ChatterBank0 min ago
Here's A Surprise!
I agree with the "Green" campaigners:
https:/ /www.ms n.com/e n-gb/ne ws/worl d/uk-s- biggest -carbon -emitte r-drax- greenwa shing-w ood-fir ed-powe r-at-co p26-cam paigner s-say/a r-AAQBv ZC?ocid =msedgn tp
But not quite for the "right" reasons. It's a disgrace that the power developed at Drax is "Green" and does not contribute to the UK's carbon emissions total. Don't get me wrong, I don't care what they burn at Drax (though I'd prefer they burned coal) but isn't it a scandal that the plant sucks in £2m a day in subsidies for what is a highly polluting operation?
https:/
But not quite for the "right" reasons. It's a disgrace that the power developed at Drax is "Green" and does not contribute to the UK's carbon emissions total. Don't get me wrong, I don't care what they burn at Drax (though I'd prefer they burned coal) but isn't it a scandal that the plant sucks in £2m a day in subsidies for what is a highly polluting operation?
Answers
Steady on, Judge. They'll be calling you Swampy at this rate.
20:12 Sat 13th Nov 2021
What Drax is doing is the very embodiment of Green stupidity. Drax is sat on coal deposits that could power the station for 100 years plus. Given the advancements in 'clean' coal burning*, it's simply ludicrous that instead of using ancient stores of energy, they're importing existing timber from North American forests, transporting it via fossil fuel powered locomotives to ports where it's transferred to fossil fuel powered ships and transported across the Atlantic. Then unloaded onto other fossil fuel powered trains and finally delivered to Drax where it's burnt to create steam that drive turbines to create electricity. And apparently, this process is 'green'.
I sometimes wonder why it's acceptable to the 'Greens' to burn existing timber forests but unacceptable to burn ancient, decomposed, compressed, buried timber forests...
* I know that burning coal is not without its environmental problems; but its benefits (reliable, dependable, 24/7 energy) outweigh its downsides until viable alternatives can be found.
I sometimes wonder why it's acceptable to the 'Greens' to burn existing timber forests but unacceptable to burn ancient, decomposed, compressed, buried timber forests...
* I know that burning coal is not without its environmental problems; but its benefits (reliable, dependable, 24/7 energy) outweigh its downsides until viable alternatives can be found.
Business as usual. Trees hundreds of years old are still being clear-cut.
https:/ /www.po licynot e.ca/ol d-growt h/
:
https:/ /tinyur l.com/2 99cy85c
https:/
:
https:/