Page 2 of 3

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Tue 15 May 2018, 12:30:14
by Newfie
From Wiki
From Wiki LANDFILL-GAS

In the U.S., the number of landfill gas projects increased from 399 in 2005, to 594 in 2012[11] according to the Environmental Protection Agency. These projects are popular because they control energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These projects collect the methane gas and treat it, so it can be used for electricity or upgraded to pipeline-grade gas. (Methane gas has twenty-one times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide).[12] For example, in the U.S., Waste Management uses landfill gas as an energy source at 110 landfill gas-to-energy facilities. This energy production offsets almost two million tons of coal per year, creating energy equivalent to that needed by four hundred thousand homes. These projects also reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.[13]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which estimates that hundreds of landfills could support gas to energy projects, has also established the Landfill Methane Outreach Program. This program was developed to reduce methane emissions from landfills in a cost-effective manner by encouraging the development of environmentally and economically beneficial landfill gas-to-energy projects.[14]

Capture and use of landfill gas can be expensive. Some environmental groups claim that the projects do not produce "renewable power" because trash (their source) is not renewable. The Sierra Club opposes government subsidies for such projects.[12] The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argues that government incentives should be directed more towards solar, wind, and energy-efficiency efforts.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Tue 15 May 2018, 13:24:27
by Subjectivist
IIRC the methane from landfills comes from the liquids in it, like slowly spoiling meat products that release moisture to support the bacteria?

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Tue 15 May 2018, 13:28:18
by pstarr
Methane power generation entrapment is a failure, has been for decades. It has been tried and failed in various situation including sewage treatment plants, dairies, legacy and new landfills. Arcata tried it on its sewage system the 80's. It didn't even generate enough electricity to run the paddles on the primary digestor. That would be a negative EROEI.

When I was in the organic food industry back in the 1990's I was invited by Albert Straus to visit the Straus Family Creamy organic dairy. They had a collection pit and envelope. It failed.

Better to offgas the methane. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere is great for growing cattle fodder. :)

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Tue 15 May 2018, 14:34:38
by vtsnowedin
pstarr wrote:Methane power generation entrapment is a failure, has been for decades.

But yet my electric co-op gets 36% of it's power from the states only remaining landfill. Name plate capacity 8000KW average, recent production 5500KW. The landfill accepts a little under a half million tons a year and has space and plans to operate through 2044.
http://www.washingtonelectric.coop/wp-c ... 6-2017.pdf

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Tue 15 May 2018, 17:14:45
by Newfie
Better off to leave the trees in the forest, let them rot into the soil naturally.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Tue 15 May 2018, 20:00:28
by vtsnowedin
Newfie wrote:Better off to leave the trees in the forest, let them rot into the soil naturally.
That assumes no human use of the forest or it's products. If that were true from the end of the last ice age to today could you be certain that humans would have survived to this time?
I think not.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Tue 15 May 2018, 20:11:11
by Newfie
Didn’t say it was possible, just desirable.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 May 2018, 01:03:44
by vtsnowedin
Newfie wrote:Didn’t say it was possible, just desirable.
I hear you but desirable for who? The snails and soil bacteria?

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 May 2018, 07:42:29
by Newfie
The “others”. Not people. Haven’t we had engiugh of our share already? When do we leave something for other species and our future generation?

So yes, snail and soil bacteria. Builds soil ya know.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 May 2018, 07:50:08
by vtsnowedin
Newfie wrote:The “others”. Not people. Haven’t we had engiugh of our share already? When do we leave something for other species and our future generation?

So yes, snail and soil bacteria. Builds soil ya know.

Hopefully there will be more then one future generation. 8O

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 May 2018, 07:56:00
by Newfie
Yes. Hopefully there will be many more. Not certain, but ....

I hate even having to contemplate our future. Why do we even have to consider it?

The more I know about humans the more I’m convience that there is no great difference between us and chimps. Yes we have a few more tricks we have mastered. But we surely are not our own masters.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 May 2018, 08:47:34
by KaiserJeep
You fellas are kind of Doomish if you ask me. The human race persisted and even thrived for thousands of years before beginning the burning of FF's. TEOTWAWKI and the Apocalypse are not one and the same, after all. Just because we lose access to cheap fossil energy does not mean we all die. It probably means that our population overshoot halts and we die back to lower numbers, and that's grim enough in itself. But as long as nobody presses the nuclear button, we should survive as a species.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 May 2018, 11:50:03
by Newfie
Maybe, maybe not. You and I will never know.

But the natural world you and I grew up with is severely altered. It will at least be further degraded. Who knows how much more devestation we wreck upon Earth in our further efforts to support our lifestyle, our food sources.

It’s past time to pay attention to our natural resources.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 May 2018, 15:46:54
by Revi
I think trees are the best land to own. You can use them to heat your house, for lumber to pay the taxes, maple syrup and foraging for food and as a form of recreation. We have owned a woodlot for 17 years now and I recommend it highly.
Image

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Wed 16 May 2018, 15:54:24
by pstarr
Where are the trees Revi?
Image
Have the gods been playing pickup sticks in the snow?

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Thu 17 May 2018, 07:22:04
by asg70
This is the point where AdamB would mention PStarr's photo with the clear-cutting...

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Thu 17 May 2018, 08:24:19
by Newfie
Then let’s not.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Thu 17 May 2018, 10:19:08
by Revi
The trees are in the pic, behind the Tree Farm sign. We are logging next winter, so there may be a few less.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Thu 17 May 2018, 10:23:38
by pstarr
asg70 wrote:This is the point where AdamB would mention PStarr's photo with the clear-cutting...

And at that point I would point out that you and AdamB have probably never even walked in a healthy forest, and that my two acre selective timber harvest (really a cdf fire mitigation) was carried out under a restoration permit. I could go on but I am talking to and about idiots.

This dumb-@ss comment is from two bozo's who wouldn't know the difference between a healthy forest and a limp d#ck.

Re: The War On Trees

Unread postPosted: Thu 17 May 2018, 10:31:41
by pstarr
Revi wrote:The trees are in the pic, behind the Tree Farm sign. We are logging next winter, so there may be a few less.


The trees I see are no more than 6 inches in diameter. That is hardly a forest. Here in the Humboldt, the typical timber harvest rotation on any given plot of land is 40 years and the average cut tree size is probably 20 inches . . . still tragically small :cry: