|
| Author |
Message |
rockies
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Feb 2017 19:17
Reply
With changes to Govt regulations coming in 2020 the wood stove industry will have to get particle emissions below 2 grams/hr for crib and 2.5 grams/hr for cordwood. Many stove on the market today can't meet those requirements and the problem becomes worse when you use wet fire wood.
The Woodstock Soapstone Company makes the "Absolute Steel Hybrid" which according to the EPA's certified stove list has the lowest emissions so far (for a non-pellet wood stove). The company made this video on the results of using wet wood with a catalytic converter stove.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmReSRqaquE
Another thing worth considering would be to own a firewood moisture meter.
http://www.chainsawjournal.com/firewood-moisture-meter-buying-guide/
Using drier firewood will greatly reduce the possible buildup of creosote within the stove chimney and help prevent possible chimney fires.
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Feb 2017 19:36
Reply
Not to mention burning green wood results in very little heat and a miserable camper!
I think someone here learned that lesson the hard way. Hmmm. Who was it again. 
|
|
TerraLove
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Feb 2017 16:33
Reply
What's this with blaming woodstoves for emissions, when China emits what, a billion tons of smoke every year?
Would the woodstove owners have to do annual emissions tests as well?
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Feb 2017 00:03
Reply
There are a couple of points. One, wood smoke gets trapped in inversion layers. And you end up breathing the particles. Bad for the lungs.
Two. China just cancelled all coal plants including the ones they're already building. Might have something to do with the death rate attributed to the bad air. But probably just means they've noticed solar and wind are cheaper than coal.
I don😨t remember the stat. But apparently they have 100 of thousands of bad air attributed deaths a year.
|
|
TerraLove
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Feb 2017 11:10
Reply
We are SOL then.
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Feb 2017 11:23 - Edited by: creeky
Reply
ya pretty much. we used to look at 350ppm as a unreachable ceiling. So its pretty worrisome that we're happily soaring into the 400s. (CO2)
Still. "we the people" as individuals create the problem. and the solution is, as individuals, to modify our behaviour and fix the problem. so solar. wind. (which also brings down the real cost of energy). catalytic converters. electric cars. gardens. buying less red meat. buying more organic.
I'll be da*&ed if I can't work and yes even sacrifice to help my kids have a clean green future.
|
|
TerraLove
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Feb 2017 17:53
Reply
Is higher CO2 is bad for humankind?
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Feb 2017 18:43
Reply
Quoting: creeky "we the people" as individuals create the problem. and the solution is, as individuals, to modify our behaviour and fix the problem
 ...but then you don't have to convince me that "we" are, at least, a part of the problem.
|
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 15 Feb 2017 23:56
Reply
Well Goggle "co2 effects on human performance"
higher CO2 does appear to be bad for people. Even at lower levels (600ppm) there is research that indicates higher CO2 seems to reduce mental performance. So that could be a problem.
Also it appears that higher CO2 makes our blood more acidic. This can be fatal. But even if it only reduces vigor. It becomes a life enjoyment issue.
However, to my mind, I see the acidification of the oceans as the biggest problem. A lot of protein comes out of those waters.
Thx MtnDon. This is a tough topic.
I've said this before. But in my family we've been talking about this since the mid-70s. So it's been kind of shocking to us watching how quickly things have changed. I mean we were talking "hypothetically" about the arctic going ice free sometime past 2100. Now the latest data is saying 2030. And its real.
Still. What's the first "r" Reduce. And what can I do. Act local.
Was it the beastie boys who said "you gotta fight, for your right, to party!"
|
|
TerraLove
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Feb 2017 12:15
Reply
CO2 is used by the plants in photosynthesis. More CO2 - more plants - cheaper food. Yum!
Less CO2 - less plants - more reliance on fertilizers - big $$ to Monsanto. Uh-oh!
Follow the cash flow.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Feb 2017 14:22
Reply
More CO2 may not be better, just as bigger is not always better.
Article
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Feb 2017 00:03
Reply
Sorry Terra. But that's a logical fallacy. There's an old logic lesson that goes
If an apple is a bright colour and round and it's a fruit. And an orange is a bright colour and round and its a fruit. then a 7 ball from a pool table is a fruit.
There's a good lesson in common logical fallacies here.
Helps to sort out the manure.
|
|
TerraLove
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Feb 2017 10:30
Reply
I did not find anything about CO2 on the linked page. Care to point out any errors in my thinking above?
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Feb 2017 19:10
Reply
Sure. First you say that because plants use CO2, more is better. So let's examine that assumption.
First: If you have a car engine and shove more gasoline into it does it go faster or does it stall and quit. So we see that there is reason to think that maybe that assumption could be wrong.
Now if you take MtnDon's link you'll see the spot where it says
"132 plots of flowers and grass in California and introduced varying levels of carbon dioxide, temperature, water, and nitrogen"
and then the result
"only higher nitrogen levels resulted in higher plant productivity"
So now your assumption that increased CO2 is good for plant growth is tested and proven inaccurate.
Finally.
You then make a leap of logic. Less CO2, less plants, more fertilizer.
And you provide no relevant proofs to this, so, again, assumption. And rather fuzzy logic.
Magic fairy dust has not been shown to make plants or ideas grow.
This is a complex issue. But one thing is clear. The tested, verified, retested, reverified proof of the 70s era hypothesis that CO2 was going to increase world temperatures is true.
Some of the environmental results have caught everyone off guard. I, amongst many, did not see the damage being done to the oceans. Who knew that the acid level of the ocean would change for the first time in 400,000 years.
Who knew that the coral would bleach out.
Sadly, rising CO2 is only beginning to show its less happy side. But humans have dealt with problems of pollution before. Water treatment plants and sewer systems spring to mind.
We just need better CO2 treatment. And cleaner energy systems.
Luckily we've timed it right. Solar is so cheap now. At christmas I was with two engineers. One who helped build Canada's nuclear electric grid. His grandson building todays solar grid.
According to them we have a real opportunity to access more and cheaper power that we ever dreamed of. We just need folks to bite the bullet. Make a small sacrifice for our kids and the future. Building a better world. Plus its going to be fun and cool. Imagine a world without the constant roar of engines. Nice.
And you know. A solar system is what. 20k. Gee. Go crazy. Put up a 35k system. So for the price of the average car you can have reliable, cost guaranteed power for the next 30 years.
Btw thanks. Your attitude shows you're being open minded about this. I for one appreciate that.
|
|
|
