On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:03:08 -0500, the infamous
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:25:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 30, 12:37*am, Larry Fishel wrote:
"But I thought tree give off carbon dioxide "

Um...no. Or did I miss the joke?

Actually trees only remove CO2 for a relatively short time. If the
trees are burned for firewood, they give off CO2. If they are allowed
to rot after dying, again CO2 released. If they are used for timber
then no CO2 released until a house burns or is wrecked so a new house
can be built.

That's why they are referred to as "carbon sinks"

What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.

--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

"Larry Jaques" wrote

What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.

Yes, but it does have so much of that Little House On The Prairie look and
feel, doesn't it? Compost pile in the back. Little office with moon and
star on the doors.

Steve

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:03:08 -0500, the infamous
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:25:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 30, 12:37 am, Larry Fishel wrote:
"But I thought tree give off carbon dioxide "

Um...no. Or did I miss the joke?
Actually trees only remove CO2 for a relatively short time. If the
trees are burned for firewood, they give off CO2. If they are allowed
to rot after dying, again CO2 released. If they are used for timber
then no CO2 released until a house burns or is wrecked so a new house
can be built.

That's why they are referred to as "carbon sinks"

What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.

--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor


Or the Greenies buying new electric cars - because they are environmentally
friendly..

Regardless of what it took to make all that plastic in the first place...

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:12:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:



What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.

I've asked you a million times to not exaggerate. If you look only at
the combustion products (which is far from the entire picture), and
make a SWAG for burner efficiency, the CO2 emissions from heating with
wood are perhaps 3-4 times that of gas.

--
Ned Simmons

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:12:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:



What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.

I've asked you a million times to not exaggerate. If you look only at
the combustion products (which is far from the entire picture), and
make a SWAG for burner efficiency, the CO2 emissions from heating with
wood are perhaps 3-4 times that of gas.

Cite real stats on that, please, Ned. Having stood/lived downwind
from a fireplace/woodstove or two, I don't believe a word of it. Whole
valleys are polluted by one single wood fire, fer chrissake. It's
disgusting. I can't work outside when fireplaces are upwind. Catalytic
stovepipe inserts and pellets help for woodstoves, but it's still
lousy breathing downwind of any of those. You'd be hard pressed to
notice combustion downwind of a natural gas furnace.

Plus, everything I've read shows a 25-40x difference. If you have
other stats, show me.

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:12:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:



What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.

I've asked you a million times to not exaggerate. If you look only at
the combustion products (which is far from the entire picture), and
make a SWAG for burner efficiency, the CO2 emissions from heating with
wood are perhaps 3-4 times that of gas.

Cite real stats on that, please, Ned.

This looks OK me:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ls-d_1085.html

At 100% efficiency burning wood releases 1.7x as much CO2 as natural
gas. My SWAG is a gas furnace is probably at least twice as efficient
as a wood stove, so 3-4x seems in the ballpark.

Having stood/lived downwind
from a fireplace/woodstove or two, I don't believe a word of it. Whole
valleys are polluted by one single wood fire, fer chrissake. It's
disgusting. I can't work outside when fireplaces are upwind. Catalytic
stovepipe inserts and pellets help for woodstoves, but it's still
lousy breathing downwind of any of those. You'd be hard pressed to
notice combustion downwind of a natural gas furnace.

Plus, everything I've read shows a 25-40x difference. If you have
other stats, show me.

Now you're talking about stuff other than CO2, and I agree. In fact,
I'll bet 40x is way low for particulates when comparing wood and gas.
Wood stoves aren't a problem in that regard here in coastal Maine --
stagnant air conditions are very rare, especially in winter, and
population density is relatively low. But some larger towns have
started to regulate outdoor wood boilers due to their tendency to
smolder and smoke badly when they're damped down. And their short
stacks makes the problem worse because all that smoke is vented close
to the ground.

I did design work about 30 years ago for a company that was building
wood boilers based on a design by a University of Maine ME professor.
The Hill boilers ran full tilt and stored the heat in a large volume
of water. A normal hydronic heating system circulated the stored hot
water between burns. Burning the wood hot and fast resulted in a very
clean burn and pretty high efficiencies.

--
Ned Simmons

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:27:51 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:12:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:



What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.

I've asked you a million times to not exaggerate. If you look only at
the combustion products (which is far from the entire picture), and
make a SWAG for burner efficiency, the CO2 emissions from heating with
wood are perhaps 3-4 times that of gas.

Cite real stats on that, please, Ned.

This looks OK me:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ls-d_1085.html

At 100% efficiency burning wood releases 1.7x as much CO2 as natural
gas. My SWAG is a gas furnace is probably at least twice as efficient
as a wood stove, so 3-4x seems in the ballpark.

"At 100% efficiency"
"SWAG"
"seem in the ballpark"

Yeah, you really put it to me, Ned. Those cites are gruesome!
Garsh, I'm soooo embarrassed.


Having stood/lived downwind
from a fireplace/woodstove or two, I don't believe a word of it. Whole
valleys are polluted by one single wood fire, fer chrissake. It's
disgusting. I can't work outside when fireplaces are upwind. Catalytic
stovepipe inserts and pellets help for woodstoves, but it's still
lousy breathing downwind of any of those. You'd be hard pressed to
notice combustion downwind of a natural gas furnace.

Plus, everything I've read shows a 25-40x difference. If you have
other stats, show me.

Now you're talking about stuff other than CO2, and I agree. In fact,
I'll bet 40x is way low for particulates when comparing wood and gas.
Wood stoves aren't a problem in that regard here in coastal Maine --
stagnant air conditions are very rare, especially in winter, and
population density is relatively low. But some larger towns have
started to regulate outdoor wood boilers due to their tendency to
smolder and smoke badly when they're damped down. And their short
stacks makes the problem worse because all that smoke is vented close
to the ground.

Yeah, I suppose I should have said "total pollutants", not just CO2.


I did design work about 30 years ago for a company that was building
wood boilers based on a design by a University of Maine ME professor.
The Hill boilers ran full tilt and stored the heat in a large volume
of water. A normal hydronic heating system circulated the stored hot
water between burns. Burning the wood hot and fast resulted in a very
clean burn and pretty high efficiencies.

How efficient would you say a wood burning stove or fireplace is, Ned,
compared to a professionally run and serviced heating boiler system?
DOH!

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:27:51 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:12:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.
I've asked you a million times to not exaggerate. If you look only at
the combustion products (which is far from the entire picture), and
make a SWAG for burner efficiency, the CO2 emissions from heating with
wood are perhaps 3-4 times that of gas.
Cite real stats on that, please, Ned.
This looks OK me:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ls-d_1085.html

At 100% efficiency burning wood releases 1.7x as much CO2 as natural
gas. My SWAG is a gas furnace is probably at least twice as efficient
as a wood stove, so 3-4x seems in the ballpark.

"At 100% efficiency"
"SWAG"
"seem in the ballpark"

Yeah, you really put it to me, Ned. Those cites are gruesome!
Garsh, I'm soooo embarrassed.


Having stood/lived downwind
from a fireplace/woodstove or two, I don't believe a word of it. Whole
valleys are polluted by one single wood fire, fer chrissake. It's
disgusting. I can't work outside when fireplaces are upwind. Catalytic
stovepipe inserts and pellets help for woodstoves, but it's still
lousy breathing downwind of any of those. You'd be hard pressed to
notice combustion downwind of a natural gas furnace.

Plus, everything I've read shows a 25-40x difference. If you have
other stats, show me.
Now you're talking about stuff other than CO2, and I agree. In fact,
I'll bet 40x is way low for particulates when comparing wood and gas.
Wood stoves aren't a problem in that regard here in coastal Maine --
stagnant air conditions are very rare, especially in winter, and
population density is relatively low. But some larger towns have
started to regulate outdoor wood boilers due to their tendency to
smolder and smoke badly when they're damped down. And their short
stacks makes the problem worse because all that smoke is vented close
to the ground.

Yeah, I suppose I should have said "total pollutants", not just CO2.


I did design work about 30 years ago for a company that was building
wood boilers based on a design by a University of Maine ME professor.
The Hill boilers ran full tilt and stored the heat in a large volume
of water. A normal hydronic heating system circulated the stored hot
water between burns. Burning the wood hot and fast resulted in a very
clean burn and pretty high efficiencies.

How efficient would you say a wood burning stove or fireplace is, Ned,
compared to a professionally run and serviced heating boiler system?
DOH!

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

We burned the Christmas tree tonight.

I'm wild assed guessing 10 percent.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:29:39 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:27:51 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:12:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:



What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.

I've asked you a million times to not exaggerate. If you look only at
the combustion products (which is far from the entire picture), and
make a SWAG for burner efficiency, the CO2 emissions from heating with
wood are perhaps 3-4 times that of gas.

Cite real stats on that, please, Ned.

This looks OK me:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ls-d_1085.html

At 100% efficiency burning wood releases 1.7x as much CO2 as natural
gas. My SWAG is a gas furnace is probably at least twice as efficient
as a wood stove, so 3-4x seems in the ballpark.

"At 100% efficiency"
"SWAG"
"seem in the ballpark"

Yeah, you really put it to me, Ned. Those cites are gruesome!
Garsh, I'm soooo embarrassed.

Yeah, a factor of 10 error is pretty embarassing. g



Having stood/lived downwind
from a fireplace/woodstove or two, I don't believe a word of it. Whole
valleys are polluted by one single wood fire, fer chrissake. It's
disgusting. I can't work outside when fireplaces are upwind. Catalytic
stovepipe inserts and pellets help for woodstoves, but it's still
lousy breathing downwind of any of those. You'd be hard pressed to
notice combustion downwind of a natural gas furnace.

Plus, everything I've read shows a 25-40x difference. If you have
other stats, show me.

Now you're talking about stuff other than CO2, and I agree. In fact,
I'll bet 40x is way low for particulates when comparing wood and gas.
Wood stoves aren't a problem in that regard here in coastal Maine --
stagnant air conditions are very rare, especially in winter, and
population density is relatively low. But some larger towns have
started to regulate outdoor wood boilers due to their tendency to
smolder and smoke badly when they're damped down. And their short
stacks makes the problem worse because all that smoke is vented close
to the ground.

Yeah, I suppose I should have said "total pollutants", not just CO2.


I did design work about 30 years ago for a company that was building
wood boilers based on a design by a University of Maine ME professor.
The Hill boilers ran full tilt and stored the heat in a large volume
of water. A normal hydronic heating system circulated the stored hot
water between burns. Burning the wood hot and fast resulted in a very
clean burn and pretty high efficiencies.

How efficient would you say a wood burning stove or fireplace is, Ned,
compared to a professionally run and serviced heating boiler system?
DOH!

Catalytic stoves are rated as high as 80%, while modern gas furnaces
are 90%+ efficient. But there are too many variables in woodstove
design and operation to rely on a single number. So a 2 to 1 ratio is
a conservative number, erring in favor of gas, and close enough to
debunk a claim of 40x CO2 emissions from a woodstove.

--
Ned Simmons

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:38:47 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:29:39 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

How efficient would you say a wood burning stove or fireplace is, Ned,
compared to a professionally run and serviced heating boiler system?
DOH!

Catalytic stoves are rated as high as 80%, while modern gas furnaces
are 90%+ efficient. But there are too many variables in woodstove
design and operation to rely on a single number. So a 2 to 1 ratio is
a conservative number, erring in favor of gas, and close enough to
debunk a claim of 40x CO2 emissions from a woodstove.

Crikey! We'll just have to agree to completely and antithetically
disagree on this one, too, Ned. Ciao!

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:17:56 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:38:47 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:29:39 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

How efficient would you say a wood burning stove or fireplace is, Ned,
compared to a professionally run and serviced heating boiler system?
DOH!

Catalytic stoves are rated as high as 80%, while modern gas furnaces
are 90%+ efficient. But there are too many variables in woodstove
design and operation to rely on a single number. So a 2 to 1 ratio is
a conservative number, erring in favor of gas, and close enough to
debunk a claim of 40x CO2 emissions from a woodstove.

Crikey! We'll just have to agree to completely and antithetically
disagree on this one, too, Ned. Ciao!

I'm always willing to be disagreeable g, but I'm not sure what the
disagreement is, unless you still think a woodstove emits 40x the CO2
a gas furnace does.

--
Ned Simmons

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:00:20 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Jan 1, 10:38*am, Ned Simmons wrote:
...
Catalytic stoves are rated as high as 80%, while modern gas furnaces
are 90%+ efficient. But there are too many variables in woodstove
design and operation to rely on a single number. So a 2 to 1 ratio is
a conservative number, erring in favor of gas, and close enough to
debunk a claim of 40x CO2 emissions from a woodstove.
Ned Simmons

Ole Wik's wood stove book that Lindsay once sold has a performance
chart for the Jotul 118, the old one instead of the Black Bear they
sell now.
It gives the maximum efficiency point at 22,500 BTU/Hr with 3.1 Lbs/
hour of air-dried wood, 20% moisture content.

This mentions the same data point, 76% efficient:
http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php...ewthread/8911/
The chart apparently comes from Jotul's resource book "The Art of
Heating with Wood", which I haven't found to download yet.

I run my import copy hotter than that to eliminate visible smoke but I
burn on average only about two cords a year, in cold NH. People with
similar houses tell me they burn 5.

We heat with a firebrick lined welded steel knockoff of a Jotul that I
built 25 years ago. Two and a half cords takes care of our small 1200
sf house with lots of glass in ME.

This stove is the 16" model. I built others as small as 12", and three
behemoths that burned 4' sticks for the service buildings at a
boatyard.

--
Ned Simmons

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:46:59 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:17:56 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:38:47 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:29:39 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

How efficient would you say a wood burning stove or fireplace is, Ned,
compared to a professionally run and serviced heating boiler system?
DOH!

Catalytic stoves are rated as high as 80%, while modern gas furnaces
are 90%+ efficient. But there are too many variables in woodstove
design and operation to rely on a single number. So a 2 to 1 ratio is
a conservative number, erring in favor of gas, and close enough to
debunk a claim of 40x CO2 emissions from a woodstove.

Crikey! We'll just have to agree to completely and antithetically
disagree on this one, too, Ned. Ciao!

I'm always willing to be disagreeable g, but I'm not sure what the
disagreement is, unless you still think a woodstove emits 40x the CO2
a gas furnace does.

Right, it's a helluva lot more pollutants than 2x, as you state. In
real life, not everyone runs catalytics (yet), either.

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?