Heating with wood pollutes more than any other heating method

[Highbeam]

I still think a questionnaire should be out there, for a person's carbon footprint. I mow and hand rake my yard. I do not use a mowing service, does that offset my footprint? I have neighbors that go to a gym, but don't push mow their lawn. What is the smart choice? It goes a lot further than a heating device

There are tons of these questionnaires out there. Problem is, they're all extremely biased and assign points or weighting towards ridiculous agendas. Electric cars are zero emissions for example, sure if you don't count the coal burning power plan that charges the batteries. Or the emissions to mine the lithium, build the car, etc.

I burn wood and call it carbon neutral because those trees have already absorbed the carbon from the air. I use logging waste and tree service waste. No trees are cut for the purpose of providing my fuel, but even if they were, new trees take their place. The trees had spent their lives growing and scrubbing carbon from the air so I am releasing only that carbon back into the atmosphere to complete the cycle. Burning wood creates no new carbon (or doesn't unlock buried carbon) so I believe it is carbon neutral.

 

[Highbeam]

If you choose not to believe in manmade climate change that's entirely up to you. But claiming that there is not science to support it just isn't accurate. After all the debating on this subject I have been involved with I have yet to see anyone produce actual scientific evidence refuting it. Just opinions and pointing out that the climate has always changed.

Perhaps the "science to support it" is not conclusive enough for everyone. Especially when this science is being used improperly to draw conclusions, make predictions, fund more research, or line the pockets of certain people. Too many scammers and biased people out there with supposed scientific support for their chosen agendas.

 

[brenndatomu]

I've been hearing arguments like yours for over 15 years now, always fact free and always unwilling to really look into the science.

I've read your "science"...but still not buying it. Look how well its turned out in the end for all the "science" we were fed the last 2.5-3 years! Science has a big problem...it always has to figure out how to get funded...

The idea is to reduce possible bad outcomes where we can.

Yup, totally agreed. But I'll let ya in on a lil secret, big picture, we ain't really in control of this big ride called life (or the earth)
(unless maybe some nut job goes and pushes "the big red button"!)

After all the debating on this subject I have been involved with I have yet to see anyone produce actual scientific evidence refuting it. Just opinions and pointing out that the climate has always changed.

So you do not agree that the climate has always changed? And if you do agree that it has, the word "change" implies that there is fluctuation, up and down, no? (if all the change has been in one direction, we'd already be toast)

 

[JRP3]

Electric cars are zero emissions for example, sure if you don't count the coal burning power plan that charges the batteries. Or the emissions to mine the lithium, build the car, etc.

Prime example of misinformation. US grid is only about 21% coal, which means 79%, most power, is NOT from coal.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Also lithium only makes up about 2-4% of a lithium ion battery and mining it has very little proportional impact. It also doesn't get destroyed during use and it and all other battery materials remain to be recycled and reused when the pack finally dies. Even including production emissions EV's are cleaner than internal combustion vehicles.

Yale Study Puts The Kibosh On EV Emissions Myth

EV emissions are much lower than those from gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles, according to a study from Yale University.

cleantechnica.com

 

[bholler]

Perhaps the "science to support it" is not conclusive enough for everyone. Especially when this science is being used improperly to draw conclusions, make predictions, fund more research, or line the pockets of certain people. Too many scammers and biased people out there with supposed scientific support for their chosen agendas.

And I can completely understand and respect that. But to say there is no science supporting it isn't accurate

 

[peakbagger]

BTW old solar panels unless defectively made last a long time. I have a beat up Siemens panel that I bought used running my solar hot water pump for close to 20 years. It was defective when new and was replaced. The dealer was supposed to destroy it but stashed it and the rest of the array until I bought it. Its about a 25 year old panel. Some of its "brothers" are still in service at various off grid camps. At least two of them put out nameplate. Three of them run my solar well pump for my garden. I also have a set of Sharp panels I bought new just about 20 years old in fine condition cranking out the watts. I just picked up a 30 year old set for small house projects. My experience is they rarely stop putting out power, they just taper off. I actually like some of the earlier panels as they are very beefy and take a lot of abuse, the newer panels are lighter and the wafers are thinner.

Even panels that have less than nameplate still are of value in 3rd world countries. With a cheap 12 volt car lighter socket USB adaptor (they used to give them away at trade show booths) and a panel a cell phone can be charged. In a lot of the third world folks may not have power but they have cell phones. The parts that make up most panels are not very toxic, the aluminum rails are glued to the panel and sharp knife to score the glue and sharp whack will usually dislodge the rails from the panel. There is a lead/silver solder, tedlar (a PVF) backing and silicone fragments. The crude method of burning the broken panel fragments is pretty ugly and toxic to recover the lead and silver tracing but there is already technology to do it a lot cleaner there just has not been concentrated demand to do so.

 

[JRP3]

Science has a big problem...it always has to figure out how to get funded

You think the established petroleum industry and automotive industry aren't the ones paying to spread the misinformation you're swallowing and repeating? They use the same tactics as the tobacco industry did to fight against the connection between smoking and cancer. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JRP3]

Yup, totally agreed. But I'll let ya in on a lil secret, big picture, we ain't really in control of this big ride called life

And yet I'm sure you take a number of precautions to improve your safety every single day. Your statement is not an argument.

 

[JRP3]

Especially when this science is being used improperly to draw conclusions, make predictions, fund more research, or line the pockets of certain people.

Yes like when the petroleum industry spends money to deny the climate science they know to be true:

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

www.scientificamerican.com

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

 

[bholler]

I've read your "science"...but still not buying it. Look how well its turned out in the end for all the "science" we were fed the last 2.5-3 years! Science has a big problem...it always has to figure out how to get funded...

It isn't my science. It is what the world scientific community agrees upon. Yes there are some outliers absolutely. But they really never produce any evidence

So you do not agree that the climate has always changed? And if you do agree that it has, the word "change" implies that there is fluctuation, up and down, no? (if all the change has been in one direction, we'd already be toast)

Absolutely the climate has always changed. And the evidence shows it's closely related to co2 levels as well. It also shows the change has accelerated greatly since the industrial revolution. Without question there have been lots of bad models through the years. They haven't been accurate with their predictions but that doesn't change the fact that the climate is changing at an accelerated rate compared to what it was doing before we started digging up and burning fossil fuels.

 

[Riverbanks]

Is it true or not, I remember being told, D ont disturb the stump of a tree, that's where the carbon is being stored?

 

[JRP3]

The entire tree is stored carbon, I don't think the stump holds any extra per volume.

 

[Highbeam]

Prime example of misinformation. US grid is only about 21% coal, which means 79%, most power, is NOT from coal.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Also lithium only makes up about 2-4% of a lithium ion battery and mining it has very little proportional impact. It also doesn't get destroyed during use and it and all other battery materials remain to be recycled and reused when the pack finally dies. Even including production emissions EV's are cleaner than internal combustion vehicles.

Yale Study Puts The Kibosh On EV Emissions Myth

EV emissions are much lower than those from gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles, according to a study from Yale University.

cleantechnica.com

And you prove my point. Zero emissions electric vehicle yet, 21 % is from coal burning. See how people like you make people like me skeptical?

 

[brenndatomu]

You think the established petroleum industry and automotive industry aren't the ones paying to spread the misinformation you're swallowing and repeating? They use the same tactics as the tobacco industry did to fight against the connection between smoking and cancer. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you are so small minded to think that I only read info from a few biased sources, or points of view, you are less bright than I would have previously given you credit for. I just don't find the "global warming" data to pass the sniff test when you really get down to it.

And yet I'm sure you take a number of precautions to improve your safety every single day. Your statement is not an argument.

And why would I not...safety measures often reduce pain. Doesn't guarantee a darn thing though! Like I said, we ain't really in control here...

And you prove my point. Zero emissions electric vehicle yet, 21 % is from coal burning. See how people like you make people like me skeptical?

Not to mention the larger portion fuel by NG...which while cleaner than coal, is not zero emissions either!

And this thread...

 

[JRP3]

And you prove my point. Zero emissions electric vehicle yet, 21 % is from coal burning. See how people like you make people like me skeptical?

No, I see how people like you use straw men and misdirection to avoid having to change your mind. The car has no emissions coming out of it. Turn on an EV in a closed garage, nothing happens. Don't try that with an internal combustion vehicle of course. No one pretends that producing it, or any product, has no emissions. Do you consider the emissions of your phone or computer?

 

[JRP3]

If you are so small minded to think that I only read info from a few biased sources, or points of view, ...

You have provided zero evidence to the contrary. The only link you've used is garbage.

Not to mention the larger portion fuel by NG...which while cleaner than coal, is not zero emissions either!

No one ever pretended that power plants had no emissions, just that there is a clear path forward for zero emissions power generation. Just another straw man from the denial crowd.

 

[Highbeam]

No, I see how people like you use straw men and misdirection to avoid having to change your mind. The car has no emissions coming out of it. Turn on an EV in a closed garage, nothing happens. Don't try that with an internal combustion vehicle of course. No one pretends that producing it, or any product, has no emissions. Do you consider the emissions of your phone or computer?

Smoke and mirrors sir.

 

[JRP3]

Smoke and mirrors sir.

Facts and evidence, you can check all the sources I've provided.

 

[Highbeam]

Facts and evidence, you can check all the sources I've provided.

It's not that I dispute your facts and evidence, there is valid supporting science. It's how you apply those little tidbits and try to trick people with them into your conclusion.

Calm down, nobody is going to burst into flames from "your" global warming for at least a couple of years.

 

[JRP3]

It's not that I dispute your facts and evidence, there is valid supporting science. It's how you apply those little tidbits and try to trick people with them into your conclusion.

I haven't tried to trick anyone, you're paranoid and making stuff up.

 

[brenndatomu]

there is a clear path forward for zero emissions power generation.

And I'll end my portion of tag your it right where I started out...there is no truly zero emissions power generation, or ever will be IMO. Its all a shell game. Some methods are maybe a lil "better" than others, but no zero...or even close.
Fossil fuels are here for us to use, in the best way we know how at the time.
And that was my statement @JRP3 , not an argument.

 

[bholler]

Alright guys behave or I will have to shut this one down. And yes that applies to me as well

 

[Prof]

I honestly try to not get caught up in these discussions...but you could ask my wife...I'm not great at keeping my mouth shut. I was teaching intro psych about 7-8 yrs ago. The class before mine was an Oceans and Climatology class taught by this guy John. He and I got to know each other briefly as we transitioned the tech in the room from his class to mine. I was listening to both right and left leaning podcasts at the time, and had a much more open mind at the time than I do now (you know, before the whole windmills cause cancer crap). I asked him about climate change and the attribution to mankind. He laughed briefly and said, "Dave, in my world, acting like climate change is not influenced heavily by man is like me saying to you that depression and anxiety aren't real." He went on to explain that the nuances of man's impact are not fully understood, but the general influence is without question. He was and is a good teacher, though I only see him at university senate meetings these days. Anyone who will spend their career studying and producing original research on a topic gets to have more of an opinion than me--who listened to a few podcasts. I know when to stay in my lane. Until the climatologists tell me that climate change is not heavily influenced by people, I will hold it to be so. I think back to John's lesson to me--I'm a shrink and I know a ton about depression and anxiety. I will respect the experts in their disciplines. Before anyone accuses me of being an "academic elite" (I think this is the phrase): I'm currently trying to trap a raccoon in my garden, which I will eat if I am successful at the trapping part. I also had a lengthy discussion with my mechanic about using E88 fuel in my car and will follow his advice. I know when to stay in my lane.

 

[bholler]

I honestly try to not get caught up in these discussions...but you could ask my wife...I'm not great at keeping my mouth shut. I was teaching intro psych about 7-8 yrs ago. The class before mine was an Oceans and Climatology class taught by this guy John. He and I got to know each other briefly as we transitioned the tech in the room from his class to mine. I was listening to both right and left leaning podcasts at the time, and had a much more open mind at the time than I do now (you know, before the whole windmills cause cancer crap). I asked him about climate change and the attribution to mankind. He laughed briefly and said, "Dave, in my world, acting like climate change is not influenced heavily by man is like me saying to you that depression and anxiety aren't real." He went on to explain that the nuances of man's impact are not fully understood, but the general influence is without question. He was and is a good teacher, though I only see him at university senate meetings these days. Anyone who will spend their career studying and producing original research on a topic gets to have more of an opinion than me--who listened to a few podcasts. I know when to stay in my lane. Until the climatologists tell me that climate change is not heavily influenced by people, I will hold it to be so. I think back to John's lesson to me--I'm a shrink and I know a ton about depression and anxiety. I will respect the experts in their disciplines. Before anyone accuses me of being an "academic elite" (I think this is the phrase): I'm currently trying to trap a raccoon in my garden, which I will eat if I am successful at the trapping part. I also had a lengthy discussion with my mechanic about using E88 fuel in my car and will follow his advice. I know when to stay in my lane.

Raccoon tastes like crap lol. But better than groundhog

 

[hobbyheater]

If you have the right equipment there is no smoke! At the bottom of the chimney is a 1982 Jetstream boiler connected to 1045 imperial gallons of storage. This boiler could be run from start to finish with no visible smoke!
This is the middle of a batch burn.

You can rest your hand on the top of the chimney.

The air coming out of the chimney Is just hot enough to be uncomfortable to breath , there is no odor of smoke .

This boiler was way ahead of its time!