In message , Charlie Pridham
writes

"La Puce" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 14 May, 14:15, "Charlie Pridham"
wrote:
.

As for the no, not all peat free compost are based on coir. Coir was
used by gardeners before peat was and in 1951 it was said to be second
best to peat (Kew uses it for seeds). Some plants prefer it too, such
as fushias. The coconut fibres compost are imported from Sri Lanka, so
yes it has some transport issue - however you cannot compare its air
mile to the release of carbon.

You are kidding of course?

One would need actual numbers to compare the CO2 release from the use of
peat with the CO2 release from the fuel used to transport coir.

There is an issue with habitat destruction but a plant in peat probebly
reduces carbon not increases it, left where it is peat is stored carbon,
extracted its still stored carbon, put a plant in it and the plant grows and
absorbs some carbon!
Peat extraction only causes a rise in atmospheric carbon if its burnt in
power stations etc.


It's far from that simple. Peat dug into the soil doesn't just lie
there; it oxidises, releasing CO2. Extracting peat also results in the
drying out of the source and additional oxidation. On the other hand
extracting peat brings the surface belong the water table, and promotes
further peat formation.


Well that is just brilliant. But don't for a moment think that the air
the green lobby breathes in is not the same as yours ;o)

and your computer pollutes as much as mine :~)


It doesn't lay down faster

Yes it does

point that peat in Finland is being used for energy since it releases
less carbon than fossil fuel.

So does Ireland but I think you will find in each case they do it because
they have lots and its cheap to extract!

Using peat for electricity production probably releases more carbon per
kilowatt hour than fossil fuels. The two factors which are relevant here
are the carbon to hydrogen ratio of the fuel (natural gas is the best
here) and coal the worse, and the energy costs of extracting and drying
the fuel. For the former I'd expect that peat lies between oil and coal.
I'd further guesstimate that the energy cost of drying out the peat
makes is worse that coal. (But perhaps not as bad as tar sands or oil
shales.)

To the degree that peat is treated as a renewable resource, then like
biomass as a power station fuel, it is carbon-neutral. But if it's
extracted faster than it's forming then the above applies.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley