"Yepp" wrote in message
g.com...
With the price of natural gas going up I'm wondering how efficient it
would be to supplement my forced air furnace with one of these pellet
stoves. I would guess that the price of pellets or corn will go up too
with gas prices going up delivery has to follow suit. Does anyone have
one of these or any other helpful information would be welcomed. I live
30 miles south west of Chicago for my general area of the country.

Thanks for any information.

We moved to southwest Missouri from Michigan in February 2005. We
purchased
a St Croix brand pellet stove at that time. We were able to heat our home
(about 1600 sq ft, open architecture) with on 40# bag a day. A forty pound
bag of hardwood pellets costs about $3.00. This winter we are going to buy
in bulk. The best price we have seen so far is $134 a ton at Lowe's. That
breaks down to $2.68 a bag. We have been told that two ton should do it
for
the winter. The pellet stove does have a thermostat and we try to keep it
about 75° , but the house is usually about 80°.


I hope this was helpful.

Amy




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

Local economies are different from global ones. If you live on a street
where they throw away a lot of cardboard boxes, that could be your cheap
fuel, but it won't work for everyone. North America has vast regions of
rapidly-growing aspen poplar that can and are being compressed into fuel
for pellet stoves. Farms produce a lot of excess plant matter that is
either left to rot or is plowed back into the soil. Pellets are the
easiest form of biofuel to produce, but they still load the atmosphere
with carbon.
actually they do not add to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bio based fuels are carbon neutral, no gain. They remove the same amount
of CO2 during the growing season.


We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a result
of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can assimilate it. It
makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned, rapid
atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to reverse the trend
is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point where the
assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the difference, the
faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.

JoeSixPack wrote:


We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a result
of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can assimilate it. It
makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned, rapid
atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to reverse the trend
is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point where the
assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the difference, the
faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.



It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact. Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

wrote in message
oups.com...

hard to believe it's so much cheaper than oil. Maybe that has something
to do with ag subsidies.
I'm not sure what you are implying here, but if it's what I think I
take some offense to that comment.



What kind of offense are you taking to this comment. It is no secret that
corn is highly subsidized by the taxpayers through our ag-oriented
government.

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:


We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a
result of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can assimilate
it. It makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned,
rapid atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to reverse
the trend is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point where
the assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the
difference, the faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.

It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a fact.
Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.



You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.

JoeSixPack wrote:

You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.


We have to burn fuel. which fuel would you rather burn, one that is
carbon neutral, or one that is releasing carbon that's been sequestered
for eon's? It seems you are the one who is not getting it.

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:ZUoYe.242494$9A2.132906@edtnps89...

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:


We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being
loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a
result of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can
assimilate
it. It makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned,
rapid atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to
reverse
the trend is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point
where
the assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the
difference, the faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.

It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact.
Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.



You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way,
you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.

So how is the air levels after 14 hurricanes, water scrubbed it.
Must be the reason we didn't have any fish kills in low oxygen water areas.
That NO hurricane just aerated the "fire out of" the water.
If that be the case, your air can absorb alot more stuff this year.
Even by your logic.......





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:ZUoYe.242494$9A2.132906@edtnps89...

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:


We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching
to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being
loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate
carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a
result of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can
assimilate
it. It makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned,
rapid atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to
reverse
the trend is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point
where
the assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the
difference, the faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.

It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact.
Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to
it.



You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way,
you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than
the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from
the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing
more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All
the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.

So how is the air levels after 14 hurricanes, water scrubbed it.
Must be the reason we didn't have any fish kills in low oxygen water
areas.
That NO hurricane just aerated the "fire out of" the water.
If that be the case, your air can absorb alot more stuff this year.
Even by your logic.......





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article ZUoYe.242494$9A2.132906@edtnps89, "JoeSixPack" wrote:

You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either.

Obviously it will, since those plants are removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

All the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.

Speaking of uninformed... where in the world did you get *that* idea?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact. Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.


Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.

So the open question is whether growing corn for fuel
REMOVES more carbon from the air than would have been
removed had you not grown corn for fuel.

If you burn one ton of carbon in the form of dead dinosaurs,
that puts one ton of carbon in the air, if you burn one
ton of carbon in the form of corn-oil, that ALSO puts one
tone of carbon in the air. If you grow a ton-s worth
of carbon-bearing corn, and then burn it. The net effect
on the atmosphere is zero. If you grow one ton's worth
of carbon bearing corn and DON'T burn it, the net effect
is minus one ton. How much carbon is in the
parts of the corn that you don't burn? How much
carbon is in whatever would be growing there if you
weren't growing fuel-corn?

Goedjn wrote:
It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact. Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.



Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.

So the open question is whether growing corn for fuel
REMOVES more carbon from the air than would have been
removed had you not grown corn for fuel.

If you burn one ton of carbon in the form of dead dinosaurs,
that puts one ton of carbon in the air, if you burn one
ton of carbon in the form of corn-oil, that ALSO puts one
tone of carbon in the air. If you grow a ton-s worth
of carbon-bearing corn, and then burn it. The net effect
on the atmosphere is zero. If you grow one ton's worth
of carbon bearing corn and DON'T burn it, the net effect
is minus one ton. How much carbon is in the
parts of the corn that you don't burn? How much
carbon is in whatever would be growing there if you
weren't growing fuel-corn?


If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
neutral.


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

Goedjn wrote:



It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact. Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.


Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.

So the open question is whether growing corn for fuel
REMOVES more carbon from the air than would have been
removed had you not grown corn for fuel.

If you burn one ton of carbon in the form of dead dinosaurs,
that puts one ton of carbon in the air, if you burn one
ton of carbon in the form of corn-oil, that ALSO puts one
tone of carbon in the air. If you grow a ton-s worth
of carbon-bearing corn, and then burn it. The net effect
on the atmosphere is zero. If you grow one ton's worth
of carbon bearing corn and DON'T burn it, the net effect
is minus one ton. How much carbon is in the
parts of the corn that you don't burn? How much
carbon is in whatever would be growing there if you
weren't growing fuel-corn?

That last staement spurs me to a response.

Oddly enough, there may be a non-human culprit that bears some
responsibility for increasing carbon levels. I was surprised to find
that the common earthworm is not indiginous to north america, but was
imported by the europeans. While earthworms do aerate the soil, they
are also implicated in shinking the layers of detrius called "duff"
that carpets forest lands. That duff is a huge carbon sink that is
being lost.

Harry Chickpea wrote:

....
Oddly enough, there may be a non-human culprit that bears some
responsibility for increasing carbon levels. I was surprised to find
that the common earthworm is not indiginous to north america, but was
imported by the europeans. While earthworms do aerate the soil, they
are also implicated in shinking the layers of detrius called "duff"
that carpets forest lands. That duff is a huge carbon sink that is
being lost.

Reference?

In article 4333d9a5.13102047@localhost,
(Harry Chickpea) says...

I was surprised to find
that the common earthworm is not indiginous to north america, but was
imported by the europeans.

Perhaps one species was imported, but there are several earthworm
species that are native to North America.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

In article ,
(Goedjn) says...

Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.

Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the
carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more.
In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and
you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.

It doesn't matter whether you burn corn or not, all the carbon will end
up back in the atmosphere unless you protect it from decay. If you want
to sequester carbon, you have to put it back into the ground. That's
why those landfills full of disposable diapers have their up side.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

In article ZUoYe.242494$9A2.132906@edtnps89,
(JoeSixPack) says...

You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
just aren't getting it.

Troll.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Larry Caldwell wrote:

In article ,
(Goedjn) says...

Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.

Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the
carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more.
In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and
you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.
....

Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Larry Caldwell wrote:

In article ,
(Goedjn) says...


Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.

Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the
carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more.
In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and
you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.

...

Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

and therefore the carbon isn't current either. Burning it releases that
stored carbon into play.


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

Steve Spence wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Larry Caldwell wrote:

In article ,
(Goedjn) says...


Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.

Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the
carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more.
In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and
you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.

...

Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

and therefore the carbon isn't current either. Burning it releases that
stored carbon into play.


But where did it come from?

In article ,
(Duane Bozarth) says...
Steve Spence wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Larry Caldwell wrote:

In article ,
(Goedjn) says...


Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.

Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the
carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more.
In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and
you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.

...

Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

and therefore the carbon isn't current either. Burning it releases that
stored carbon into play.


But where did it come from?

Supernovae

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way,
you just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than
the earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate
from the atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels.
Growing more plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster
either. All the cropland is already covered with vegetation.
We have to burn fuel. which fuel would you rather burn, one that is carbon
neutral, or one that is releasing carbon that's been sequestered for
eon's? It seems you are the one who is not getting it.


It doesn't matter if you call it carbon-neutral or not, the CO2 will
continue to rise if you continue to burn carbon-based fuels at the current
rate. The atmosphere doesn't know you switched to your "carbon-neutral
fuel." It continues to take the carbon out of the atmosphere at the same
slow rate that lags behind the rate we put it in. This is what caused the
rise. Growing more biofuel crops doesn't automatically lower the atmospheric
CO2, because there are already plants growing on nearly all the arable land.

You keep saying "carbon-neutral" as if it were a fact that it would reduce
atmospheric carbon in some way. Prove it to us.

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:ZUoYe.242494$9A2.132906@edtnps89...

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:


We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being
loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate
carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a
result of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can
assimilate
it. It makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned,
rapid atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to
reverse
the trend is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point
where
the assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the
difference, the faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.

It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact.
Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to
it.



You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way,
you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from
the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing
more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.

So how is the air levels after 14 hurricanes, water scrubbed it.
Must be the reason we didn't have any fish kills in low oxygen water
areas.
That NO hurricane just aerated the "fire out of" the water.
If that be the case, your air can absorb alot more stuff this year.
Even by your logic.......


Can you explain to us what hurricanes have to do with reducing carbon
dioxide in the air?

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
Goedjn wrote:
It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact. Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.



Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air, it
doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it. So the open question is
whether growing corn for fuel REMOVES more carbon from the air than
would have been removed had you not grown corn for fuel.

If you burn one ton of carbon in the form of dead dinosaurs, that puts
one ton of carbon in the air, if you burn one
ton of carbon in the form of corn-oil, that ALSO puts one
tone of carbon in the air. If you grow a ton-s worth
of carbon-bearing corn, and then burn it. The net effect
on the atmosphere is zero. If you grow one ton's worth
of carbon bearing corn and DON'T burn it, the net effect
is minus one ton. How much carbon is in the
parts of the corn that you don't burn? How much carbon is in whatever
would be growing there if you weren't growing fuel-corn?

If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent BTU
in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon neutral.


You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the grain
itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a fuel?
Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for example is a
very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has been used in the
past as a heating fuel.

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
(Goedjn) says...

Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.

Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the
carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more.
In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and
you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.

It doesn't matter whether you burn corn or not, all the carbon will end
up back in the atmosphere unless you protect it from decay. If you want
to sequester carbon, you have to put it back into the ground. That's
why those landfills full of disposable diapers have their up side.


You tend to overestimate the impact of the American consumer on the global
carbon sink. They do, however have a disproportionately large influence on
carbon emissions.

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:SrEYe.301244$on1.184705@clgrps13...

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:ZUoYe.242494$9A2.132906@edtnps89...

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:


We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching
to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being
loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate
carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a
result of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can
assimilate
it. It makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned,
rapid atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to
reverse
the trend is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point
where
the assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the
difference, the faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will
decline.

It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact.
Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to
it.



You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either
way,
you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than
the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from
the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing
more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All
the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.

So how is the air levels after 14 hurricanes, water scrubbed it.
Must be the reason we didn't have any fish kills in low oxygen water
areas.
That NO hurricane just aerated the "fire out of" the water.
If that be the case, your air can absorb alot more stuff this year.
Even by your logic.......


Can you explain to us what hurricanes have to do with reducing carbon
dioxide in the air?
Aeration absorbs gas into the water....check out you goldfish bowl sometime.
Then stop and think how much bigger the bubbler is in a hurricane .a100+
miles wide.
Then check out the smog alerts in the Gulf Coastal area for the same period
as the hurricanes.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:SrEYe.301244$on1.184705@clgrps13...

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:ZUoYe.242494$9A2.132906@edtnps89...

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:


We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching
to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being
loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate
carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a
result of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can
assimilate
it. It makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being
burned,
rapid atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to
reverse
the trend is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point
where
the assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the
difference, the faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will
decline.

It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact.
Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the
previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to
it.



You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either
way,
you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than
the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from
the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing
more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All
the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.

So how is the air levels after 14 hurricanes, water scrubbed it.
Must be the reason we didn't have any fish kills in low oxygen water
areas.
That NO hurricane just aerated the "fire out of" the water.
If that be the case, your air can absorb alot more stuff this year.
Even by your logic.......


Can you explain to us what hurricanes have to do with reducing carbon
dioxide in the air?
Aeration absorbs gas into the water....check out you goldfish bowl
sometime.
Then stop and think how much bigger the bubbler is in a hurricane .a100+
miles wide.
Then check out the smog alerts in the Gulf Coastal area for the same
period
as the hurricanes.


Are you for real? Is smog CO2? CO2 is an odorless, colorless gas that
exists all over the earth in a concentration of about 377 parts per million.

My apologies. I thought I was arguing with someone who had a basic
understanding of atmospherics.

Oscar_Lives wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

hard to believe it's so much cheaper than oil. Maybe that has something
to do with ag subsidies.

I'm not sure what you are implying here, but if it's what I think I
take some offense to that comment.




What kind of offense are you taking to this comment. It is no secret that
corn is highly subsidized by the taxpayers through our ag-oriented

(National) Socialist

government.


....Brock.

JoeSixPack wrote:
"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...

JoeSixPack wrote:


We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a
result of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can assimilate
it. It makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned,
rapid atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to reverse
the trend is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point where
the assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the
difference, the faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.

It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a fact.
Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.




You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.

Actually much cropland is not covered in vegetation.

Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon
per acre than heritage varieties.

Some crops grow more Biomas per acre than others, compare strawberries
and Sugarcane...

....Brock.

Goedjn wrote:
If you grow one ton's worth
of carbon bearing corn and DON'T burn it, the net effect
is minus one ton. How much carbon is in the
parts of the corn that you don't burn? How much
carbon is in whatever would be growing there if you
weren't growing fuel-corn?

If you eat the corn, much of the carbon goes back into the atmosphere.
If you bury it and let it rot, it goes back into the atmoshpere...

....Brock.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.

....Brock.

JoeSixPack wrote:


It doesn't matter if you call it carbon-neutral or not, the CO2 will
continue to rise if you continue to burn carbon-based fuels at the current
rate. The atmosphere doesn't know you switched to your "carbon-neutral
fuel." It continues to take the carbon out of the atmosphere at the same
slow rate that lags behind the rate we put it in. This is what caused the
rise. Growing more biofuel crops doesn't automatically lower the atmospheric
CO2, because there are already plants growing on nearly all the arable land.

You keep saying "carbon-neutral" as if it were a fact that it would reduce
atmospheric carbon in some way. Prove it to us.



I'm sorry you are having problems reading. I never said it would reduce
atmospheric carbon, I said there would be no net gain. Neutral does not
mean subtraction or addition. Burning fossil fuels is addition.

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

JoeSixPack wrote:

You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the grain
itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a fuel?
Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for example is a
very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has been used in the
past as a heating fuel.


I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

Brock Ulfsen wrote:

....
Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon
per acre than heritage varieties.

Not really, for the most part--hybrid wheat, corn, soybeans all are
essentially the same size plants as always. What crops specifically are
you thinking of?

Plus, most hybrids are grown in much higher "plants/acre" than were
their predecessors--both narrower row spacing as well as plant spacing
in order to produce higher net yields...

.....

Steve Spence wrote:

JoeSixPack wrote:

You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the grain
itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a fuel?
Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for example is a
very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has been used in the
past as a heating fuel.


I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.


The other answer in part to SixPack's question is simply
convenience--it's far easier to handle the grain than the rest of the
plant....

Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.

What evidence for that is there?

You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.

Actually much cropland is not covered in vegetation.

If it's cropland, it's growing crops. That takes some amount of
carbon out of the air. It is yet to be shown that converting
cropland (or non-crop greenspace) to fuel-corn increases
the amount of carbon sucked out of the air by exactly the amount
of carbon pumped INTO the air by burning the fuel-part, and
that's what you have to show for it to be "carbon-nuetral"
by one definition. (by another definition, you'd have to
show only that burning the corn-oil releases the same amont
of carbon that the plant concentrated in the first place.
Obviously this can be true only if you use the entire plant
for fuel. Which we don't, and probably won't)
By neither definition is there any particular reason to
believe that bio-fuel is actually carbon nuetral.

But carbon nuetrality isn't what we care about, anyway.
A simplified model is that we burn a certain amount
of carbon-fuel, adding that much carbon to the atmosphere (F)
If that fuel comed from corn-oil (or whatever) then
we have a certain amount of land growing corn, which will
suck a certain amount or carbon OUT of the air. Call that (C).
If, on the other hand, we get our fuel from dead dinosaurs,
then the land that WOULD be growing corn will instead grow
something else, and that something else will suck
a different amount of carbon out of the air. Call that (D)

The question that MATTERS is whether C D.

My suspicion is that we'dd end up with less carbon in
the air if we go ahead and keep burning dead dinosaurs,
and use the cropland to produce things that permanantly
remove carbon, like CAF panels, construction-lumber, and
pencil-leads.


Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon
per acre than heritage varieties.

I'm not sure that that matters. The ratio of the useful part of
the plant to the non-useful part goes up. Which part has
more carbon in it? probably the part that makes good fuel.
It's quite possible (even likely) that the new varieties actually
INCREASE the carbon-per-acre.

Some crops grow more Biomas per acre than others, compare strawberries
and Sugarcane...

If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
neutral.


Your conclusion does not follow from your postulates.
This doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but
it does mean that your argument is.

--goedjn

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:


It doesn't matter if you call it carbon-neutral or not, the CO2 will
continue to rise if you continue to burn carbon-based fuels at the
current rate. The atmosphere doesn't know you switched to your
"carbon-neutral fuel." It continues to take the carbon out of the
atmosphere at the same slow rate that lags behind the rate we put it in.
This is what caused the rise. Growing more biofuel crops doesn't
automatically lower the atmospheric CO2, because there are already plants
growing on nearly all the arable land.

You keep saying "carbon-neutral" as if it were a fact that it would
reduce atmospheric carbon in some way. Prove it to us.

I'm sorry you are having problems reading. I never said it would reduce
atmospheric carbon, I said there would be no net gain. Neutral does not
mean subtraction or addition. Burning fossil fuels is addition.


I see where you are having difficulty. I am saying that as long as
emissions exceed assimilation, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise. If
you are saying that if we start growing a lot of crops for biofuels, that
trend will stop, I have to respectfully disagree. The globe is already
covered with vegetation, and the oceans are full of blue-green algae, so
anything we can do by way of increasing crop growth will not be enough to
halt, or even slow significantly the rise of CO2 in our atmosphere.

If you are willing to debate me on this point, I'm quite willing to listen.

Goedjn wrote:

... It is yet to be shown that converting
cropland (or non-crop greenspace) to fuel-corn increases
the amount of carbon sucked out of the air by exactly the amount
of carbon pumped INTO the air by burning the fuel-part, and
that's what you have to show for it to be "carbon-nuetral"
....

All green plants get all their carbon from the air in
a process called photosynthesis.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...on_cycle2.html

This means all biofuels derived from plants get all
their carbon from the air. This means when you burn
biofuels and release that carbon all of it came from
a plant which took it out of the air in the first place.

This means that all biofuels are carbon neutral by
definition. It's an indisputable fact, a truism. It's
so obvious that people don't have to keep proving it
every time the use the term.

Anthony

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the
grain itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a
fuel? Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for
example is a very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has
been used in the past as a heating fuel.
I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.


Corn is rarely grown for it's oil. A typical kernel of corn has 7-7.5% oil
content. Other crops are far better for this, such as oilseeds like canola,
which has 40-50% oil content. The remainder of the seed is a high-quality
animal feed. Where optimal conditions exist, canola can produce 500Kg of oil
per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per square mile. The vast
majority of available acres are far from optimal, so a much lower yield
figure is reasonable.

Using a realistic yield of 10,000 gallons per sq mile, the economics are
still a long way from feasible, compared to other fuel options. The
production costs alone for a square mile of canola is approximately $25,000
US. Add to this, estimated processing and distribution costs of another
$25,000, and the net consumer price for a typical gallon of biofuel canola
oil is likely to exceed $7 US. I'd say we have to experience a lot more
petroleum price increases for this to be a feasible alternative.