When someone can't promote their own industry anymore:Was not aware how many PETA members we had here.
When are you guys going to post the statistics on animals killed by fossil fuels? Or is that okay?
(aka virtue signaling).
Wood stove pellets are mainly made from waste sawdust and wood chips from milling timber for building products. The source product is already there; the factories just have to mill them into pellets.
The milling into pellets is nothing more than high pressure extrusion, as the material is force through the extruder the natural lignon bonds it into a dense, solid (though breakable) pellet, a rotating striker/cutter standardizes the length of the pellet. I entertained the thought at one point of building one which is easier than people think. Adiy extruder is not as good as a commercial machine but it makes a useable pellet.
I figured it wasn't too hard, but wasn't sure. Years and years ago, I saw a plant in Pakistan that was turning rice hulls into fire logs. If they really got that running, it probably did more to prevent local deforestation than any major government program.
In principle it's not that hard. And, if you're making them for personal use, that's probably all there us to it. But I once had a client that manufactured gas fireplaces and pellet stoves. They had ccess to a source od sawdust abd spent a couple years trying to get certified to produce their own brand of wood pellets and could not get passed the testing required by the regulation of commercial wood pellets.
Simply saying sensational words like "collapse of sustainable technology X" is a hint there's non-sustainable interests behind the article. I wouldn't bother clicking until they have a decent title.
For those interested in trees, you can use Ecosia to make your online searches. For each 50 searches or so you make, they plant a tree.
That would result in not even having a Navy to protect shipping lanes.
So I guess you didn't learn anything from my post.
That's ridiculous on the surface and malicious in response.
So this isnāt exactly what @Funkworks was saying, but one of the subsidies the US government provides to the oil industry is safe passage of oil tankers out of the Middle East. Very few of those are US flagged, so our only interest is keeping commerce moving. If we stopped that subsidy, we could shut down half a dozen major bases in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
That's actually a subsidy to civilization.
But the premise was to remove all government subsidies to energy production and use and let the free market compete on an absolutely level playing field. Otherwise, youāre picking winner and losers since sunlight doesnāt need to be defended in transit.
You cannot manufacture solar panels without the free flow of oil. So solar wouldn't even be in the free market game. And saying the military being used to keep the free market free as an oil subsidy is a stretch, even for you.
No, there is a huge difference between national defense and commercial subsidies. In reality, we are not protecting oil tankers, we are protecting the economies of many countries that rely on us and those tankers. That said and to your point, we have plenty of oil right here in the good ol USA to not rely on those tankers. But for some reason, we can't seem to be allowed to extract said oil... We sure could shut down some of those bases but I'd venture to say the stability in the region would start to collapse and we are running out of tall buildings.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress āto provide and maintain a navyā. It further grants Congress the authority āto define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nationsā.
If solar panels need petroleum, theyād buy it on the open and unsubsidized market like everyone else. Surely a free market devotee such as yourself can recognize that.
And yet somehow, despite not being allowed to extract that oil, US oil production will hit a record in oil production this year.
)
I didnāt read beyond ācollapseā, because I know very well there is no collapse.
Adjusting spending and income to and from various subsets of the population is not malicious, itās what governments do. Itās like a never-ending game of whac-a-mole
Whether we have 100 years worth of oil left, or a 1000, I'd say we're better off using it to build renewable sources like hydro, solar and wind, than burning it outright. We'll last longer. And the longer we can make the reserves last, the more time trees and such will have to absorb it. Preventing shocks to the system makes the system more predictable and last longer.
