Wood heat in a shop

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@whidbey.com wrote:


Remember too, in your green frenzy, that exhaling adds carbon to the environment..... Perhaps less breathing?
--
Cheers,

John B.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

as

the

that

air.

the

am

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:10:35 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@whidbey.com wrote:

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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@whidbey.com wrote:

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.
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 shitload less heat produced, too.
--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The cut down tree will be replaced with another tree, which will absorb carbon when growing.

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:45:30 PM UTC-5, Ignoramus18213 wrote:

But the EPA is not doing all it could to get people to use better stove des igns. The EPA is never going to manage to prevent people from building wo od 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 bu rning and set up some way for people to purchase EPA approved plans for hi gh efficiency wood stoves. Then people would build better stoves and there would be less pollution. In fact if people could purchase a right to buil d 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It regulates what it can, which is commercial stove industry. And it demanded that the industry makes stoves based on modern less-polluting designs.
Makes sense to me. Stoves are not banned, they just need to be made right. Existing stoves are not affected.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:20:45 PM UTC-5, Ignoramus26948 wrote:

It regulates the commercial stove industy , but also regulates the home built stoves. You can not install a home built stove unless you have it tested by a testing lab. So effectively you can not legally install a home built stove.
And unlike say the government U.S. Forest Products Lab, the EPA does not publish anything to help individuals. They should be doing research on designing better stoves and making plans available to individuals.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What happened to your municipality demanding that you clean up your yard? Did they leave you alone?
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:45:30 -0600, Ignoramus18213

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.

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.

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!

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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Just yesterday you were saying it was better to just burn propane....

Are you drunk? The above makes no sense whatsoever.....

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

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"

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.

As opposed to costing....mollusks?

To accomplish what, exactly?

Because idiots like you keep voting for the candidates who are supported by large corporations...
--got any more stupid questions?

And, the moon is made of fruitcake.....

Cites?

Yet, you continue supporting politicians who advocate "letting businesses police themselves"

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?"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

The last lead smelter in the US has been shut down. No more lead smelted in the US.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hogwash, 97% of lead smelting in the US uses recycled lead as the feedstock; these smelters are still very much open for business

No, no more PRIMARY lead smelting, an activity which amounted to only 3% of lead production in the first place and which (as I said before) no doubt will resume if and when there develops sufficient demand.
http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/lead/1-year/
"the small increase in demand should be met by existing sources or possibly by a new U.S. smelter using already existing technology that is capable of meeting the new air quality standards"
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/12/us-ammunition-industry-to-survive-closure-of-lead-smelter.aspx
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:01:22 -0800, Larry Jaques

The problem is that y'all really don't want to do anything about the CO2 content, you just want to dance around and give the impression that you are doing something.
I've read some pretty definitive numbers that demonstrate that a major cause of high CO2 levels is the private owned motor vehicle, but has anyone suggested banning them? Nope. Everyone NEEDs his big SUV, NEEDS it, I say!
Nope, don't even think of banning the big producers. Quick, get that Boy Scout... looks like he might light a campfire.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<SNIP>>

I didn't say polluting the air was OK. And just because it's the same to you, whether the carbon comes from fossil fuels or from trees, doesn't mean that they are the same. Carbon added to our environment that was sequestered millions of years ago is not the same as carbon released from burning vegetation that is growing now. No matter what you think. As far as pollution in its entirety from wood burning stoves compared to burning propane you are correct that burning propane in a modern heater pollutes less. much less. If a wood burning stove was built that released only the same pollutants in the same quantities for the same BTU output as burning propane the stove would have a less harmful effect on our environment. If we don't stop adding the CO2 to our environment from fossil fuel burning our planet is going to experience general warming. And that most likely would be a bad thing as far as human life is concerned. I do worry about the stuff that comes out of my fireplace. I have to weigh the total pollutants released against not adding to the total carbon load of our present day environment. And I have vacillated about which is best. At the same time I drive a car that burns fossil fuels and I heat my shop with propane. Which shows that I'm not always doing what's best for our planet. I do try to rely on the best scientific evidence to make my decisions, not a particular political viewpoint. And I am not going to say any more about this on RCM. In fact, I shouldn't have posted several of the messages I did on this subject because they weren't metal related. If you want to correspond with me any more about this then please send me an email. Cheers, Eric
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

[snip]

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 mailto: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:44:54 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."

AFAIC, the whole carbon scene is a silly, political mess. Luckily, Algore didn't make billions from it as he tried, with his lying, bullshit, 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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/4/2014 6:56 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

know

up

and know

And how do you think THIS will play out?

any more

expensive

available

low

can

straw .

supply and

away

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Traditional_fruitcake . jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.