Good to see the program participants contributing clarifications on the blog - thank you.
Notice how difficult it is to track responses to questions without a framework from which to talk. The assertion that it is better to at least capture enrgy from wood piles from forest cuts that would otherwise be burnt, seems to make sense - provided it doesn't require more energy to move it to the energy recapture (that's the heading this should go under) facility, than is gained... AND that the assumption that it needs to be burnt is correct (digging pits and filling with bio-debris creates decades lasting 'hot' growing beds) AND ignores the aspect that the facility Kyle Freres operates requires an additional 40% of bio-waste from cities... which seems OK because it would 'just go into landfill' - BUT is that aspect clear? Is Biomass needed in landfills to counteract the amount of toxins. plastics, etc? Could city biomass be better used locally in communual growing areas for food, water and transit conservation?
Naturally Kevin Boston couldn't be expected to answer with every nuance on each point. For instance, he did a fair job of trying to answer in context to private/federal lands, but the fact that we cannot resolve things without systematic framing of the options, issues and full spectrum impacts is inescapable.
How about a dedicated 6 month task force to clarify the whole energy picture using a consistent criteria that everyone can follow?
The Energy Framework
posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context