| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Wood heat in a shop
I am getting ready to buy/build 55 wood stoves for my shop. I see the
single stackers, the doubles, all kinds. The shop is roughly 15360. It is 40 x 32, 8' high, roof varies from 2' to 6' above that low slope. I like it warm. I wouldn't mind having two stoves, and take them out and switch them with the swampers each year. I see Wolfzang (sp?) stoves, and their ilk, which is just a pretty well sealed up 55 gal barrel. I see others, with what looks like varying degrees of craftsmanship, mass of metal in components, differences in vents, and a few things that makes one better than the other, as in thicker metal, more bolts, more vents, etc. What makes a good wood burner, and what is good to look for? Are the more expensive ones inherently more efficient? And just what does the second barrel do, other than provide greater surface area? And would it be possible to mount the second top barrel somewhere other than directly over the lower one to take heat to another portion of the shop? Just how airtight are these? Is it necessary to monitor them very closely with CO detectors, or is the inherent leakage of a hobbyiist built enclosure safe enough? Would one single stove be enough? Two singles? Two doubles? And just how often does one have to paint these? In my area, I can get pristine coconut oil barrels for $10 each with lids, so changing them over the years would be probably easier than keeping up with a swamp cooler. Class? Steve |
Wood heat in a shop
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:01:44 -0700, SteveB wrote:
I am getting ready to buy/build 55 wood stoves for my shop. I see the single stackers, the doubles, all kinds. The shop is roughly 15360. It is 40 x 32, 8' high, roof varies from 2' to 6' above that low slope. I like it warm. I wouldn't mind having two stoves, and take them out and switch them with the swampers each year. I see Wolfzang (sp?) stoves, and their ilk, which is just a pretty well sealed up 55 gal barrel. I see others, with what looks like varying degrees of craftsmanship, mass of metal in components, differences in vents, and a few things that makes one better than the other, as in thicker metal, more bolts, more vents, etc. What makes a good wood burner, and what is good to look for? Are the more expensive ones inherently more efficient? And just what does the second barrel do, other than provide greater surface area? And would it be possible to mount the second top barrel somewhere other than directly over the lower one to take heat to another portion of the shop? Just how airtight are these? Is it necessary to monitor them very closely with CO detectors, or is the inherent leakage of a hobbyiist built enclosure safe enough? Would one single stove be enough? Two singles? Two doubles? And just how often does one have to paint these? In my area, I can get pristine coconut oil barrels for $10 each with lids, so changing them over the years would be probably easier than keeping up with a swamp cooler. Class? Steve When I was a lad wood stoves were pretty common. Both grand parents houses, my Uncle's work shop, the first house my folks built... One of the biggest secrets was to run the stove pipe a long way down the room.. that hot stove pipe pours a lot of BTU's into the room. -- Cheers, John B. |
Wood heat in a shop
Gunner Asch wrote:
Btw...you are aware that the EPA just banned the use of most wood stoves and fireplaces..right? Gunner And how do you think this will play out ? Over half of the people we know up here heat with wood - and these same people are already pretty fed up with being told what we can't do . These same people also have guns and know how to use them ... I suspect the feral hog population around here will be well-fed if they try to take away our heat . There just aren't any affordable options out here in the woods . Electric isn't an option any more , with the increasing regulation on power generation making it too expensive , and LPG is being priced out of reach now too . Natural gas isn't available out here , it's just not profitable to run pipelines out here due to low population density . That leaves wood or solar , and very few of us can afford the equipment investment for solar , much less the cost of retrofitting . I see scary times ahead , this may just be that proverbial final straw . They've indoctrinated our children , they've adulterated our food supply and made health care unaffordable for most of us . Now they want to take away our source of heat ? I think that ain't gonna happen . -- Snag What's next , book burning ? |
Wood heat in a shop
"SteveB" wrote in message
... I am getting ready to buy/build 55 wood stoves for my shop. I see the single stackers, the doubles, all kinds. The shop is roughly 15360. It is 40 x 32, 8' high, roof varies from 2' to 6' above that low slope. I like it warm. I wouldn't mind having two stoves, and take them out and switch them with the swampers each year. I see Wolfzang (sp?) stoves, and their ilk, which is just a pretty well sealed up 55 gal barrel. I see others, with what looks like varying degrees of craftsmanship, mass of metal in components, differences in vents, and a few things that makes one better than the other, as in thicker metal, more bolts, more vents, etc. What makes a good wood burner, and what is good to look for? Are the more expensive ones inherently more efficient? And just what does the second barrel do, other than provide greater surface area? And would it be possible to mount the second top barrel somewhere other than directly over the lower one to take heat to another portion of the shop? Just how airtight are these? Is it necessary to monitor them very closely with CO detectors, or is the inherent leakage of a hobbyiist built enclosure safe enough? Would one single stove be enough? Two singles? Two doubles? And just how often does one have to paint these? In my area, I can get pristine coconut oil barrels for $10 each with lids, so changing them over the years would be probably easier than keeping up with a swamp cooler. Class? Steve I've been told the barrels don't hold up well, and it's no fun having one fail with a hot fire burning. I have a CO detector with a digital readout and test it over hot charcoal in the ash bucket periodically. Do you know how many BTUs you need now? |
Wood heat in a shop
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message ... I am getting ready to buy/build 55 wood stoves for my shop. I see the single stackers, the doubles, all kinds. The shop is roughly 15360. It is 40 x 32, 8' high, roof varies from 2' to 6' above that low slope. I like it warm. I wouldn't mind having two stoves, and take them out and switch them with the swampers each year. I see Wolfzang (sp?) stoves, and their ilk, which is just a pretty well sealed up 55 gal barrel. I see others, with what looks like varying degrees of craftsmanship, mass of metal in components, differences in vents, and a few things that makes one better than the other, as in thicker metal, more bolts, more vents, etc. What makes a good wood burner, and what is good to look for? Are the more expensive ones inherently more efficient? And just what does the second barrel do, other than provide greater surface area? And would it be possible to mount the second top barrel somewhere other than directly over the lower one to take heat to another portion of the shop? Just how airtight are these? Is it necessary to monitor them very closely with CO detectors, or is the inherent leakage of a hobbyiist built enclosure safe enough? Would one single stove be enough? Two singles? Two doubles? And just how often does one have to paint these? In my area, I can get pristine coconut oil barrels for $10 each with lids, so changing them over the years would be probably easier than keeping up with a swamp cooler. Class? Steve I've been told the barrels don't hold up well, and it's no fun having one fail with a hot fire burning. I have a CO detector with a digital readout and test it over hot charcoal in the ash bucket periodically. Do you know how many BTUs you need now? Do you think those barrel stoves would last longer if the burn area was lined with castable? refractory or firebrick ? Our stove has bricks in the lower part , and the firebox is made of relatively light sheet metal . There are areas above the brick where it has gotten hot enough to deform the metal , we don't fill it up too much because of that . -- Snag |
Wood heat in a shop
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 01:51:24 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:25:45 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:01:44 -0700, SteveB wrote: I am getting ready to buy/build 55 wood stoves for my shop. I see the single stackers, the doubles, all kinds. The shop is roughly 15360. It is 40 x 32, 8' high, roof varies from 2' to 6' above that low slope. I like it warm. I wouldn't mind having two stoves, and take them out and switch them with the swampers each year. I see Wolfzang (sp?) stoves, and their ilk, which is just a pretty well sealed up 55 gal barrel. I see others, with what looks like varying degrees of craftsmanship, mass of metal in components, differences in vents, and a few things that makes one better than the other, as in thicker metal, more bolts, more vents, etc. What makes a good wood burner, and what is good to look for? Are the more expensive ones inherently more efficient? And just what does the second barrel do, other than provide greater surface area? And would it be possible to mount the second top barrel somewhere other than directly over the lower one to take heat to another portion of the shop? Just how airtight are these? Is it necessary to monitor them very closely with CO detectors, or is the inherent leakage of a hobbyiist built enclosure safe enough? Would one single stove be enough? Two singles? Two doubles? And just how often does one have to paint these? In my area, I can get pristine coconut oil barrels for $10 each with lids, so changing them over the years would be probably easier than keeping up with a swamp cooler. Class? Steve Frankly...I dont like the 55gallon drum stoves. They are thin metal and tend to burn through in a couple years..based on my experiences with them when I lived back in Michigan. If...if you can find some pipe line pipe or even galvanized culvert metal..you would be better off..mind you that the galvanized has to be vented pretty well for the first couple dozen firings. Gunner Rocket stove is a term to search on...they work very well. Btw...you are aware that the EPA just banned the use of most wood stoves and fireplaces..right? That's the first smart thing the EPA has ever done. Stoves are up to 400x more polluting than any other form of heat. I thought Merlin was all fogged in until I got a mile in, where I smelled smoke. After I had driven the 6th mile, I found one single stove at the little market across from Hugo Road which had been causing all the smoke. Everything upwind was overcast but smoke and fog-free. I'm sure that other stoves had combined to make that smoke, but the main source was one stove, a fact which still amazes me. I really dislike the damned things. The neighbor's pellet stove releases a chemical odor in the smoke which gnaws at my throat. What the hell is in those pellets, anyway? Glue? Pellet stoves produce considerably less smoke. http://tinyurl.com/m7uxyqm http://tinyurl.com/l6sorgz (googled. not my usual stop, eek!) -- The most powerful factors in the world are clear ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will. -- J. Arthur Thomson |
Wood heat in a shop
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 07:56:43 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: Btw...you are aware that the EPA just banned the use of most wood stoves and fireplaces..right? Gunner And how do you think this will play out ? Over half of the people we know up here heat with wood - and these same people are already pretty fed up with being told what we can't do . These same people also have guns and know how to use them ... I suspect the feral hog population around here will be well-fed if they try to take away our heat . There just aren't any affordable options out here in the woods . Electric isn't an option any more , with the increasing regulation on power generation making it too expensive , and LPG is being priced out of reach now too . Natural gas isn't available out here , it's just not profitable to run pipelines out here due to low population density . That leaves wood or solar , and very few of us can afford the equipment investment for solar , much less the cost of retrofitting . I see scary times ahead , this may just be that proverbial final straw . They've indoctrinated our children , they've adulterated our food supply and made health care unaffordable for most of us . Now they want to take away our source of heat ? I think that ain't gonna happen . JEEZ Terry! Someone spouts off and you don't even check it out but start talking about guns and pig feed? Simmer down. The EPA is not going to ban the use of wood burning stoves in our life time. Furthermore, stoves already in place will not need to be removed. Washington State, where I live, has one of the most, if not the most, restrictive standards on wood stove pollution. And we have burn bans. But the burn bans do not apply if the stove is your only source of heat. And if you cannot afford the power, gas, or oil to heat your house then burning wood to heat your home is OK during a burn ban. I have a modern wood burning stove that meets the WA State regs and it doesn't have a catalytic converter. Partly because of the tighter regs the stove must be more efficient. This is great because not only does the stove pollute less but I am able to heat a 2200 square foot home burning alder, which I harvest myself from my land. And I mean heat it well, sometimes I get a little too enthusiastic filling the thing and the house gets too hot. Cheers, Eric --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Wood heat in a shop
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
... Jim Wilkins wrote: Do you think those barrel stoves would last longer if the burn area was lined with castable? refractory or firebrick ? Our stove has bricks in the lower part , and the firebox is made of relatively light sheet metal . There are areas above the brick where it has gotten hot enough to deform the metal , we don't fill it up too much because of that . -- Snag I know only how my own stove works. Over many years its cast iron inner side baffles deteriorated and I patched them with first ~16 gauge steel which burned through, then scrap stainless which has held up well. Except where the preheated secondary air enters the rest of the interior is starved of oxygen and even the original bolts that hold it together while partly assembled are still in good condition. I don't trust them and have stored my welding firebricks under the stove so if a leg fails it won't fall. jsw |
Wood heat in a shop
|
Wood heat in a shop
On 2/4/2014 6:56 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
I see scary times ahead , this may just be that proverbial final straw . They've indoctrinated our children , they've adulterated our food supply and made health care unaffordable for most of us . Now they want to take away our source of heat ? I think that ain't gonna happen . Fat liberals have a lot of high btu lard on them. There's lots of them around. If one could just find a way to handle the smell. steve |
Wood heat in a shop
On 2/4/2014 7:21 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
I've been told the barrels don't hold up well, and it's no fun having one fail with a hot fire burning. I have a CO detector with a digital readout and test it over hot charcoal in the ash bucket periodically. Do you know how many BTUs you need now? No idea on btu. I'd have digital CO detectors, and I was wondering about burnthrough, although the barrels are cheap. But no doubt about burnthrough incidents. Steve |
Wood heat in a shop
On 2/4/2014 7:45 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote: Do you think those barrel stoves would last longer if the burn area was lined with castable? refractory or firebrick ? Our stove has bricks in the lower part , and the firebox is made of relatively light sheet metal . There are areas above the brick where it has gotten hot enough to deform the metal , we don't fill it up too much because of that . -- Snag Now, there's an idea. I had actually thought of something like that, thinking that building on the barrel metal would not be a good idea. And a grate would probably accelerate deformation. Steve |
Wood heat in a shop
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
... Jim Wilkins wrote: I've fine-tuned my efficient 1970's airtight so it rarely emits any visible smoke, and have a night-vision camera watching the chimney top and a readout of the firebox temperature in the kitchen to monitor it. I needed several years of experimenting in various weather conditions and some instrumentation to eliminate the smoke and stack buildup. That's the reason I use thermocouples instead of IC temperature sensors. Can you give me a basic rundown on how you eliminated smoke when on a slow burn ? Mine doesn't make a lot , but some . It's an airtight with an inlet damper . -- Snag I installed a mirror outside so I could see the chimney top while sitting in front of the stove. It would smoke badly if I followed the instructions for a slow "cigarette burn". Instead I leave a channel open down the center, in line with the air inlet, that lets the full length of the wood burn from the center outward, for about an hour at a steady temperature before it starts to cool. The display in the kitchen tells me when it needs feeding again. http://www.antiquesnavigator.com/eba...0440642291.jpg Mine is the 1970's Taiwanese copy. The happy draft disk setting is closed against a 3-4mm Allen wrench. The long and tedious experimenting was to leak just enough additional preheated secondary air into the upper chamber to completely burn the smoke without cooling the flue and reducing the draft, or becoming unstable and running away. Those things can be hard to tame. |
Wood heat in a shop
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message ... Jim Wilkins wrote: I've fine-tuned my efficient 1970's airtight so it rarely emits any visible smoke, and have a night-vision camera watching the chimney top and a readout of the firebox temperature in the kitchen to monitor it. I needed several years of experimenting in various weather conditions and some instrumentation to eliminate the smoke and stack buildup. That's the reason I use thermocouples instead of IC temperature sensors. Can you give me a basic rundown on how you eliminated smoke when on a slow burn ? Mine doesn't make a lot , but some . It's an airtight with an inlet damper . -- Snag I installed a mirror outside so I could see the chimney top while sitting in front of the stove. It would smoke badly if I followed the instructions for a slow "cigarette burn". Instead I leave a channel open down the center, in line with the air inlet, that lets the full length of the wood burn from the center outward, for about an hour at a steady temperature before it starts to cool. The display in the kitchen tells me when it needs feeding again. http://www.antiquesnavigator.com/eba...0440642291.jpg Mine is the 1970's Taiwanese copy. The happy draft disk setting is closed against a 3-4mm Allen wrench. The long and tedious experimenting was to leak just enough additional preheated secondary air into the upper chamber to completely burn the smoke without cooling the flue and reducing the draft, or becoming unstable and running away. Those things can be hard to tame. OK , yours is a totally different beast . Mine has no secondary burn , just a box with the bottom half lined with fire bricks . Seals up well , and is easily controlled by the inlet air setting . My biggest problem is actually excess heat ... my neighbor up the hill has the same stove , he heats about 1400 SF with it . Our room "baby house" and camper combined are less than half that . I compensate by not feeding it too much during the day , then loading up just before I go to bed and setting the knob on "low" .. -- Snag |
Wood heat in a shop
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:45:01 AM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
Do you think those barrel stoves would last longer if the burn area was lined with castable? refractory or firebrick ? Our stove has bricks in the lower part , and the firebox is made of relatively light sheet metal .. There are areas above the brick where it has gotten hot enough to deform the metal , we don't fill it up too much because of that . -- Snag Take a look at www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/hill-79.pdf One of the professors at the University of Maine came up with this design of a wood furnace. The basic idea is to burn the wood in a very hot area and then collect the heat into water. You locate the furnace outside so no fire hazard in the house and no mess carrying the wood inside. Dan |
Wood heat in a shop
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message ... Gunner Asch wrote: Btw...you are aware that the EPA just banned the use of most wood stoves and fireplaces..right? Gunner And how do you think this will play out ? Over half of the people we know up here heat with wood - and these same people are already pretty fed up with being told what we can't do . These same people also have guns and know how to use them ... And how do you think THIS will play out? I suspect the feral hog population around here will be well-fed if they try to take away our heat . There just aren't any affordable options out here in the woods . Electric isn't an option any more , with the increasing regulation on power generation making it too expensive , and LPG is being priced out of reach now too . Natural gas isn't available out here , it's just not profitable to run pipelines out here due to low population density . That leaves wood or solar , and very few of us can afford the equipment investment for solar , much less the cost of retrofitting . I see scary times ahead , this may just be that proverbial final straw . They've indoctrinated our children , they've adulterated our food supply and made health care unaffordable for most of us . Now they want to take away our source of heat ? I think that ain't gonna happen . http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._fruitcake.jpg |
Wood heat in a shop
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 1:01:44 AM UTC-5, SteveB wrote:
What makes a good wood burner, and what is good to look for? Are the more expensive ones inherently more efficient? And just what does the second barrel do, other than provide greater surface area? And would it be possible to mount the second top barrel somewhere other than directly over the lower one to take heat to another portion of the shop? Just how airtight are these? Is it necessary to monitor them very closely with CO detectors, or is the inherent leakage of a hobbyiist built enclosure safe enough? Steve The EPA ought to publish plans for an efficient wood stove that meets their standards. But they do not. They just publish a list of approved stoves that have been tested and has passed their standards. The list does not even show the actual test results. Just shows a figure that is the max limit for emisions. And of course if you install a stove that does not meet their standards , you are breaking the law. So you have several options for stoves to install in your shop. One is to ignore the law and build your own. Another is to buy a used stove that meets the requirements. And of course you can buy a new stove. But you can build a wood furnace and use it. It does not have to meet any standards. In addition it can be outside the shop so the wood does not have te be brought into the shop. And that also reduces the fire hazard. My neighbor has a wood furnace located in a shed on his property. It is not very efficient and put out a fair amount of smoke. So he burns it early in the morning. The furnace designed by Richard Hill is efficient. It hurns the wood in a cast refractory chamber so it burns very hot. Then exhausts thru a fire tube boiler. So it produces very little smoke. If you do build your own furnace or stove, you really want it to be as efficient as possible. Wood stoves require a fair amount of work, so the more efficient is is, the less wood you have to cut and haul. My solution was to buy a used wood stove. I bought it from a guy that had it in pieces. He was planning on refurbishing it before he installed it. But then found his town would not permit any wood stoves, regardless of their being on the EPA's list. Dan |
Wood heat in a shop
SteveB wrote:
I am getting ready to buy/build 55 wood stoves for my shop. I see the single stackers, the doubles, all kinds. The shop is roughly 15360. It is 40 x 32, 8' high, roof varies from 2' to 6' above that low slope. I like it warm. I wouldn't mind having two stoves, and take them out and switch them with the swampers each year. I see Wolfzang (sp?) stoves, and their ilk, which is just a pretty well sealed up 55 gal barrel. I see others, with what looks like varying degrees of craftsmanship, mass of metal in components, differences in vents, and a few things that makes one better than the other, as in thicker metal, more bolts, more vents, etc. What makes a good wood burner, and what is good to look for? Are the more expensive ones inherently more efficient? And just what does the second barrel do, other than provide greater surface area? And would it be possible to mount the second top barrel somewhere other than directly over the lower one to take heat to another portion of the shop? Just how airtight are these? Is it necessary to monitor them very closely with CO detectors, or is the inherent leakage of a hobbyiist built enclosure safe enough? Would one single stove be enough? Two singles? Two doubles? And just how often does one have to paint these? In my area, I can get pristine coconut oil barrels for $10 each with lids, so changing them over the years would be probably easier than keeping up with a swamp cooler. Class? Steve I built one like these. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g9KL_59J_k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIjXH1bEWgA Mine is set up a bit different. I used a 275 drum, then double walled the bottom and installed fire brick. The double walls extend to the top of the sides. Also used some steel to make a baffle that channels the smoke to the end of the stove, then up over the tubes and out to a second heat exchanger. Then out the chimney. Heats a 30X40 with 12' walls just fine. Plus with an add-on I burn waste oil as available. My first one used the cast door kit from Vogelzang because I had one. Worked OK but the size was restrictive. Built the next door out of some 1/4" plate and reinforcements. Worked much better. Also added a small fan on the air inlet to give a faster start-up from cold. -- Steve W. |
Wood heat in a shop
wrote in message ... you can build a wood furnace and use it. It does not have to meet any standards. Ya, sure thing, Dan.... |
Wood heat in a shop
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:00:15 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:17:33 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 07:56:43 -0600, "Terry Coombs" wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: Btw...you are aware that the EPA just banned the use of most wood stoves and fireplaces..right? Gunner And how do you think this will play out ? Over half of the people we know up here heat with wood - and these same people are already pretty fed up with being told what we can't do . These same people also have guns and know how to use them ... I suspect the feral hog population around here will be well-fed if they try to take away our heat . There just aren't any affordable options out here in the woods . Electric isn't an option any more , with the increasing regulation on power generation making it too expensive , and LPG is being priced out of reach now too . Natural gas isn't available out here , it's just not profitable to run pipelines out here due to low population density . That leaves wood or solar , and very few of us can afford the equipment investment for solar , much less the cost of retrofitting . I see scary times ahead , this may just be that proverbial final straw . They've indoctrinated our children , they've adulterated our food supply and made health care unaffordable for most of us . Now they want to take away our source of heat ? I think that ain't gonna happen . JEEZ Terry! Someone spouts off and you don't even check it out but start talking about guns and pig feed? Simmer down. The EPA is not going to ban the use of wood burning stoves in our life time. Furthermore, stoves already in place will not need to be removed. Washington State, where I live, has one of the most, if not the most, restrictive standards on wood stove pollution. And we have burn bans. But the burn bans do not apply if the stove is your only source of heat. And if you cannot afford the power, gas, or oil to heat your house then burning wood to heat your home is OK during a burn ban. I Jackson County, OR (medford, down the road) has a similar setup. http://www.co.jackson.or.us/page.asp?navid=2492 county and state http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/burnin.../heatsmart.htm Well it only makes sense. We can't have too many wood burning heaters running all winter because of the pollution. At the same time we can't have folks freezing and pipes freezing in the winter in homes where the people are already living with small incomes. I argue with myself about whether to burn wood. Electricity that I use comes partly from fossil fuels. Propane is also a fossil fuel. But I am growing wood faster than I burn it so if I burn wood I will put less carbon in the air than if I use electricity or propane for heat. On the other hand I also put bad particulates into the air when burning wood. Eric --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Wood heat in a shop
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:37:09 -0800, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:00:15 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:17:33 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 07:56:43 -0600, "Terry Coombs" wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: Btw...you are aware that the EPA just banned the use of most wood stoves and fireplaces..right? Gunner And how do you think this will play out ? Over half of the people we know up here heat with wood - and these same people are already pretty fed up with being told what we can't do . These same people also have guns and know how to use them ... I suspect the feral hog population around here will be well-fed if they try to take away our heat . There just aren't any affordable options out here in the woods . Electric isn't an option any more , with the increasing regulation on power generation making it too expensive , and LPG is being priced out of reach now too . Natural gas isn't available out here , it's just not profitable to run pipelines out here due to low population density . That leaves wood or solar , and very few of us can afford the equipment investment for solar , much less the cost of retrofitting . I see scary times ahead , this may just be that proverbial final straw . They've indoctrinated our children , they've adulterated our food supply and made health care unaffordable for most of us . Now they want to take away our source of heat ? I think that ain't gonna happen . JEEZ Terry! Someone spouts off and you don't even check it out but start talking about guns and pig feed? Simmer down. The EPA is not going to ban the use of wood burning stoves in our life time. Furthermore, stoves already in place will not need to be removed. Washington State, where I live, has one of the most, if not the most, restrictive standards on wood stove pollution. And we have burn bans. But the burn bans do not apply if the stove is your only source of heat. And if you cannot afford the power, gas, or oil to heat your house then burning wood to heat your home is OK during a burn ban. I Jackson County, OR (medford, down the road) has a similar setup. http://www.co.jackson.or.us/page.asp?navid=2492 county and state http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/burnin.../heatsmart.htm Well it only makes sense. We can't have too many wood burning heaters running all winter because of the pollution. At the same time we can't have folks freezing and pipes freezing in the winter in homes where the people are already living with small incomes. I argue with myself about whether to burn wood. Electricity that I use comes partly from fossil fuels. Propane is also a fossil fuel. Until we get fusion, we burn fossil fuels or (better) use reactors. If we use reactors which can burn the spent fuel, so much the better. But I am growing wood faster than I burn it so if I burn wood I will put less carbon in the air than if I use electricity or propane for heat. You realize the utter _bull****_ of that statement, don't you? sigh You're growing trees anyway, so the use of propane would be much, much better for the ecology. BANK on it. On the other hand I also put bad particulates into the air when burning wood. At rates many orders of magnitude larger, too. And much mo http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/w...ion-Chart..jpg (Crom, I hate quoting from econazi sites, but, occasionally, they're actually right on the money.) -- The most powerful factors in the world are clear ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will. -- J. Arthur Thomson |
Wood heat in a shop
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:30:27 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:37:09 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:00:15 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:17:33 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 07:56:43 -0600, "Terry Coombs" wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: Btw...you are aware that the EPA just banned the use of most wood stoves and fireplaces..right? Gunner And how do you think this will play out ? Over half of the people we know up here heat with wood - and these same people are already pretty fed up with being told what we can't do . These same people also have guns and know how to use them ... I suspect the feral hog population around here will be well-fed if they try to take away our heat . There just aren't any affordable options out here in the woods . Electric isn't an option any more , with the increasing regulation on power generation making it too expensive , and LPG is being priced out of reach now too . Natural gas isn't available out here , it's just not profitable to run pipelines out here due to low population density . That leaves wood or solar , and very few of us can afford the equipment investment for solar , much less the cost of retrofitting . I see scary times ahead , this may just be that proverbial final straw . They've indoctrinated our children , they've adulterated our food supply and made health care unaffordable for most of us . Now they want to take away our source of heat ? I think that ain't gonna happen . JEEZ Terry! Someone spouts off and you don't even check it out but start talking about guns and pig feed? Simmer down. The EPA is not going to ban the use of wood burning stoves in our life time. Furthermore, stoves already in place will not need to be removed. Washington State, where I live, has one of the most, if not the most, restrictive standards on wood stove pollution. And we have burn bans. But the burn bans do not apply if the stove is your only source of heat. And if you cannot afford the power, gas, or oil to heat your house then burning wood to heat your home is OK during a burn ban. I Jackson County, OR (medford, down the road) has a similar setup. http://www.co.jackson.or.us/page.asp?navid=2492 county and state http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/burnin.../heatsmart.htm Well it only makes sense. We can't have too many wood burning heaters running all winter because of the pollution. At the same time we can't have folks freezing and pipes freezing in the winter in homes where the people are already living with small incomes. I argue with myself about whether to burn wood. Electricity that I use comes partly from fossil fuels. Propane is also a fossil fuel. Until we get fusion, we burn fossil fuels or (better) use reactors. If we use reactors which can burn the spent fuel, so much the better. But I am growing wood faster than I burn it so if I burn wood I will put less carbon in the air than if I use electricity or propane for heat. You realize the utter _bull****_ of that statement, don't you? sigh You're growing trees anyway, so the use of propane would be much, much better for the ecology. BANK on it. On the other hand I also put bad particulates into the air when burning wood. At rates many orders of magnitude larger, too. And much mo http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/w...ion-Chart..jpg (Crom, I hate quoting from econazi sites, but, occasionally, they're actually right on the money.) Greetings Larry, It is debateable whether burning fossil fuels or wood is ultimately the better solution when it comes to greenhouse effects. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Eric --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Wood heat in a shop
Jim Wilkins wrote: I installed a mirror outside so I could see the chimney top while sitting in front of the stove. It would smoke badly if I followed the instructions for a slow "cigarette burn". Instead I leave a channel open down the center, in line with the air inlet, that lets the full length of the wood burn from the center outward, for about an hour at a steady temperature before it starts to cool. The display in the kitchen tells me when it needs feeding again. http://www.antiquesnavigator.com/eba...0440642291.jpg Mine is the 1970's Taiwanese copy. The happy draft disk setting is closed against a 3-4mm Allen wrench. The long and tedious experimenting was to leak just enough additional preheated secondary air into the upper chamber to completely burn the smoke without cooling the flue and reducing the draft, or becoming unstable and running away. Those things can be hard to tame. What about a catalytic converter? |
Wood heat in a shop
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:51:08 -0800, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:30:27 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:37:09 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:00:15 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:17:33 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 07:56:43 -0600, "Terry Coombs" wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: Btw...you are aware that the EPA just banned the use of most wood stoves and fireplaces..right? Gunner And how do you think this will play out ? Over half of the people we know up here heat with wood - and these same people are already pretty fed up with being told what we can't do . These same people also have guns and know how to use them ... I suspect the feral hog population around here will be well-fed if they try to take away our heat . There just aren't any affordable options out here in the woods . Electric isn't an option any more , with the increasing regulation on power generation making it too expensive , and LPG is being priced out of reach now too . Natural gas isn't available out here , it's just not profitable to run pipelines out here due to low population density . That leaves wood or solar , and very few of us can afford the equipment investment for solar , much less the cost of retrofitting . I see scary times ahead , this may just be that proverbial final straw . They've indoctrinated our children , they've adulterated our food supply and made health care unaffordable for most of us . Now they want to take away our source of heat ? I think that ain't gonna happen . JEEZ Terry! Someone spouts off and you don't even check it out but start talking about guns and pig feed? Simmer down. The EPA is not going to ban the use of wood burning stoves in our life time. Furthermore, stoves already in place will not need to be removed. Washington State, where I live, has one of the most, if not the most, restrictive standards on wood stove pollution. And we have burn bans. But the burn bans do not apply if the stove is your only source of heat. And if you cannot afford the power, gas, or oil to heat your house then burning wood to heat your home is OK during a burn ban. I Jackson County, OR (medford, down the road) has a similar setup. http://www.co.jackson.or.us/page.asp?navid=2492 county and state http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/burnin.../heatsmart.htm Well it only makes sense. We can't have too many wood burning heaters running all winter because of the pollution. At the same time we can't have folks freezing and pipes freezing in the winter in homes where the people are already living with small incomes. I argue with myself about whether to burn wood. Electricity that I use comes partly from fossil fuels. Propane is also a fossil fuel. Until we get fusion, we burn fossil fuels or (better) use reactors. If we use reactors which can burn the spent fuel, so much the better. But I am growing wood faster than I burn it so if I burn wood I will put less carbon in the air than if I use electricity or propane for heat. You realize the utter _bull****_ of that statement, don't you? sigh You're growing trees anyway, so the use of propane would be much, much better for the ecology. BANK on it. On the other hand I also put bad particulates into the air when burning wood. At rates many orders of magnitude larger, too. And much mo http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/w...ion-Chart..jpg (Crom, I hate quoting from econazi sites, but, occasionally, they're actually right on the money.) Greetings Larry, HowDEE! It is debateable whether burning fossil fuels or wood is ultimately the better solution when it comes to greenhouse effects. I figured any debate was over when I looked at the difference in pollution between the two, with wood and coal so -much- higher than any (other) fossil fuel. ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different. Wood stoves up to 400x the pollutants of nat gas/propane. It isn't rocket surgery. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the way I see it.) I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. -- The most powerful factors in the world are clear ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will. -- J. Arthur Thomson |
Wood heat in a shop
SNIP
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the way I see it.) I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. Eric --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Wood heat in a shop
|
Wood heat in a shop
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:22:46 -0600, Ignoramus18213
wrote: On 2014-02-06, wrote: And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. ^^^^^^^ Right there The mistake in the sentence is the last word. Meant as a pun. I'm glad someone got it. Eric --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Wood heat in a shop
|
Wood heat in a shop
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:31:00 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote: SNIP Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the way I see it.) I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. Eric Remember too, in your green frenzy, that exhaling adds carbon to the environment..... Perhaps less breathing? I'm not having a green frenzy. And besides, I'm sure my farts contribute to the greenhouse effect much more than the CO2 I exhale. But how about you answer the question? If I'm wrong in my statements correct me. Eric --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Wood heat in a shop
|
Wood heat in a shop
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:22:46 -0600, Ignoramus18213
wrote: On 2014-02-06, wrote: And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. ^^^^^^^ Right there I'm pretty sure he did that on porpoise, Ig. -- The most powerful factors in the world are clear ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will. -- J. Arthur Thomson |
Wood heat in a shop
On 2014-02-06, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote: SNIP Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the way I see it.) I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. The steak is missing where you think putting pollution into the air where is WAS on the ground is OK while taking it from under the ground is not OK. It's the same to me. Cutting down a tree removes if from taking CO2 from the air and producing oxygen. Then you want to burn it, on top of that? So, using a fuel (wood) which is four hundred times more polluting than another (propane/natgas), while being -aware- of that difference, seems downright irresponsible. That's where we differ. I don't see folks who do this as having any kind of moral high ground at all. Growing trees to compensate for our carbon footprint is fine with me, but reducing the amount of our pollution seems to be the best bet yet. I've been an environmentalist since 1969, but refuse to call myself that any more, given the total ecoterrorist makeup of most enviros nowadays. Crikey, what a mess. The cut down tree will be replaced with another tree, which will absorb carbon when growing. And the EPA wants to take the last ten-billionth of a percent of something instead of stopping things which are putting out tens of percents of those ghastly greenhouse gases. Go figure. Me? I take the cuts where they matter most. Like swapping from coal to nuclear power. INSTANT (what, 50%?) decrease in global greenhouse emissions and a metric ****load less heat produced, too. With stoves, EPA is concerned not with carbon emissions, but with fine particulate emissions (smoke), which are bad for your neighbors' health. This fine particulates is what causes the polluted air horrors in China. Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke. i |
Wood heat in a shop
wrote in message ... On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:31:00 +0700, John B. wrote: On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote: SNIP Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the way I see it.) I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. Eric Remember too, in your green frenzy, that exhaling adds carbon to the environment..... Perhaps less breathing? I'm not having a green frenzy. And besides, I'm sure my farts contribute to the greenhouse effect much more than the CO2 I exhale. But how about you answer the question? If I'm wrong in my statements correct me. Only difference between burning a tree and it a natural death and decomposition is that in the latter case, it takes longer for the carbon from a rotting tree to return to the atmosphere, where it is once again available to be taken up by a living tree (or in your case, two) Even setting aside the fact that planting more trees than you burn enriches the atmospheric ogygen concentration, Larry's argument is bogus unless he can come up with practical method for collecting the carbon that results from burning propane and using it to make more propane with. |
Wood heat in a shop
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:45:30 PM UTC-5, Ignoramus18213 wrote:
Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke. i But the EPA is not doing all it could to get people to use better stove designs. The EPA is never going to manage to prevent people from building wood stoves. And as it is most of those home built stoves will not burn well and will emit a lot of smoke. But if the EPA did some research on wood burning and set up some way for people to purchase EPA approved plans for high efficiency wood stoves. Then people would build better stoves and there would be less pollution. In fact if people could purchase a right to build a good wood stove at a reasonable price, I think people would replace the poor designed stoves with better stoves. So I think the EPA is on the wrong track, or at least not the best track. Dan |
Wood heat in a shop
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:37:09 -0800, wrote: [snip] But I am growing wood faster than I burn it so if I burn wood I will put less carbon in the air than if I use electricity or propane for heat. You realize the utter _bull****_ of that statement, don't you? sigh You're growing trees anyway, so the use of propane would be much, much better for the ecology. BANK on it. But if he stopped cutting them and burning them, they'd die, fall down, rot and release all that CO2 back into the atmosphere anyway. And nobody would get the benefit of the heat. Over the long term, forests left alone* have a net zero contribution to carbon sequestration. The only carbon they can remove from the environment is that removed by a logging truck. Pretty much the only natural positive carbon sink is a peat bog. -- Paul Hovnanian ------------------------------------------------------------------ Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and tasty with barbecue sauce. |
Wood heat in a shop
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:45:30 -0600, Ignoramus18213
wrote: On 2014-02-06, Larry Jaques wrote: On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote: SNIP Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the way I see it.) I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. The steak is missing where you think putting pollution into the air where is WAS on the ground is OK while taking it from under the ground is not OK. It's the same to me. Cutting down a tree removes if from taking CO2 from the air and producing oxygen. Then you want to burn it, on top of that? So, using a fuel (wood) which is four hundred times more polluting than another (propane/natgas), while being -aware- of that difference, seems downright irresponsible. That's where we differ. I don't see folks who do this as having any kind of moral high ground at all. Growing trees to compensate for our carbon footprint is fine with me, but reducing the amount of our pollution seems to be the best bet yet. I've been an environmentalist since 1969, but refuse to call myself that any more, given the total ecoterrorist makeup of most enviros nowadays. Crikey, what a mess. The cut down tree will be replaced with another tree, which will absorb carbon when growing. It will take 15-100 years for the new tree to replace the CO2-sucking capabilities of its predecessor. Yes, plant trees, but don't think that a sapling is anything like its senior citizen tree when it comes to cleaning air and producing oxygen. And the EPA wants to take the last ten-billionth of a percent of something instead of stopping things which are putting out tens of percents of those ghastly greenhouse gases. Go figure. Me? I take the cuts where they matter most. Like swapping from coal to nuclear power. INSTANT (what, 50%?) decrease in global greenhouse emissions and a metric ****load less heat produced, too. Pardon my tangent there. I was pointing out the silly things which they're outlawed in industry for the past several decades while not even addressing the things which would make real change happen in lowering the overall national pollution. With stoves, EPA is concerned not with carbon emissions, but with fine particulate emissions (smoke), which are bad for your neighbors' health. This fine particulates is what causes the polluted air horrors in China. Yes, I feel it's time to address the wood smoke pollution. Absolutely. I had trouble breathing today on the trip to my mailbox. I was out of breath and feeling green when I completed the 90 steps due to the leaf burning and woodstoves combined with this inversion layer. Ick! Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke. Overall, the EPA is on an extremely bad track. It will continue to do very little for the environment while running companies out of business and costing humans thousands of times more than it should. I hope their stove regulation changes make good headway into the problem without causing undue strain on the poor. Why doesn't the EPA charge more for recurring fines paid by large corporations who knowingly break the law? The EPA goes after the little guys and charges them a lot more than it does the corps, fer Crom's sake. A guy spills a quart of oil and is fined more than the corp who gassed an entire town, etc. So far, it's considerably cheaper for corps to break laws (and get away with it) rather than update their anti-smog technology with existing fixes. Those fines could pay for new tech where it's needed. Win/Win! -- The most powerful factors in the world are clear ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will. -- J. Arthur Thomson |
Wood heat in a shop
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:44:54 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote: Larry Jaques wrote: On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:37:09 -0800, wrote: [snip] But I am growing wood faster than I burn it so if I burn wood I will put less carbon in the air than if I use electricity or propane for heat. You realize the utter _bull****_ of that statement, don't you? sigh You're growing trees anyway, so the use of propane would be much, much better for the ecology. BANK on it. But if he stopped cutting them and burning them, they'd die, fall down, rot and release all that CO2 back into the atmosphere anyway. And nobody would get the benefit of the heat. Over the long term, forests left alone* have a net zero contribution to carbon sequestration. The only carbon they can remove from the environment is that removed by a logging truck. Pretty much the only natural positive carbon sink is a peat bog. AFAIC, the whole carbon scene is a silly, political mess. Luckily, Algore didn't make billions from it as he tried, with his lying, bull****, made-up story of a movie. He owned lots of shares in carbon credit companies. -- The most powerful factors in the world are clear ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will. -- J. Arthur Thomson |
Wood heat in a shop
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:45:30 -0600, Ignoramus18213 wrote: On 2014-02-06, Larry Jaques wrote: On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote: SNIP Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the way I see it.) I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. The steak is missing where you think putting pollution into the air where is WAS on the ground is OK while taking it from under the ground is not OK. It's the same to me. Cutting down a tree removes if from taking CO2 from the air and producing oxygen. Then you want to burn it, on top of that? So, using a fuel (wood) which is four hundred times more polluting than another (propane/natgas), while being -aware- of that difference, seems downright irresponsible. That's where we differ. I don't see folks who do this as having any kind of moral high ground at all. Growing trees to compensate for our carbon footprint is fine with me, but reducing the amount of our pollution seems to be the best bet yet. I've been an environmentalist since 1969, but refuse to call myself that any more, given the total ecoterrorist makeup of most enviros nowadays. Crikey, what a mess. The cut down tree will be replaced with another tree, which will absorb carbon when growing. It will take 15-100 years for the new tree to replace the CO2-sucking capabilities of its predecessor. Yes, plant trees, but don't think that a sapling is anything like its senior citizen tree when it comes to cleaning air and producing oxygen. Just yesterday you were saying it was better to just burn propane.... And the EPA wants to take the last ten-billionth of a percent of something instead of stopping things which are putting out tens of percents of those ghastly greenhouse gases. Go figure. Me? I take the cuts where they matter most. Like swapping from coal to nuclear power. INSTANT (what, 50%?) decrease in global greenhouse emissions and a metric ****load less heat produced, too. Pardon my tangent there. I was pointing out the silly things which they're outlawed in industry for the past several decades while not even addressing the things which would make real change happen in lowering the overall national pollution. Are you drunk? The above makes no sense whatsoever..... With stoves, EPA is concerned not with carbon emissions, but with fine particulate emissions (smoke), which are bad for your neighbors' health. This fine particulates is what causes the polluted air horrors in China. Yes, I feel it's time to address the wood smoke pollution. Absolutely. I had trouble breathing today on the trip to my mailbox. I was out of breath and feeling green when I completed the 90 steps due to the leaf burning and woodstoves combined with this inversion layer. Ick! Of course... --but the Surgeon General was wrong in putting warning lables on cigarettes back in 1966, correct? Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke. Overall, the EPA is on an extremely bad track. It will continue to Obviously, you have a chrystal ball...appreciate tell me who's going to win next years world series, so that I can "bank on it" do very little for the environment while running companies out of business and Name even a single company that was "run out of business by the EPA" and whose market share wasn't immediately gobbled up by some other company that takes the EPA regulations a little more seriously. costing humans As opposed to costing....mollusks? thousands of times more than it should. To accomplish what, exactly? Why doesn't the EPA charge more for recurring fines paid by large corporations who knowingly break the law? Because idiots like you keep voting for the candidates who are supported by large corporations... --got any more stupid questions? The EPA goes after the little guys and charges them a lot more than it does the corps, fer Crom's sake. And, the moon is made of fruitcake..... A guy spills a quart of oil and is fined more than the corp who gassed an entire town, etc. Cites? So far, it's considerably cheaper for corps to break laws (and get away with it) rather than update their anti-smog technology with existing fixes. Yet, you continue supporting politicians who advocate "letting businesses police themselves" Those fines could pay for new tech where it's needed. Win/Win! http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/Fruitcake.jpg -- "I was asked once, "You're a smart man. Why aren't you rich?" I replied, "You're a rich man. Why aren't you smart?" --Jacque Fresco |
Wood heat in a shop
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:10:35 -0800, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:31:00 +0700, John B. wrote: On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote: SNIP Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the way I see it.) I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. Eric Remember too, in your green frenzy, that exhaling adds carbon to the environment..... Perhaps less breathing? I'm not having a green frenzy. And besides, I'm sure my farts contribute to the greenhouse effect much more than the CO2 I exhale. But how about you answer the question? If I'm wrong in my statements correct me. Eric The question is redundant unless you are going to give up heating your house if your fire introduces excess carbon into the atmosphere. You might as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a needle as it has as much relevance to the question of heating your house. As for your frats, I read a very serious article by a Greenie regarding the release of methane gas in cattle farts which, the article argued, was a major danger to the earth's environment. But if one really, really, wants to be green then it is time to do something about those volcanos. I read one post by a geologist that reckoned that one volcano emits, in one day, more CO2 then all the greenies in the U.S. can save in five years. -- Cheers, John B. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter