll print more) introduced a subsidy program that increased the amount landowners got paid for junk wood.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program

I'm not big on government intervention; however, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

For my part, though I'll be cleaning my lot and sending a couple of loads (+_ 50 tons) to the mill this summer I won't participate in the program.

One of the latest buzzwords is CO2; what many don't realise is that a tree ties up CO2 whether it is growing, cut down and put into a 2x4, or used in paper; the only way it's unlocked is by burning it or by letting it die and rot back into the ground.

I'm fortunate to work for a forest management company which practices "sustainable harvesting"; this means that we don't cut anymore than the land is growing. We have an ongoing timber inventory, and measure volume on each parcel every 10 years so we know if we need to adjust our harvest level; and the department head is very proficient (and sometimes ****) about using that data to keep on track.

 

[dave1949]

There are a few things to note in the quoted article.

"...could generate $150 million..." doesn't mean will. Depends on validity of assumptions.

Take a look here: www.eia.doe.gov/neic/experts/heatcalc.xls You can input your own numbers for the fuel costs and then compare the cost per million BTU. With the numbers the Dep't of Energy used, pellets cost $22.28 per million BTU and oil was $21.29. Those costs are so close I would make a decision on other criteria, two of which would be reliability and consistency of supply. As was noted, pellet supply varies with logging activity since it is a byproduct.

"Otten, former owner of the Sunday River and Sugarloaf ski areas, recently formed a business looking at alternative energy investment opportunities." Note that he has a financial interest in the state's decision.

Les Otten is now a candidate in the republican primary contest for state governor. Just FYI. The previous Maine governor, Angus King (Ind) is now an investor in a wind energy program.

Yes, the per mbtu values are within $1 now with oil at moderate prices. #2 oil will not stay at $2.30/gal when the economy recovers if history is any guide. It will easily push to near $3/gal and could go much higher IMO.

As to supply consistency, a stable oil price in the > $3/gal range will create that market on it's own; there will be profits to be made. The way oil prices have whipsawed the past several years, it makes it difficult to fund alternative sources. Don't know if that is by design or happenstance, maybe it's a conspiracy - of short term thinking.

Dave.

 

[dave1949]

While I have my own opinions on global warming I didn't read the entire 97 pages of this thread. However, I do feel that my position as a Maine forester gives me knowledge to expand on Dave's post. I especially liked his last comment, as I feel the same way. Let's start to use whatever alternative to oil is available to produce electricity and heat our homes, so we can save the oil for our autos and equipment.

The biomass industry in Maine flucuates with the price of oil; we have several wood waste to electricity plants scattered throughout the state. (Is the Gorbel plant still operating down there in Athens, Dave?)
Recently President Obama (motto; spend all you want... we'll print more) introduced a subsidy program that increased the amount landowners got paid for junk wood.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program

I'm not big on government intervention; however, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

For my part, though I'll be cleaning my lot and sending a couple of loads (+_ 50 tons) to the mill this summer I won't participate in the program.

.

Thanks for your input.

The only plant I know about in Athens is the pellet mill, which had some sort of explosion last Fall and is being repaired I believe.

I took a quick look - until my head began to hurt - at the BCAP docs. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I haven't heard much about the cellulose to fuel research programs for several months either.

When you say 'clean out' your wood lot, are you planning a thinning or stand improvement cut this year?
Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

There are a few things to note in the quoted article.

"...could generate $150 million..." doesn't mean will. Depends on validity of assumptions.

Take a look here: www.eia.doe.gov/neic/experts/heatcalc.xls You can input your own numbers for the fuel costs and then compare the cost per million BTU. With the numbers the Dep't of Energy used, pellets cost $22.28 per million BTU and oil was $21.29. Those costs are so close I would make a decision on other criteria, two of which would be reliability and consistency of supply. As was noted, pellet supply varies with logging activity since it is a byproduct.

"Otten, former owner of the Sunday River and Sugarloaf ski areas, recently formed a business looking at alternative energy investment opportunities." Note that he has a financial interest in the state's decision.

I'm always amazed that someone who has a financial interest is an outcome can be incharge of data gathering for the government.

 

[Jstpssng]

Thanks for your input.

The only plant I know about in Athens is the pellet mill, which had some sort of explosion last Fall and is being repaired I believe.

I took a quick look - until my head began to hurt - at the BCAP docs. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I haven't heard much about the cellulose to fuel research programs for several months either.

When you say 'clean out' your wood lot, are you planning a thinning or stand improvement cut this year?
Dave.

Short answer, yes.

I bought my 21 acres in 2001, and have been gradually trying to improve the stand quality.
i've taken about 220 cords of pulpwood and sawlogs off it, and am now working on 2 more loads of hardwood pulp and that many more of biomass... mostly softwood junk, dead wood, and some oversized hemlock that's just taking up space. Some of the biomass is in an old 2 acre field that I plan to reclaim. I believe the plant you mention use to be a biomass to electricity site, glad to hear it's still be utilised.

 

[Jstpssng]

I'm always amazed that someone who has a financial interest is an outcome can be incharge of data gathering for the government.

Although he's a successful businessman, he's also pals with our governor.

The only good thing I can say about Maine's esteemed leader is that he won't be there much longer. I hate to say it, but anytime I hear Baldacci's name associated with any business endeavor I cringe, knowing it'll cost us taxpayers money and won't last beyond the entitlement.

 

[dave1949]

I'm always amazed that someone who has a financial interest is an outcome can be incharge of data gathering for the government.

That is a touchy arrangement. Les Otten has had his ups and downs in the ski business. A bankruptcy that left a bad taste for some. Has a bit of a wheeler-dealer reputation. Used to own a share of the Boston Red Sox too. Some credit him with saving the ski industry in Maine and New Hampshire, don't know if that is hyperbole or fact.

Maine is a poor state, I guess some things get overlooked. I am sure as a republican, he is not in cahoots with the current governor or state legislature which are both democrat.

I don't know if he has divested his business interests since running for governor in the 2010 election.

The former governor, Angus King (IND) is a major investor in a Maine wind energy program. He was wealthy before he was governor and is considered a pretty straight shooter.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

Although he's a successful businessman, he's also pals with our governor.

The only good thing I can say about Maine's esteemed leader is that he won't be there much longer. I hate to say it, but anytime I hear Baldacci's name associated with any business endeavor I cringe, knowing it'll cost us taxpayers money and won't last beyond the entitlement.

Didn't know he and Baldacci are pals. Baldacci has odd ideas sometimes. He hasn't been the best governor. The school consolidation thing is still a mess, it was very capricious to begin with. Like a bad idea somebody hatched in a vacuum.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

I took a quick look - until my head began to hurt - at the BCAP docs. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I haven't heard much about the cellulose to fuel research programs for several months either.

Dave.

Dave,

I think these biofuels standards were just recently announced.

EPA Finalizes Regulations for the National Renewable Fuel Standard Program for 2010 & Beyond | Transportation & Air Quality | US EPA

 

[EddieWalker]

For those who still think that there is valid science to support Man Made Global Warming, here's another tidbit of information that proves there is no science to support it.

From Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk

" Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century."

Apparantly mistakes happen in science and it's just part of the process. Of course, the conclusios reached by these mistakes are what fuels the Global Warming Hoax. Make a mistake, fabricate research, destroy results that don't agree with the agreed upon "science" and raise a bunch of money.

The only thing that I'm left wondering is who still believes any of this so called science?

Eddie

 

[Loren49]

I understand that a large majority of scientists in the world feel that humans' burning of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. I feel that the clear and significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 50 years is partly due to us and has a consequence. The deniers are pointing out the same errors that were made in some reports which resulted in conclusions which were not yet justified.

Here is an article from the same source
Get ready for seven-foot sea level rise as climate change melts ice sheets | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Quote
"Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century.
The message for the world's leaders and decision makers is that sea level rise is real and is only going to get worse. Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a seven-foot rise in sea level. This number is not a prediction. But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities, especially for the siting of major infrastructure; a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible, but likely. Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in sea level this century."

Oh if it were only a black and white issue!

I'm still waiting for any scientific paper by the skeptics (or oil, coal company backers) so that their science can be checked.

Loren

 

[LMTC]

I understand that a large majority of scientists in the world feel that humans' burning of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. I feel that the clear and significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 50 years is partly due to us and has a consequence. The deniers are pointing out the same errors that were made in some reports which resulted in conclusions which were not yet justified.

Here is an article from the same source
Get ready for seven-foot sea level rise as climate change melts ice sheets | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Quote
"Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century.
The message for the world's leaders and decision makers is that sea level rise is real and is only going to get worse. Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a seven-foot rise in sea level. This number is not a prediction. But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities, especially for the siting of major infrastructure; a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible, but likely. Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in sea level this century."

Oh if it were only a black and white issue!

I'm still waiting for any scientific paper by the skeptics (or oil, coal company backers) so that their science can be checked.

Loren

Why the persistent need to use generalities? If the documentation/data is there, use it. How many scientists are there in the world? Really---how many are there? As an aside, what is a scientist...does someone with a PhD in industrial design count? Anyway...what is the count for the list of scientists who "feel that humans' burning of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change.", and is it indeed a "large majority"? Where can I find this list? And since when does what scientists FEEL count for anything? My guess is that you can't come up with substantiation (i.e., at least two independent sources in agreement) for A. the number of scientists in the world, B. the list of scientists (thus yielding a number) who, as you say, "feel that humans' burning of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change." If you can, then use those figures, document them, and quit tossing out these generalities. Have at me if you will, because I won't post in this thread again. Your posts continue to wave these undefinable generalizations around, and as such, they have no meaning for me (hey, maybe they do for others.....I understand that is possible....but for me it's just propaganda if there's no documentation provided).

 

[Loren49]

If you care to do some research and read it you will find what you are asking me to do for you. I'm confident that if you saw the exact number of scientists and the percent who felt that the science shows that we are part of the problem, that you would still find a reason to deny it. If you are unable to comprehend the meaning of my statement about scientists in my last post, then I understand your frustration with my posts. (the exact number of scientists seem irrelevant to me),
This issue does not lend itself to a controlled scientific experiment as we don't have two earths to work with, therefore any conclusion can be questioned. The deniers (again to remind you that years of funding has come from big energy) are working hard to invalidate the science so we can continue to waste and pollute, while some make significant profits.

Loren

 

[Loren49]

Just to help with a little research, here is a quote from a year ago:

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com


(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.


A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.


The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Loren

 

[EddieWalker]

What I find most interesting is that the evidence of global warming that you are using is now been proven to be false, fabricated and unverifiable. Phil Jones, who is the biggest name in Global Warming has just admitted that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years. He said he's lost all his paperwork and is no longer the head at East Anglia. It's gotten so bad that congress is now considering calling Al Gore back to testify about his role in the Global Warming Hoax.

This has turned and it's now becoming pretty obvious that allot of so called scientist have been lying for quite awhile. I can't begin to guess what this has done to the credibility of science, and from what I've read, there are allot of scientist out there who feel it's quite severe. The entire science community will either have to clean up this mess, or risk ridicule and disbelief for decades to come.

By siting evidence that has now been admitted to being false, you just support the argument that it's all a scam. Almost every day, we learn about more lies that were made up and passed on as facts. The only thing we know for sure is that they don't have a clue and it was all politics. There is no Global Warming Science. None of it can be proven, and none of it has gone through an aproved pier review process.

This IS the biggest hoax of all time.

Eddie

 

[IH3444]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climat...al-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Just to help with a little research, here is a quote from a year ago:

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com


(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.


A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.


The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Loren

Wow
I go on vacation and you guys still haven,t settled the question yet.
Sitting in an internet cafe in Porto Portugal right now and watching the news reports of the destruction in Malaga(Does this mean that there IS global climate change?) Nah don,t think so. Just checked the weather in London, where I,ll be next week and quote "The coldest winter in 30 years"
Anyway everybody keep talking, I,ll have a port for you, and see you when I return

 

[Ken45101]

I think it's silly to call Gore to testify about his movie. It's Hollywood fiction, folks! (Does anyone really think Hollywood produces accurate documentaries?)

Yes, a lot of people believed Gore's movie, but then people have even believed that the earth was being invaded when Orlson Well's "War of the Worlds" was aired