bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 @bonifartius@social.cleverlibre.org

@freemo i think my issue is that this whole topic often is reduced to "CO2" and "generating electricity using solar and wind" for solutions.

@freemo
i think we will not come to an agreement here :)

@freemo
> But just because you can capture the CO2 first before releasing it, doesnt make it any more green… I can capture CO2 countless ways to offset my waste, it doesnt really matter, nor does it change it.

it is if the argument for "green energy" is based on the _current amount_ of CO2 in the atmosphere. which it is, that's why people put things like "born @123ppm" into their profiles here.

burning plant matter isn't changing this amount if you do make sure to grow as much as you take.

> The difference is huge. and it comes down to efficiency… trees are 6% efficient at turning sunlight into stored energy.Solar panels are 15%-29% efficient depending on how cutting-edge you go with the tech. Thats at least 3x more effecient.

will the efficiency be as well if the energy is to be stored? we might have more than enough sun here in germany in one half of the year but we can't store it. same with wind energy.

maybe i should add some perspective: i'm not arguing that wind and solar energy are "generally bad" but they are currently sold as panacea here in germany. _everything_ is plastered with wind and solar energy right now. they defacto removed the distance regulation for wind turbines. i think it was 2km, now it's some hundred meters for the giant ones larger than 200m. solar energy isn't as crazy, i can't argue with panels where they let sheep graze underneath.

all while the "greens" try to kill off any use of wood for heating, no matter how sensible it is: i don't have a link, but there was a story about a sawmill or something like that which burns their leftover wood scraps for heating (with a modern fully automatic device!) and they should replace it with a heat pump. it's absolute madness here right now.

@freemo
maybe i should have seperated those better:

with fossil energy you release the carbon of millions of years, i can follow you that there might be a problem there.

with wood - mind that i argued for planting more than used - it's decades, with shrubbery and grass its years or single seasons. carbon is captured and released as CO2 in these time spans with those. other pollutants like CO can very likely disregarded with a well controlled oxidation. particles might be a problem, but that's a solved problem iirc.

i just really don't see the difference between energy captured by solar panels or wind power (which is sun energy as well) and energy captured by photosynthesis given it's happening in our epoch and not millions of years ago like with coal or oil.

the only thing different is that you can store dry plant material for a long time while solar and wind power has to be consumed instantly because we can't store it well.

@freemo i thought we were arguing wood! :)

i'd argue that wood is just stored energy from the sun. so are fossil fuels but the problem (if it is a problem) are the time scales and using energy of millions of years in a few decades. that wouldn't happen with wood. you will never create more co2 than stored. if you strive for growing more than used, you will store carbon.

solar and wind energy aren't easily storeable for prolonged times except maybe as potential energy. biomass fixes this problem for free. doesn't have to be wood of course, there are some grasses which are very good at this and work even where other things wouldn't grow as well.

i think it's not wise to not consider the "original" way of using the suns energy. it won't fix every problem but neither do solar panels or wind turbines.

there even are some more exotic but low tech ideas of using photosynthesis to capture co2, like using fast growing brushwork to make wood coal which in turn is used to improve soil by making terra preta. most farmers regularly remove brushwork anyway.

i think the orthodoxy of the green movement considering the accepted solutions might ultimately lead to it's demise.

@freemo why is burning wood non green?

is chemical energy non green?

@freemo you just need to plant more trees than you take. it's like bittorrent :)

@3T ah, probably NZ psychopath because rugby.