Wednesday, October 15, 2008

More Energy

The Beer: A fellow homebrewer at work went to the Great American Beer Festival in Denver recently. Said it was the best beer thing ever. Maybe I can go next year.

The Bicycle: Since it's getting cool and dark, I'm going to look at riding during lunch at work. With the new "digs", it should be pretty easy to get an hour-or-so in.

The VRWC: I noticed that since credit dried up, the price of oil has plummeted. It could be coincidental, since oil was on the way down anyway, but I think there is at least some connection between credit, speculation and price.

More Leftist uninformed drivel. The efficiency of a power plant is driven by physics and design, not by the fuel used. A biomass plant and a coal plant of the same capacity and design cycle will run pretty much at the same efficiency. And there is little-to-no reduction (and maybe even an increase) in carbon dioxide emissions. The comment below is made without attribution or explanation.

"Contrary to claims in the op-ed, there are plants currently operating and being proposed that far surpass the proposed Alliant plant's biomass capacity. In Wisconsin, Xcel will burn 100% biomass at its Bayfront plant in Ashland - more biomass capacity than Alliant's proposal. Better yet, Xcel will rely on 100% biomass for a truly renewable solution that actually will reduce global warming pollution."

It is simply stated as fact by the author. I'd like an explanation of how burning biomass is either more efficient or less polluting than any other fuel which is burned for generating electricity. What is the biomass? Dung? Trees? Trash? How much is required? Environmental Impact Statement? What calculations did the author use to make her claims?

Does anyone look at this stuff critically? People with knowledge of the subject should be beating this stuff to death. The Left is wrong. Dead wrong. They continue to lie about the largest energy supply in the world and we accept it as gospel.

No comments: