3 ms·
That's funny, because you get the same thing with firewood and wood furnaces now. Not particularly better on the unhealthiness scale, either. Actually, between
by stefan_ 5y ago
That's funny, because you get the same thing with firewood and wood furnaces now. Not particularly better on the unhealthiness scale, either.
Actually, between people burning whatever looks wood-like and coal, I'd probably prefer the coal.
- ashtonkem 5y agoYou say that, but the EPA has been slowly tightening emission rules for wood burning stoves. Just this year the EPA is beginning to reduce the allowable soot emissions for stoves from 4.5g/h down to 2.0g/h. Old stoves are obviously a problem, but they’re getting measurably better with time. The model I’m considering purchasing has an actual catalytic converter in it, just like a car, to ensure combustion is as complete as possible.
- stefan_ 5y agoAnd cigarette filters are 30% effective at removing solids from inhaled smoke. But you are still smoking! It's 2021. Burning wood makes no sense from a global warming and certainly not from a public health perspective.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoUnless you can wave a magic wand and make alternative sources of energy sufficiently cheaper (or make people sufficiently richer, two sides of the same coin really) people are going to heat with wood where that is economically favorable.
- psd1 5y agoWood is carbon-neutral. Fossils aren't.
- hutzlibu 5y agoWell, it depends how peope start their fires and what they burn. A clean burning wood fire, started well, is no big problem. A badly started coal fire? That is bad.
- ashtonkem 5y agoI think in 10 years it’ll be a requirement to have a catalytic converter on every stove.