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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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?"
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
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.
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
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
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
