On Dec 16, 11:52 am, "Madx" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

...





On Dec 16, 7:52 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Got down to 38F last night in Houston.

Had to put on all the clothes I owned. Even had to get another blanket.

From the attic.

At least we didn't have to evacuate to a shelter like so many.
Fortunately,
we have plenty of food; neighbors are stocking up on canned goods and
bottled water.

I'm not sure whether they're going to close the schools or the roads.
Mail
delivery is likewise iffy.

Awww...Ifeel for you. I just chunked a couple pieces on the fire.
Must be up to around 74 in here now as I sit typing in my t-shirt and
shorts.
Was out restocking the porch from the woodshed yesterday with
windchill down around 10.

Harry K

You DO know that burning wood is very BAD for the environment! I guess you
don't care much about the health of the planet.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A bit jealous? A bit undereducated on the question?

Well, yes it is and no it isn't. Depends. If one burns "dirty" it
is. If clean it isn't. I assume you are talking about two things.

Pollution: A modern airtight is almost polution free. I would be
putting almost the same amount of pollution out burning fuel oil.

Carbon: Burning wood in the long run is carbon neutral as the carbon
locked up in the wood _will_ be freed sometime due to either fire or
rot. Of course in the short term it adds co2.

But there is another side to the carbon question. If I don't burn
wood, my only other economic choice is fuel oil. Is it better to be
burnign a non-renewable, co2 adding resource or burn a renewable
(wood), co2 adding (short term) resource?

Looks like wood is not "bad" but at least a 50/50 trade off. In my
view it comes out ahead because of the renewable resource bit.

Harry K