Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

CO₂: Second Chance» Forums » General

Subject: Theme questions regarding recycling and forestation rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Anthony Fiorino
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
What is "recycling" in the context of power plants? Is this supposed to represent energy recycling (e.g., waste heat recovery in industrial processes) or is it supposed to actually represent recycling of litter (e.g., bottles and cans)?

Also, I understand what forestation is supposed to represent, and I know there is a blurb in the rule book that explains that it is modeled as an energy source just to keep the rules streamlined. But it still bothers me that its modeled as an energy source and it helps regions meet their power needs. Why not replace forestation with geothermal power?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel Gonzalez
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Forestation actively reduces CO2 - that's basically why it's mechanically considered an energy source.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think Power Plants is used pretty loosely in the game, even in 1st ed.

Anything that "saves" carbon from needing to be put into the atmosphere in the first place is a power plant I guess.

When you burn coal, oil, you're using carbon from long dead plants/animals. By planting forest, you're resupplying carbon physically to the environment and capturing from the air.

In recycling, you don't need to use as much carbon when creating products, thereby reducing the amount of burned carbon.

It is a stretch in definition I agree since planting trees doesn't supply electricity to a growing economy. However, in terms of the game economics, it seems to work.

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian van Someren
Netherlands
Groningen
Groningen
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It may also represent converting coal plants to run on biomass, eg. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-energy-how-on...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Fiorino
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Justicex75 wrote:
Forestation actively reduces CO2 - that's basically why it's mechanically considered an energy source.


Thanks for your reply, and I do understand that trees consume CO2, and that explains why they might displace CO2 pollution from coal. It doesn't explain why trees would displace electricity generated by coal, which is what I am asking.


veector wrote:
I think Power Plants is used pretty loosely in the game, even in 1st ed.

Anything that "saves" carbon from needing to be put into the atmosphere in the first place is a power plant I guess.

When you burn coal, oil, you're using carbon from long dead plants/animals. By planting forest, you're resupplying carbon physically to the environment and capturing from the air.

In recycling, you don't need to use as much carbon when creating products, thereby reducing the amount of burned carbon.

It is a stretch in definition I agree since planting trees doesn't supply electricity to a growing economy. However, in terms of the game economics, it seems to work.



I see what you're saying with the recycling. Even though recycling itself can be energy-intensive, I believe from a life-cycle standpoint it is still more energy-efficient than producing from new stock, like you say. So one could argue that recycling reduces the energy demand, and thus eliminates the need for a power plant which would create emissions. So we can count recycling as a "power plant" because it displaced the need for a power plant.

I feel like I'd still prefer to think of it as waste heat recovery, for example using thermoelectrics to generate electricity from heat that would otherwise be rejected to the environment. It seems like it requires jumping through fewer mental hoops to tie into the theme, and it would better fit the purview of an energy company.

As for the forestation, I would be fine with this abstraction if another plant type was necessary for game purposes and there was no other clean energy source to represent it. But there absolutely are more clean energy solutions than are represented in the game, so it's curious that the designer doesn't just use an actual existing energy technology like geothermal in a game about energy companies and technology.


Christianv wrote:
It may also represent converting coal plants to run on biomass, eg. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-energy-how-on...


This is really interesting, I've never heard of something like this. Thanks for the link. That idea could certainly help to "fill in the gap" in the thematic ties for forestation for power generation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You could always think of trees as Oxygen Power Plants instead of Electricity Power Plants.

Oxygen being a key component of the Krebs Cycle helping turn glucose into kinetic energy

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krebs_cycle

EDIT: Actually the more I think of it, it's not such a stretch. Poorer economies will use manual labor or mechanized labor to do work. In both cases, "powering" their work through the consumption of carbon molecules.

In the case of human power plants, forestation is replacing the carbon in the earth instead of humans consuming it or an electricity plant consuming it. So it is a power plant that produces oxygen as an energy catalyst for human sustaining energy consumption.

SCIENCE FTW!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Fiorino
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
How about this. Thematically, forestation can be thought of in the following way:

We built a coal (or oil or gas or whatever) plant to generate electricity, but we also planted all these trees to cancel out the emissions. So the net result is that we are meeting electricity demand without a substantial carbon footprint.

So the abstracted "forestation" concept can be thought of not just as trees, but as generic power plant + trees in the right proportion so that net CO2 = 0. I can buy that argument.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.