Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood logs
cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.

http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm

Optimistically - burning wood is carbon neutral.

It can even be carbon positive with the right woodburning stove, as
the methane (a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) that would
otherwise be released to the atmosphere from rotting timber is burnt
in the stove.

Practically there are aspects like transportation etc, so the carbon
impact is smaller than other fuels but not zero.

Oh - and you can get 2 lots of warmth out of them. One lot when you
chop them, and another from burning them;-)

On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti
wrote:

Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood logs
cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.

http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm

All the local schools are being converted to this at horrible cost of
£60,000+ each, so it must have something.

It seems based on that burning cheap quick growing local wood
introduces a zero footprint cycle. The growing wood locks away a
quantity of co2. Burning the same wood releases the co2, and around
you go.

I am not sure about the validity of the model whoever.

"EricP" wrote in message
...
On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti
wrote:

Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood
logs
cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.

http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm

All the local schools are being converted to this at horrible cost
of
£60,000+ each, so it must have something.

It seems based on that burning cheap quick growing local wood
introduces a zero footprint cycle. The growing wood locks away a
quantity of co2. Burning the same wood releases the co2, and around
you go.

I am not sure about the validity of the model whoever.

That works if you use a stone axe to fell the trees, and carry them
home on your back. If on the other hand you use a chain saw and a
lorry then fossil fuels start being used !

AWEM

On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti wrote:

|!Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
|!confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
|!Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood logs
|!cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.
|!
|!http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm

Carbon neutrality/Greenness have absolutely *no* relationship to Cost.
My SIL gets logs for free from tree surgeons for the asking.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

On May 14, 8:17 pm, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti wrote:


Carbon neutrality/Greenness have absolutely *no* relationship to Cost.
My SIL gets logs for free from tree surgeons for the asking.
--
Excuse my ignorance Dave but what is a SIL ?

On 14 May 2007 12:28:49 -0700, penvale wrote:

|!On May 14, 8:17 pm, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
|! On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti wrote:
|!
|!
|! Carbon neutrality/Greenness have absolutely *no* relationship to Cost.
|! My SIL gets logs for free from tree surgeons for the asking.
|! --
|!Excuse my ignorance Dave but what is a SIL ?

Son In Law.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

EricP wrote:
On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti
wrote:


Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood logs
cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.

http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm


All the local schools are being converted to this at horrible cost of
£60,000+ each, so it must have something.

How are the wood burners fed? If they are hopper fed, who fills the hopper?

I ask as a re-retired school site supervisor who had too much work
thrust on him :-(

Dave

On Mon, 14 May 2007 22:07:42 +0100, Dave wrote:

How are the wood burners fed? If they are hopper fed, who fills the
hopper?

And empties the ash...

Not quite sure I agree with the figures on the soliftec site. Who gets
standard rate lecky at 4.7p/unit these days? I'm on one of the cheapest
tarriffs I could find at 7.19p/unit. Oil; my records going back to Jul
2005 peak at 35p/l not 37p/l.

Anyone care to explain how and why burning wood produces so much less
carbon per useful kW than all the other fuels?

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article .com,
carloponti writes:
Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood logs
cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.

http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm

It's a bit misleading. They emit much more CO2 than is shown in that
bar chart. The thing is the CO2 they emit was recently absorbed from
the atmosphere as the original plant grew, and I assume that's been
omitted. If you believe in carbon footprints, then it is only CO2
which was absorbed from the atmosphere many thousands of years ago
which is significant. Cycling CO2 around in a few years is not.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Mawson wrote:
"EricP" wrote in message
...
On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti
wrote:

Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood
logs
cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.

http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm
All the local schools are being converted to this at horrible cost
of
£60,000+ each, so it must have something.

It seems based on that burning cheap quick growing local wood
introduces a zero footprint cycle. The growing wood locks away a
quantity of co2. Burning the same wood releases the co2, and around
you go.

I am not sure about the validity of the model whoever.

That works if you use a stone axe to fell the trees, and carry them
home on your back. If on the other hand you use a chain saw and a
lorry then fossil fuels start being used !

Not very much.

AWEM

On 14 May 2007 23:38:16 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

It's a bit misleading. They emit much more CO2 than is shown in that
bar chart. The thing is the CO2 they emit was recently absorbed from
the atmosphere as the original plant grew, and I assume that's been
omitted.

Ah that answers my question about why the carbon emmisions where so low
for wood. I can live with that. But they really ought to explain it a bit
more clearly, I suspect most people think that CO2 is bad end of story, in
my view it's not that simple. We could burn just as much "oil" as we burn
now provided that the source of that "oil" was from a renewable source.

Cycling CO2 around in a few years is not.

Thats my view but we also have to do something about re-fixing the fossil
C02 that has been released in the last few hundred years.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On 15 May, 00:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andrew Mawson wrote:
"EricP" wrote in message
.. .
On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti
wrote:

Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood
logs
cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.

http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm
All the local schools are being converted to this at horrible cost
of
£60,000+ each, so it must have something.

It seems based on that burning cheap quick growing local wood
introduces a zero footprint cycle. The growing wood locks away a
quantity of co2. Burning the same wood releases the co2, and around
you go.

I am not sure about the validity of the model whoever.

That works if you use a stone axe to fell the trees, and carry them
home on your back. If on the other hand you use a chain saw and a
lorry then fossil fuels start being used !

Not very much.

AWEM

Wood use can be carbon negative as increased demand for wood can lead
to conservation, replanting etc.
This increases the amount of fixed carbon which otherwise would have
been in the atmosphere as CO2.
Iron making was originally wood fired and conservation/replacement was
well thought out - it's usually in places where timber is not valued
that de-forestation takes place. So steel tool production can be
carbon negative too
Throw in horse/water/wind/human/sun power, water transport by canal
or sail, wood based transport by cart/carriage, wood fuelled steam
engines, more use of timber in buildings, and you have a busy
industrial life which would be quite sustainable without fossil
fuels.
We would also have a delightfully forested environment to support the
demand for wood. We'd probably have to go veggie as meat is very
wasteful of land, but we could catch the odd bit of game in the new
forests.

cheers
Jacob

normanwisdom wrote:
On 15 May, 00:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andrew Mawson wrote:
"EricP" wrote in message
...
On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti
wrote:
Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood
logs
cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.
http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm
All the local schools are being converted to this at horrible cost
of
£60,000+ each, so it must have something.
It seems based on that burning cheap quick growing local wood
introduces a zero footprint cycle. The growing wood locks away a
quantity of co2. Burning the same wood releases the co2, and around
you go.
I am not sure about the validity of the model whoever.
That works if you use a stone axe to fell the trees, and carry them
home on your back. If on the other hand you use a chain saw and a
lorry then fossil fuels start being used !
Not very much.

AWEM

Wood use can be carbon negative as increased demand for wood can lead
to conservation, replanting etc.
This increases the amount of fixed carbon which otherwise would have
been in the atmosphere as CO2.
Iron making was originally wood fired and conservation/replacement was
well thought out - it's usually in places where timber is not valued
that de-forestation takes place. So steel tool production can be
carbon negative too
Throw in horse/water/wind/human/sun power, water transport by canal
or sail, wood based transport by cart/carriage, wood fuelled steam
engines, more use of timber in buildings, and you have a busy
industrial life which would be quite sustainable without fossil
fuels.
at a populuation about 1/10th of what it is now, and at a level of
civilization that no self respecting aborigine would touch with a long
wooden spear..

We would also have a delightfully forested environment to support the
demand for wood. We'd probably have to go veggie as meat is very
wasteful of land, but we could catch the odd bit of game in the new
forests.

Indeed. The habit of eating meat, rather than plants, is obviously so
detrimental to the species that no culture that has adopted it has ever
expanded or risen to a dominant position in the world.

cheers
Jacob


Dream on.
TNP

On Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:49 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

|!On 14 May 2007 23:38:16 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
|!
|! It's a bit misleading. They emit much more CO2 than is shown in that
|! bar chart. The thing is the CO2 they emit was recently absorbed from
|! the atmosphere as the original plant grew, and I assume that's been
|! omitted.
|!
|!Ah that answers my question about why the carbon emmisions where so low
|!for wood. I can live with that. But they really ought to explain it a bit
|!more clearly, I suspect most people think that CO2 is bad end of story, in
|!my view it's not that simple. We could burn just as much "oil" as we burn
|!now provided that the source of that "oil" was from a renewable source.

Only CO2 from fossil fuels causes global warming. Anything where the
carbon is recycled over a few years/tens of years, like logs, and
bio-diesel does not have any substantial effect

|!Thats my view but we also have to do something about re-fixing the fossil
|!C02 that has been released in the last few hundred years.

Can not be done :-( there is too much CO2, many millions of tons, in the
atmosphere to even attempt it. I live on top of the Barnsley Seam of
coal, seven foot of best quality coal. Put "Barnsley Seam" into Wikipedia
and you will find 25 collieries which mined it. Think about getting that
underground again. I have not mentioned all the other coal seams and oil
fields.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:49 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

|!On 14 May 2007 23:38:16 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
|!
|! It's a bit misleading. They emit much more CO2 than is shown in that
|! bar chart. The thing is the CO2 they emit was recently absorbed from
|! the atmosphere as the original plant grew, and I assume that's been
|! omitted.
|!
|!Ah that answers my question about why the carbon emmisions where so low
|!for wood. I can live with that. But they really ought to explain it a bit
|!more clearly, I suspect most people think that CO2 is bad end of story, in
|!my view it's not that simple. We could burn just as much "oil" as we burn
|!now provided that the source of that "oil" was from a renewable source.

Only CO2 from fossil fuels causes global warming. Anything where the
carbon is recycled over a few years/tens of years, like logs, and
bio-diesel does not have any substantial effect

|!Thats my view but we also have to do something about re-fixing the fossil
|!C02 that has been released in the last few hundred years.

Can not be done :-( there is too much CO2, many millions of tons, in the
atmosphere to even attempt it. I live on top of the Barnsley Seam of
coal, seven foot of best quality coal. Put "Barnsley Seam" into Wikipedia
and you will find 25 collieries which mined it. Think about getting that
underground again. I have not mentioned all the other coal seams and oil
fields.

Would take a lot of nuclear power stations to generate the energy to
turn the CO2 back into coal...;-)

On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:11:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Would take a lot of nuclear power stations to generate the energy to
turn the CO2 back into coal...;-)

Only if you want it doing quickly. I think the mistake we're making is
not planning long term enough for whatever re-evolves after we've
killed this part of the planet off and ourselves.
If we buried lots of wood and plants in the right places would they
form coal of the future?
--
http://wwww.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://wwww.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

Mogga wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:11:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Would take a lot of nuclear power stations to generate the energy to
turn the CO2 back into coal...;-)

Only if you want it doing quickly. I think the mistake we're making is
not planning long term enough for whatever re-evolves after we've
killed this part of the planet off and ourselves.
If we buried lots of wood and plants in the right places would they
form coal of the future?

Probably methane intead, by and large..

No doubt the worlds eiosystem will evolve High CO2 loving, high
temperature low rainfall type stuff in a few million years and restore
the balance.

Probably some species of giant mangrove will replace humanity in Bangladesh.

Whilst the elite inhabit the sunny slopes of antarctica, dreming of
world domination..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mogga wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:11:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Would take a lot of nuclear power stations to generate the energy to
turn the CO2 back into coal...;-)

Only if you want it doing quickly. I think the mistake we're making is
not planning long term enough for whatever re-evolves after we've
killed this part of the planet off and ourselves.
If we buried lots of wood and plants in the right places would they
form coal of the future?

Probably methane intead, by and large..

No doubt the worlds eiosystem will evolve High CO2 loving, high
temperature low rainfall type stuff in a few million years and restore the
balance.

Probably some species of giant mangrove will replace humanity in
Bangladesh.

Whilst the elite inhabit the sunny slopes of antarctica, dreming of world
domination..

Actually there are a number of natural processes that can take up excess
CO2 - for instance peat bog formation can take CO2 out of circulation (as
long as you don't drain and burn them!). Biological processes in the ocean
can take out CO2 (grow plankton - plankton dies - plankton sinks to sea
floor). Perhaps more significantly CO2 dissolves in cold seawaters, so
eventually, if we stop over-producing CO2 things will recover. Unfortunately
the rate of dissoloution in the oceans is slower than the rate of man-made
production. Worse because C)2 dissolves best in cool waters there is less
dissoloution as the world warms...

Andy

On May 14, 10:29 pm, "Dave Liquorice" wrote:
Anyone care to explain how and why burning wood produces so much less
carbon per useful kW than all the other fuels?

Easy. The carbon that is released as CO2 has been "recently" captured
from the atmosphere by the growing tree (so it doesn't really count)
*[see below]. The only remain footprint is the fossil fuel used to
cut, process, and transport the fuel - this is comparitively small.

* Another way of looking at it, is that the CO2 you release by burning
the wood is directly taken up by the tree that has been planted to
replace the one felled to provide your timber.

Of course, if you burn a large chunk of Brazilian rain-forest without
replanting, that is /not/ carbon neutral.

On 15 May, 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
normanwisdom wrote:
On 15 May, 00:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andrew Mawson wrote:
"EricP" wrote in message
...
On 14 May 2007 10:56:06 -0700, carloponti
wrote:
Can a wood burning fire be consider as a green alternative ? I'm
confused, I was checking out comparative fuel cost on the The Solid
Fuel Technology Institute website and it would appear that wood
logs
cost the least and have the lowest carbon emissions per kW.
http://www.soliftec.com/fuelcost.htm
All the local schools are being converted to this at horrible cost
of
£60,000+ each, so it must have something.
It seems based on that burning cheap quick growing local wood
introduces a zero footprint cycle. The growing wood locks away a
quantity of co2. Burning the same wood releases the co2, and around
you go.
I am not sure about the validity of the model whoever.
That works if you use a stone axe to fell the trees, and carry them
home on your back. If on the other hand you use a chain saw and a
lorry then fossil fuels start being used !
Not very much.

AWEM

Wood use can be carbon negative as increased demand for wood can lead
to conservation, replanting etc.
This increases the amount of fixed carbon which otherwise would have
been in the atmosphere as CO2.
Iron making was originally wood fired and conservation/replacement was
well thought out - it's usually in places where timber is not valued
that de-forestation takes place. So steel tool production can be
carbon negative too
Throw in horse/water/wind/human/sun power, water transport by canal
or sail, wood based transport by cart/carriage, wood fuelled steam
engines, more use of timber in buildings, and you have a busy
industrial life which would be quite sustainable without fossil
fuels.

at a populuation about 1/10th of what it is now, and at a level of
civilization that no self respecting aborigine would touch with a long
wooden spear..
Meat production takes about 10 times the energy of veggies - so we
could just about do it!
More like the level of civilisation when these conditions were last in
place - at the beginning of the industrial revolution before the major
use of coal and well before oil. Not too bad in the late 18th century
- factor in our present knowledge of science, technology, medicine etc
and things could be even better.

We would also have a delightfully forested environment to support the
demand for wood. We'd probably have to go veggie as meat is very
wasteful of land, but we could catch the odd bit of game in the new
forests.

Indeed. The habit of eating meat, rather than plants, is obviously so
detrimental to the species that no culture that has adopted it has ever
expanded or risen to a dominant position in the world.
Coincidence - if true at all.
Large areas of the planet are being de-forested for meat of fodder
production so it might kill us all off in the end.
I'm not a veggie BTW but I wish everybody else was it'd help save the
planet etc

Dream on.
Agree - it won't happen

cheers
jacob

On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:16:05 +0100, "Andy McKenzie"
wrote:

|!
|!Actually there are a number of natural processes that can take up excess
|!CO2 - for instance peat bog formation can take CO2 out of circulation (as
|!long as you don't drain and burn them!).

Or use the bogs for agriculture, when they oxidise very slowly, The Fens
have sunk many feet since they were drained my the Romans and medieval
Monks.

--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:16:05 +0100, "Andy McKenzie"
wrote:

|!
|!Actually there are a number of natural processes that can take up excess
|!CO2 - for instance peat bog formation can take CO2 out of circulation (as
|!long as you don't drain and burn them!).

Or use the bogs for agriculture, when they oxidise very slowly, The Fens
have sunk many feet since they were drained my the Romans and medieval
Monks.

Er..actually Dutch engineers of the 18th century.

normanwisdom wrote:
..
Meat production takes about 10 times the energy of veggies - so we
could just about do it!

TRy growing veggies in the tundra or in forests..much easier to eat the
deer that can digest the lichens we cannot.. Ditto savannah. we cant
digest grass, grazers can, We can digest grazers.

Agriculture for *crops* takes FAR more energy of the fossil fuel kind
than meat. YOU try harvesting a ton of potatoes without any mechinical
assistance, versus killing a ton of beef. And teh by products of beef
production are so much more useful. Leather for shoes, glues for
furniture, gelatin for jellies..what do you get out of a field of whet?
straw for making rooves with at best.

More like the level of civilisation when these conditions were last in
place - at the beginning of the industrial revolution before the major
use of coal and well before oil.

Twaddle. That was the most unremitting poverty and peasant style grind
alleviated only by the occasional decent meal of MEAT. At a population
level about one tenth of what it is today, and with loads of coal and
iron ore available to make tools with.


Not too bad in the late 18th century
- factor in our present knowledge of science, technology, medicine etc
and things could be even better.

Nothing can replace the fact that incredibly hard physical labour, and
its detrimental effects on our health and longevity, has been replaced
by machine power, allowing us to expand our population tenfold. Without
machines 90% of us are dead, and the remaining 10% condemned to a life
snentence of hard labour,of which you cannot possibly imagine the nature.

We would also have a delightfully forested environment to support the
demand for wood. We'd probably have to go veggie as meat is very
wasteful of land, but we could catch the odd bit of game in the new
forests.
Indeed. The habit of eating meat, rather than plants, is obviously so
detrimental to the species that no culture that has adopted it has ever
expanded or risen to a dominant position in the world.
Coincidence - if true at all.
Large areas of the planet are being de-forested for meat of fodder
production so it might kill us all off in the end.

Life will kill us all in the end. Its simply a question of how many will
be able to live off what's left over, and in what sort of lifestyle. And
in company with what species.

The present world population levels are simply unsustainable.

Unles we go massively hi tech and nuclear.


I'm not a veggie BTW but I wish everybody else was it'd help save the
planet etc

It wouldn't. The planet will be allright. We won't. Going veggie changes
nothing.

We garden a reasonable vegetable garden. Given the difference between
the digging, planting, weeding, fertilising and harvesting of all that,
which is very hard work, and simply archery-ing a deer to death and
having meat for a week, I know which uses the least energy!

I am all for hunter gathering, but you can stick your veggies and
agriculture up Uranus.

It remains simply a way to create and extend a peasantry whose lives are
those of unremitting toil, poor diet and utterly limited stimulation. Th
esole requirement for a peasant to stay in business, is the ability to
produce another snivelling brat before he or she dies.

Now the world is awash with them. However it cannot last much longer.


Dream on.
Agree - it won't happen

cheers
jacob

On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:23:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:16:05 +0100, "Andy McKenzie"
|! wrote:
|!
|! |!
|! |!Actually there are a number of natural processes that can take up excess
|! |!CO2 - for instance peat bog formation can take CO2 out of circulation (as
|! |!long as you don't drain and burn them!).
|!
|! Or use the bogs for agriculture, when they oxidise very slowly, The Fens
|! have sunk many feet since they were drained my the Romans and medieval
|! Monks.
|!
|!Er..actually Dutch engineers of the 18th century.

Who extended the draining by the Romans and Medieval monks.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:23:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:16:05 +0100, "Andy McKenzie"
|! wrote:
|!
|! |!
|! |!Actually there are a number of natural processes that can take up excess
|! |!CO2 - for instance peat bog formation can take CO2 out of circulation (as
|! |!long as you don't drain and burn them!).
|!
|! Or use the bogs for agriculture, when they oxidise very slowly, The Fens
|! have sunk many feet since they were drained my the Romans and medieval
|! Monks.
|!
|!Er..actually Dutch engineers of the 18th century.

Who extended the draining by the Romans and Medieval monks.

Hardly. if the romans and mediaeval monks did 2% of the fens it hasn't
been noted.
I suppose its in the spirit of 'Werner Von Braun extended teh work first
started by Ug, the caveman, when he threw a rock at a passing sabre
tooth tiger, to strike London with 2 tons of high expslosive ballistic
missile'

On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:14:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:23:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
|!
|! |!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! |! On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:16:05 +0100, "Andy McKenzie"
|! |! wrote:
|! |!
|! |! |!
|! |! |!Actually there are a number of natural processes that can take up excess
|! |! |!CO2 - for instance peat bog formation can take CO2 out of circulation (as
|! |! |!long as you don't drain and burn them!).
|! |!
|! |! Or use the bogs for agriculture, when they oxidise very slowly, The Fens
|! |! have sunk many feet since they were drained my the Romans and medieval
|! |! Monks.
|! |!
|! |!Er..actually Dutch engineers of the 18th century.
|!
|! Who extended the draining by the Romans and Medieval monks.
|!
|!Hardly. if the romans and mediaeval monks did 2% of the fens it hasn't
|!been noted.

http://www.marchmuseum.co.uk/About%2...tm#_The_Romans

The Romans were the first to try to control the water of the Fens by
creating Car Dyke. This a catch water drain from the River Cam north of
Cambridge round the southwest side of the Fens catching the water coming
from the central highlands and taking it round the lower fenland directly
out to sea somewhere near Fosdyke. This waterway was used as a canal for
cargo boats.

http://www.marchmuseum.co.uk/About%2....htm#_Drainage

Other than Car Dyke, which can still be traced in places, all Roman efforts
at fen drainage had vanished by the 15th century and other fragmentary
efforts at drainage had failed. In 1480 Bishop Morton of Ely attempted to
straighten the River Nene to speed its flow to the Wash. Morton?s Leam was
dug and is still part of the drainage system along the southern side of the
Nene Washes from Stanground, near Peterborough, to Guyhirne where it joins
the tidal River Nene.

--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:14:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:23:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
|!
|! |!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! |! On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:16:05 +0100, "Andy McKenzie"
|! |! wrote:
|! |!
|! |! |!
|! |! |!Actually there are a number of natural processes that can take up excess
|! |! |!CO2 - for instance peat bog formation can take CO2 out of circulation (as
|! |! |!long as you don't drain and burn them!).
|! |!
|! |! Or use the bogs for agriculture, when they oxidise very slowly, The Fens
|! |! have sunk many feet since they were drained my the Romans and medieval
|! |! Monks.
|! |!
|! |!Er..actually Dutch engineers of the 18th century.
|!
|! Who extended the draining by the Romans and Medieval monks.
|!
|!Hardly. if the romans and mediaeval monks did 2% of the fens it hasn't
|!been noted.

http://www.marchmuseum.co.uk/About%2...tm#_The_Romans
The Romans were the first to try to control the water of the Fens by
creating Car Dyke. This a catch water drain from the River Cam north of
Cambridge round the southwest side of the Fens catching the water coming
from the central highlands and taking it round the lower fenland directly
out to sea somewhere near Fosdyke. This waterway was used as a canal for
cargo boats.

http://www.marchmuseum.co.uk/About%2....htm#_Drainage
Other than Car Dyke, which can still be traced in places, all Roman efforts
at fen drainage had vanished by the 15th century and other fragmentary
efforts at drainage had failed. In 1480 Bishop Morton of Ely attempted to
straighten the River Nene to speed its flow to the Wash. Morton?s Leam was
dug and is still part of the drainage system along the southern side of the
Nene Washes from Stanground, near Peterborough, to Guyhirne where it joins
the tidal River Nene.


Neither of these were attempts to drain the fens: merely to create
navigable waterways.

Bishop Morton's efforts arguably reduced flooding in high rain however.

Without pumps - and that meant windmills - draining the fens in any real
sense was not possible.

We garden a reasonable vegetable garden. Given the difference between
the digging, planting, weeding, fertilising and harvesting of all that,
which is very hard work, and simply archery-ing a deer to death and
having meat for a week, I know which uses the least energy!
So why don't you keep a deer or two instead of breaking your back
weeding and fighting off the slugs?
The answer in part is the energy 10% - you'd need 10 times the land to
live off meat alone.
There is a crude ratio of 10 between solar energy input per unit of
food material plant/herbivore/carnivore i.e. a carnivore effectively
takes up 100 times the solar energy per unit mass compared to a plant.
I am all for hunter gathering, but you can stick your veggies and
agriculture up Uranus.

It remains simply a way to create and extend a peasantry whose lives are
those of unremitting toil, poor diet and utterly limited stimulation. Th
esole requirement for a peasant to stay in business, is the ability to
produce another snivelling brat before he or she dies.

I had in mind a post modern, nouveau pauvre, neo-peasant i.e. life as
a self-sufficient peasant but with some of the benefits of modern life
- and of course a fair distribution of wealth.

normanwisdom wrote:
We garden a reasonable vegetable garden. Given the difference between
the digging, planting, weeding, fertilising and harvesting of all that,
which is very hard work, and simply archery-ing a deer to death and
having meat for a week, I know which uses the least energy!
So why don't you keep a deer or two instead of breaking your back
weeding and fighting off the slugs?

Don't need to.
They wander in and out anyway.,

The answer in part is the energy 10% - you'd need 10 times the land to
live off meat alone.

Not really.

You try living off woodland. I can't. Deer can.

Its the removal of forest to make way for crops that is causing half the
worlds global warning anyway, accoording to the greenies.

There is a crude ratio of 10 between solar energy input per unit of
food material plant/herbivore/carnivore i.e. a carnivore effectively
takes up 100 times the solar energy per unit mass compared to a plant.

Well worth it for the tatse alone I'd say. How long would you exist
living on grass/bark anyway?

I am all for hunter gathering, but you can stick your veggies and
agriculture up Uranus.

It remains simply a way to create and extend a peasantry whose lives are
those of unremitting toil, poor diet and utterly limited stimulation. Th
esole requirement for a peasant to stay in business, is the ability to
produce another snivelling brat before he or she dies.

I had in mind a post modern, nouveau pauvre, neo-peasant i.e. life as
a self-sufficient peasant but with some of the benefits of modern life
- and of course a fair distribution of wealth.


There is no fair distribution of wealth. Unfair distribution of wealth
and industry is what got us out of the grueling poverty trap that
agriculture put us in, in the first place.

You need wholly undeserved leisure time at someone else's expense, to
develop art, literature and science. In a marginal labour based economy,
no one has it unless they take it in an unfair way.

Round here we have the modern equivalent of peasants. People who work
the land. It takes an intense amount of work and a lot of machinery and
a devil of a lot of science to extract enough crop from the acreage to
even stay in business.

If you are prepared to accept a 20 hour working day, and a population
level at something like 1/10th what it is, physically burned out by age
50, and no leisure at all, then it can be done as you describe.
Otherwise I suggest you emigrate to Bangladesh, and try it out for
yourself. I haven't seen much science, art or literature, let alone
medical advances or anything coming out of there ever.

Socialism per se has one basic flaw: It concentrates solely on slicing
the cake. No one is permitted to sit there with their feet up pondering
on how to bake a bigger cake.

The only truly ecologically sound lifestyle is the hunter gatherer. At
population density about 1% of what it is today.

On 16 May, 09:04, normanwisdom wrote:

I had in mind a post modern, nouveau pauvre, neo-peasant i.e. life as
a self-sufficient peasant but with some of the benefits of modern life
- and of course a fair distribution of wealth.

So, what would you be willing to go without? I could be very
comfortable as a nouveau pauvre, once I had acquired the trappings
necessary to live out my bourgeois fantasy.

T.

wrote:
On 16 May, 09:04, normanwisdom wrote:

I had in mind a post modern, nouveau pauvre, neo-peasant i.e. life as
a self-sufficient peasant but with some of the benefits of modern life
- and of course a fair distribution of wealth.

So, what would you be willing to go without? I could be very
comfortable as a nouveau pauvre, once I had acquired the trappings
necessary to live out my bourgeois fantasy.

T.

Well I did more or less that..by simply stopping working as all debt was
paid off.. I slashed the outgoings by more than 15k a year.

Suddenly car usage down for 15-25k miles a year to less than 8k a year.

Expenditure on 'suits' dropped to zero.

No need to eat, out drink at the pub, and take expensive foreign
holidays when not stressed out by Work.

Use less hot water (no need to shower every day or more) but more spent
on heating the house.

What else could I lose? all the junkmail..about half a bin a week. All
the packaging on the food..another half bin a week. In fact its probably
true to say that better than 90% of all our waste in teh bin is
packaging or junkmail, most of which is absolutely uncecessary.


Everything that can be, is composted.

the irreducible minimum of personal energy use goes to heat the house -
by far the biggest single item - and in transporting in the stuff one
needs to live on. Online shopping and using the village shop helps..its
more efficient to have stiff delivered than it is to collect it
yourself, and often cheaper.

A fair bit goes on lighting and electrical stuff - fridges and TVs and
the like.

If the whole country adopted an online stay at home/ work from home
lifestyle I would say we might save 30-40% of the energy. Domestic
robberies would probably vanish completely, along with urban congestion.
However saving 30-40% of the energy really isn't worth ****ing around
with.We need to come down to 10% or less if we stick with carbon fuels.

There isn't enough land area of quality to grow enough food for the
nation even if we all went veggie, and certainly not if its being used
for biofuel, and/or people keep looking greedily at farmland and
muttering 'low cost houses for wurkahs'

Ultra energy efficient urban housing and no car ownership at all might
enable us to get down some more..but there is simply npo way we can ever
go back to the sort of per capita net carbon emmissions of 300 years ago
without a dramatic drop in population levels.

In short the only real answer is nuclear power - lots of it. Wind power
is not that reliable..its there when its not needed and not there when
it is..OK it might be that some sort of home based massive battery packs
could absorb it when e.g. the grid voltage rises (showing spare
capacity)especially into the 'tanks' of electric cars..

The reality is that in the short term all one can do is **** with the
details, and try an engender some savings by getting rid of commuting
and working from home wherever possible, and shopping online as much as
possible. In the medium term nuclear fission electric is the only really
viable alternative, and in the longer term fusion of some sort. For this
country anyway.

Its a lot easier to deal with 50 tons of radioactive isotopes for ten
thousand years than with 50 million tonnes of CO2 for 10,000 years..

On 16 May, 13:08, wrote:
On 16 May, 09:04, normanwisdom wrote:

I had in mind a post modern, nouveau pauvre, neo-peasant i.e. life as
a self-sufficient peasant but with some of the benefits of modern life
- and of course a fair distribution of wealth.

So, what would you be willing to go without? I could be very
comfortable as a nouveau pauvre, once I had acquired the trappings
necessary to live out my bourgeois fantasy.

T.

Wrong question really.
We should ask; how can we cope without fossil fuels and their by
products, as supplies run out and CO2 reduction is seen by all as
unavoidable and essential for our survival?

cheers
Jacob

normanwisdom wrote:
On 16 May, 13:08, wrote:
On 16 May, 09:04, normanwisdom wrote:

I had in mind a post modern, nouveau pauvre, neo-peasant i.e. life as
a self-sufficient peasant but with some of the benefits of modern life
- and of course a fair distribution of wealth.
So, what would you be willing to go without? I could be very
comfortable as a nouveau pauvre, once I had acquired the trappings
necessary to live out my bourgeois fantasy.

T.

Wrong question really.
We should ask; how can we cope without fossil fuels and their by
products, as supplies run out and CO2 reduction is seen by all as
unavoidable and essential for our survival?

cheers
Jacob

Build nuclear power stations, beef up the grid and run electric
vehicles, Its that simple.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

normanwisdom wrote:
On 16 May, 13:08, wrote:
On 16 May, 09:04, normanwisdom wrote:

I had in mind a post modern, nouveau pauvre, neo-peasant i.e. life as
a self-sufficient peasant but with some of the benefits of modern life
- and of course a fair distribution of wealth.
So, what would you be willing to go without? I could be very
comfortable as a nouveau pauvre, once I had acquired the trappings
necessary to live out my bourgeois fantasy.

T.

Wrong question really.
We should ask; how can we cope without fossil fuels and their by
products, as supplies run out and CO2 reduction is seen by all as
unavoidable and essential for our survival?

cheers
Jacob

Build nuclear power stations, beef up the grid and run electric
vehicles, Its that simple.

I think that at least in the short to medium term biofuels are the
obvious solution, not least because we have in recent years seen an
increase in the number of deisel vehicles on the road which can burn it.
The problem is where to get the biomass. The problem is there is simply
not enough arable land to both grow food and biofuel. However in New
Zealand a biotech company has developed a method to extract biodiesel
from algae grown on sewerage as part of its treatment. The left overs
from the oil extraction can be a feedstock for ethanol production (on
which petrol engines can run). AFAIK there has been one successful trial
of the biodiesel in a car running a 50/50 mix. A trial on full biodiesel
is planned.

So the bigger the metropolis, the more ****, the more **** the more
fuel. So you are turning agricultural produce into fuel, but only
indirectly. In rural areas farmers with a slurry problem suddenly have a
slurry solution that will make money. The carbon costs of transporting
fuel also just about disappear. In town in can be piped to fuel
stations.

I see nothing to stop this becoming a reality. No major modifications
are needed to the transport fleet. People employed in refineries can
relocate to sewerage farms.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Peter Ashby wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

normanwisdom wrote:
On 16 May, 13:08, wrote:
On 16 May, 09:04, normanwisdom wrote:

I had in mind a post modern, nouveau pauvre, neo-peasant i.e. life as
a self-sufficient peasant but with some of the benefits of modern life
- and of course a fair distribution of wealth.
So, what would you be willing to go without? I could be very
comfortable as a nouveau pauvre, once I had acquired the trappings
necessary to live out my bourgeois fantasy.

T.
Wrong question really.
We should ask; how can we cope without fossil fuels and their by
products, as supplies run out and CO2 reduction is seen by all as
unavoidable and essential for our survival?

cheers
Jacob

Build nuclear power stations, beef up the grid and run electric
vehicles, Its that simple.

I think that at least in the short to medium term biofuels are the
obvious solution, not least because we have in recent years seen an
increase in the number of deisel vehicles on the road which can burn it.

They are not, because there is insufficient land area to generate the
fuel required.

Biofuels are very handy, because they can go into the same general
distribution strategy that oil companies make vast profits on. Nuclear
electric leaves oil companies as fossilized dinosaurs with nowhere to go.

Hence the HUGE push on biofuels - and indeed hydrogen.

Oil companies do the chemical fuel thing. Oil companies have billions to
spend on espousing whatever messagge they care. Hence last year
hydrogen, this year biofuels. Its largely ********. I did eh sums, and
after diesel used to f=grown and harvest the crop, the 10 acres of rape
behind the house would probably just about keep three couples like us
supplied..and that was without electricity too. 1.5 acres a head of
prime agricultural per annum?. Do the sums..


The problem is where to get the biomass. The problem is there is simply
not enough arable land to both grow food and biofuel. However in New
Zealand a biotech company has developed a method to extract biodiesel
from algae grown on sewerage as part of its treatment. The left overs
from the oil extraction can be a feedstock for ethanol production (on
which petrol engines can run). AFAIK there has been one successful trial
of the biodiesel in a car running a 50/50 mix. A trial on full biodiesel
is planned.


All good stuff but nothing like the scale needed.

So the bigger the metropolis, the more ****, the more **** the more
fuel. So you are turning agricultural produce into fuel, but only
indirectly. In rural areas farmers with a slurry problem suddenly have a
slurry solution that will make money. The carbon costs of transporting
fuel also just about disappear. In town in can be piped to fuel
stations.

Youll be telling me next that actually like cattle, humans are basically
wasteful of energy, and we should turn human food directly into biofuel,
without the humans, and save the planet.



I see nothing to stop this becoming a reality. No major modifications
are needed to the transport fleet. People employed in refineries can
relocate to sewerage farms.


Scaling up and the numbers.

All energy is ultimately nuclear. Chemical energy just happens to be an
easy way to access it in stored format. You probably get a better
conversion efficiency from a few solar furnaces in the desert than you
would from processing biomass.

The really key issues is that there isn't enough *usable* sunlight
falling on the *usable* areas of the UK to ever make it self sufficient
on either food or energy at the population levels that exist today.

So, import energy, go nuclear or let the population die.

Your choice.

Whilst it is conceivable that we might be able to exist as a post
industrial society on 50% of current per capita energy, 5% is simply not
doable in the short to medium term.






Peter

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


The problem is where to get the biomass. The problem is there is simply
not enough arable land to both grow food and biofuel. However in New
Zealand a biotech company has developed a method to extract biodiesel
from algae grown on sewerage as part of its treatment. The left overs
from the oil extraction can be a feedstock for ethanol production (on
which petrol engines can run). AFAIK there has been one successful trial
of the biodiesel in a car running a 50/50 mix. A trial on full biodiesel
is planned.


All good stuff but nothing like the scale needed.

yet compared with agricultural biomass plants, much of the
infrastructure for this is in places or should be for water quality
reasons. It could also make processing waste self funding.

So the bigger the metropolis, the more ****, the more **** the more
fuel. So you are turning agricultural produce into fuel, but only
indirectly. In rural areas farmers with a slurry problem suddenly have a
slurry solution that will make money. The carbon costs of transporting
fuel also just about disappear. In town in can be piped to fuel
stations.

Youll be telling me next that actually like cattle, humans are basically
wasteful of energy, and we should turn human food directly into biofuel,
without the humans, and save the planet.

No, we are however like cattle not very efficient at extracting energy
from our food (yes I know we have an obesity epidemic, nevertheless). I
forget the efficiency of the human gut but it is not high, and if your
diet is rich in fruit and veg even less so (all that fibre). I have not
actually seen estimates of how much energy you can get out of say a city
of 300,000, I doubt they are quite that far on.

I have also read about a project to use the heat and CO2 output of a
coal fired station to similarly grow algae for biodiesel and bioethanol
production. That process is apparently energy neutral though there may
be some solar/wind input too. Compared to the Carbon costs of finding,
exploiting transporting, refining, transporting again etc oil it looks
from a carbon budget p.o.v. a big reduction. Even if it is only a
partial solution, it is likely to be a big portion implemented properly.

At the moment we are taking all that biomass and pumping it out to sea
or into rivers. Biomass is a technically useful fuel source through a
variety of processes, so it would be sheer madness NOT to exploit it.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

In article ,
Dave Fawthrop writes:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:49 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
|!Thats my view but we also have to do something about re-fixing the fossil
|!C02 that has been released in the last few hundred years.

Can not be done :-( there is too much CO2, many millions of tons, in the
atmosphere to even attempt it.

One way is to grow trees and then cut them down and bury them
in old coal mines. You could use them for paper, and then
dump the old paper into coal mines and landfill, which is in
effect the exact reverse of digging up coal and burning it.

The big snag with all this is that global warming is most
unlikely to have anything to do with man-made CO2 or any other
man-made product, so you're really just wasting your time, and
the extra energy it takes to do this.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Fawthrop writes:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:49 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
|!Thats my view but we also have to do something about re-fixing the
fossil
|!C02 that has been released in the last few hundred years.

Can not be done :-( there is too much CO2, many millions of tons, in the
atmosphere to even attempt it.

One way is to grow trees and then cut them down and bury them
in old coal mines. You could use them for paper, and then
dump the old paper into coal mines and landfill, which is in
effect the exact reverse of digging up coal and burning it.

Dumping it in an ocean trench would probably be better.

On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:38:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No doubt the worlds eiosystem will evolve High CO2 loving, high
temperature low rainfall type stuff in a few million years and restore
the balance.

It did and they still exist. IIRC they are mainly the blue/green algae and
the things whose skeletons make up chalk and limestone. They dominated the
worlds oceans for a very significant part of the the time there has been
life on earth, in the order of 50% of the time, absorbing CO2 and
releasing toxic oxygen.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail