Tweet
burning biomass - carbon footprint
The carbon footprint numbers for burning biomass is 1/3 half-truth and 2/3 a falsehood by
non-disclosure and it would seem the 1/3 part alone is wrong by hundreds of
percent. Unless 3/4 of the CO2 "footprint" numbers come from cutting,
hauling and lighting the match to start the fire.
I'm speaking about the burning of biomass, all ground grown biomass requires
cutting and hauling .. any additional processing , biogas, biofuel just adds to
the carbon footprint.
We are told if the biomass falls to the ground and decays, the CO2 that goes
into the air is the same as if the same biomass was burned. Ah
that's close
enough when using hand-grenades .. So I'll use hand-grenades also.
Never was very good at horseshoes anyway.
For those that don't know the misinformation phase is "carbon neutral" for biomass.
They tell us, because the CO2 that came out of the air to build the plant
went back into the air, break-even .. No, more like Hook-Line-And-Sinker as the saying goes.
There's a saying "As Above, So Below" Look for it, you'll find it so.
The root system of most plants is equal or in some cases is greater than what
is above ground. The root system is left in the ground and does not add CO2
into the air. That's a negative 1/3 of CO2 that is never used in carbon
footprint NUMBERS. This fact alone makes burning biomass have a negative total carbon footprint.
Insult to injury is the other 1/3 (at least) CO2 which is also NOT counted in
those carbon footprint numbers.
Later I hope to debunk the numbers as they are without these 2/3 CO2 that
is not counted, but not this post, I've been up 33 hours now.
That last 1/3 uncounted CO2, is fixated into the soil by fungi.
There's always been a fungus among us and it makes the SOIL.
An example of how important FUGUS is to plants.
Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae (VAM)
Two Chamaesyce plants. Left plant with VAM, right plant without VAM.
Which plant do you think is using up more CO2?
YES, two pots, two plants in that picture, look closer.
Most plants live in a symbiotic relationship with fungus.
fungi fixation of CO2.
fungi create air porosity in the soil
fungi create water drainage in the soil
fungi break down dead biomass
fungi makes acid and breaks down rocks
Plants create an feed food to the fungus food, food the plant can not
and does not use itself.
The carbohydrates are created using CO2 for those that are not paying attention.
The fixation of CARBON from CO2 created by the plant ONLY for the fugus to
live upon during the entire life span of the plant.
I can understand why these negative values are not in the carbon footprint
numbers. The footprints track foot prints. Plants don't leave footprints.
They are plants, they don't have feet.
One does not have to prove the chart numbers are wrong, one only has to
ask "what is being counted". That proves the numbers are BOGUS.
This is the "new math" you kept hearing about finally paying off ...
The chart footprint for burning auto tires is smaller than that for buring
biomass .. yeah, ok CO2 only ..what are they counting?
I could say a rattle-snake bite is healthier for you than a bug bite, it
all depends upon what the FLIP I'm counting, what leaving OUT
and reporting about.
Have a good day.
Randy
non-disclosure and it would seem the 1/3 part alone is wrong by hundreds of
percent. Unless 3/4 of the CO2 "footprint" numbers come from cutting,
hauling and lighting the match to start the fire.
I'm speaking about the burning of biomass, all ground grown biomass requires
cutting and hauling .. any additional processing , biogas, biofuel just adds to
the carbon footprint.
We are told if the biomass falls to the ground and decays, the CO2 that goes
into the air is the same as if the same biomass was burned. Ah
that's closeenough when using hand-grenades .. So I'll use hand-grenades also.
Never was very good at horseshoes anyway.
For those that don't know the misinformation phase is "carbon neutral" for biomass.
They tell us, because the CO2 that came out of the air to build the plant
went back into the air, break-even .. No, more like Hook-Line-And-Sinker as the saying goes.
There's a saying "As Above, So Below" Look for it, you'll find it so.
The root system of most plants is equal or in some cases is greater than what
is above ground. The root system is left in the ground and does not add CO2
into the air. That's a negative 1/3 of CO2 that is never used in carbon
footprint NUMBERS. This fact alone makes burning biomass have a negative total carbon footprint.
Insult to injury is the other 1/3 (at least) CO2 which is also NOT counted in
those carbon footprint numbers.
Later I hope to debunk the numbers as they are without these 2/3 CO2 that
is not counted, but not this post, I've been up 33 hours now.
That last 1/3 uncounted CO2, is fixated into the soil by fungi.
There's always been a fungus among us and it makes the SOIL.
An example of how important FUGUS is to plants.
Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae (VAM)
Two Chamaesyce plants. Left plant with VAM, right plant without VAM.
Which plant do you think is using up more CO2?
YES, two pots, two plants in that picture, look closer.
Most plants live in a symbiotic relationship with fungus.
fungi fixation of CO2.
fungi create air porosity in the soil
fungi create water drainage in the soil
fungi break down dead biomass
fungi makes acid and breaks down rocks
Plants create an feed food to the fungus food, food the plant can not
and does not use itself.
Fungus does obtain simple carbohydrates that are produced by the plant, but
not used by the plant. So it appears that these carbohydrates may be
produced by the plant specifically for the fungus since they are not utilized
by the plant.
not used by the plant. So it appears that these carbohydrates may be
produced by the plant specifically for the fungus since they are not utilized
by the plant.
The fixation of CARBON from CO2 created by the plant ONLY for the fugus to
live upon during the entire life span of the plant.
Source (both quotes)
Types of mycorrhizae recognized (can be divided into three categories):
1. Ectomycorrhizae: characterized by forming an external sheath of
mycelium around the root tips and hyphal cells do not penetrate the cell walls
(intercellular) although they may go between cells in the cortex (Hartig Net).
2. Endomycorrhizae: characterized by the lack of an external sheath around
root tip and the penetration of cortical cells (intracellular) by the fungus
mycelium.
3. Ectendomycorrhizae: mycorrhizal type that seems to be intermediate
between ecto and endomycorrhizae. Mycelium sheath around root is reduced,
or may even be absent, but Hartig Net is usually well developed as in
ectomycorrhizae, but the hyphal cells may penetrate the cortical cells as in
endomycorrhizae. However, because of similarities to ectomycorrhizae, they
will not specifically be considered here.
Types of mycorrhizae recognized (can be divided into three categories):
1. Ectomycorrhizae: characterized by forming an external sheath of
mycelium around the root tips and hyphal cells do not penetrate the cell walls
(intercellular) although they may go between cells in the cortex (Hartig Net).
2. Endomycorrhizae: characterized by the lack of an external sheath around
root tip and the penetration of cortical cells (intracellular) by the fungus
mycelium.
3. Ectendomycorrhizae: mycorrhizal type that seems to be intermediate
between ecto and endomycorrhizae. Mycelium sheath around root is reduced,
or may even be absent, but Hartig Net is usually well developed as in
ectomycorrhizae, but the hyphal cells may penetrate the cortical cells as in
endomycorrhizae. However, because of similarities to ectomycorrhizae, they
will not specifically be considered here.
numbers. The footprints track foot prints. Plants don't leave footprints.
They are plants, they don't have feet.
One does not have to prove the chart numbers are wrong, one only has to
ask "what is being counted". That proves the numbers are BOGUS.
This is the "new math" you kept hearing about finally paying off ...
The chart footprint for burning auto tires is smaller than that for buring
biomass .. yeah, ok CO2 only ..what are they counting?
I could say a rattle-snake bite is healthier for you than a bug bite, it
all depends upon what the FLIP I'm counting, what leaving OUT
and reporting about.
Have a good day.
Randy
Comment