perhaps because to get it there, needs a hole.
And of course 99.99% of natural gas escaped years ago. It's the 0.1% that is left that managed to find a gas tight place that we tap...
...did you know that 99.99% of all species that became extinct did so before man appeared at all?
So you say, but the you are a bit of a clot.
You need to investigate how long methane lasts if you think its gone in an hour.
Why shouldn't radioactive waste? If you can store CO2 for millions of years by pumping down a well you can do the same with radioactive waste. See you have solved your own problem.
Hmm. Pressure of radioactive waste.....
AIUI - it is, but it breaks down very quickly.
A constant feed of methane means a constant atmospheric level. I burn the wood, save the oil, and know my heating is carbon neutral.
Andy
How many years does it take to grow the wood you burn? Unless it is instant or you planted it years ago to burn then you have burnt x tons of wood and produced x tons of CO2 that is now in the atmosphere. Greens may claim its carbon neutral but it isn't.
You can buy carbon credits and make anything carbon neutral these days even though its another lie.
Mostly it's offcuts from tree surgeons. If nobody burned it it would have to be composted. Which would take years, and make loads of methane.
Andy
Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill goes down.
Almost ten years. All you need to know here:-
evel. But if it can rake in subsidies...
ing from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process . It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. A nd since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.
an nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess wh at's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of cou rse putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.
he other water on top of it.)
do it, transport the people involved etc etc. Energy comes from producing C O2, thus doing it produces more CO2 - not less. Now, CO2 isn't going to sta y underground for ever, so what you've done is to add more CO2 to the atmos phere. Not just for no gain, but at significant cost.
ngineering. It's the fashionable non-sense of the day and curries votes.
Because you're not pumping the waste down a hole. And it's not water soluble.
Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral if the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing you do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner
TW
I am actually burning stuff that is 200+ years old so I'm not doing much to help currently. There are new saplings growing in nearby locations and the otherwise suppressed stretch of hedgerow gets a lot more light.
What do you mean by "wasted" in this context? Trees just dying and rotting down naturally? Why would that not be carbon neutral?
[...]
A forest in its natural state with vegetation growing, dieing back and rotting would be carbon neutral or even carbon positive as long as the organic matter is accumulating and increasing in the growth and in the soil.
I don't have any special knowledge on this subject but that is my understanding.
TW
Generally speaking carbon neutral, yes. People have mentioned that some of the rotting leads to methane but that eventually gets oxidised and so the end result is the same.
The exception is when conditions are wet, so the vegetation sinks into water and goes on to form peat and eventually coal and/or oil. That is then carbon positive, as you say.
So given the gas/coal/oil that gets burnt also releases CO2 that allows new wood to grow, isn't that good too? The only difference being between a few decades and a few hundred million years!
Presumably the total carbon content of the world has been constant, pretty much since it was formed, with the possible exception of the addition of a few carbonaceous chondrites over the millennia, which probably haven't changed the overall percentage by very much.
well there's a bit of carbon 14 that gets formed from nitrogen here and there.
Mind you it turns back to nitrogen after a few thousand years.
More of God's Nuclear Waste eh harry?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.