5 ms·

Plant a couple trees and over the next decade you'll sink more carbon than you'll ever release with this thing (not considering the carbon emitted when the thin

Plant a couple trees and over the next decade you'll sink more carbon than you'll ever release with this thing (not considering the carbon emitted when the thing was built and shipped to you...)

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Apples/oranges. Compare burning regular stove fuel vs sticks. Same btu - same carbon footprint.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 12y ago
  When we get our fuel from trees, we've created space for new trees to grow. In contrast, when our fuel is coal, gas or oil, eventually we run of of places to plant trees (or we run out of the whatever is the scarcest nutrient for the trees). This is the basis for the claim that burning trees is friendlier to the environment than burning fossil fuels is. I am NOT pushing the claim, just pointing out that you have not yet successfully refuted the claim.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Ok, continue the chase through cause and effect. That stove consumes many precious and rare components (thermocouples, conductors, computer chips!) Its manufacture totally blows any comforting thoughts about carbon footprint savings. "Green" arguments like this product are marketing and 1st-world-consumer foolishness. Build a campfire and cook in an iron pot - that might save some carbon. This thing? No.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - stcredzero 12y ago
      The problem with arguments like this, is that it only takes into account costs for today's industrial infrastructure. If everyone thought like this, there would be less innovation. (No domestic solar panels, for one thing.) That said, there are probably smaller carbon footprint items that will accomplish the same thing. Bulk D Cells, some D-cell holders and a USB charger would be what I'd use for extended emergency preparedness.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Most serious backpackers use alcohol stoves, which burn a renewable fuel that's more efficient than wood.
    - sitkack 12y ago
      Most serious backpackers aren't concerned with nursing portable electronics with a low efficiency TEC. People who actually need to use electronics in remote locations bring a LiPo battery and a solar charger.
      - personZ 12y ago
        You seem really passionately against this. This is a camp stove. You cook things on it. It has a fan to provide a very efficient, very clean burn. It happens to have a charger on it as a side effect of being a fan driven burner. I guarantee that "getting power for free while cooking breakfast" is dramatically more efficient than a solar panel. Add that hiking I'm going to cook multiple times. Number of times I'm in open sunlight, at a fixed location for a period of time -- approximately zero. Not sure what you have against this, but it seems to be founded in the notion that you think this is a wood-powered USB charger, when it's a camp stove that also provides USB charging.
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      Wood is free and available on the trail. You have to buy (and carry!) alcohol.
      - dublinben 12y ago
        You could buy a lifetime supply of alcohol for the price of this stove, and carry a month's worth of it for the weight of this stove. This is a gimmick for people who can't go camping without their electronic gadgets. It's a bad stove and a bad charger put together.
        Turing_Machine 12y ago
        This stove weighs 33 ounces. The Trangia backpacking alcohol stove sold by REI weighs 5.75 ounces. 1 quart of denatured ethanol weighs about 28 ounces (varies slightly depending on denaturant, but not by much). 28 + 5.75 = 33.75 > 33. Next.
- hyperbovine 12y ago
  What are you talking about? I have a solo stove (same idea but without the USB gimmick). These things burn twigs that you find the the forest floor. An entirely carbon neutral and renewable resource. They are the total opposite of burning fossil fuels, that is why we use them.
  - sitkack 12y ago
    Right, putting that carbon back into the atmosphere instead on the forest floor where it started is carbon neutral. Just because it is "part o the carbon cycle" doesn't make it neutral.
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      The forest floor decomposes and releases just as much CO2 as burning it would.
      - sitkack 12y ago
        This is a ridiculous statement.
        JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Actually it was a correct statement. Decomposition is a sort of 'slow burn'.
    - KC8ZKF 12y ago
      Yes it does. Learn and read about photosynthesis. Plants get carbon from the atmosphere.
- KC8ZKF 12y ago
  What happens to the wood you don't burn? It decomposes letting CO2 into the atmosphere. Fossil fuels release carbon captured millions of years ago, over millions of years, in a very short time. That's the difference.

Plant a couple trees and over the next decade you'll sink more carbon than you'll ever release with this thing (not considering the carbon emitted when the thing was built and shipped to you...)

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Apples/oranges. Compare burning regular stove fuel vs sticks. Same btu - same carbon footprint.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hollerith 12y ago
When we get our fuel from trees, we've created space for new trees to grow. In contrast, when our fuel is coal, gas or oil, eventually we run of of places to plant trees (or we run out of the whatever is the scarcest nutrient for the trees). This is the basis for the claim that burning trees is friendlier to the environment than burning fossil fuels is. I am NOT pushing the claim, just pointing out that you have not yet successfully refuted the claim.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Ok, continue the chase through cause and effect. That stove consumes many precious and rare components (thermocouples, conductors, computer chips!) Its manufacture totally blows any comforting thoughts about carbon footprint savings. "Green" arguments like this product are marketing and 1st-world-consumer foolishness. Build a campfire and cook in an iron pot - that might save some carbon. This thing? No.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    The problem with arguments like this, is that it only takes into account costs for today's industrial infrastructure. If everyone thought like this, there would be less innovation. (No domestic solar panels, for one thing.) That said, there are probably smaller carbon footprint items that will accomplish the same thing. Bulk D Cells, some D-cell holders and a USB charger would be what I'd use for extended emergency preparedness.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Most serious backpackers use alcohol stoves, which burn a renewable fuel that's more efficient than wood.
  - sitkack 12y ago
    Most serious backpackers aren't concerned with nursing portable electronics with a low efficiency TEC. People who actually need to use electronics in remote locations bring a LiPo battery and a solar charger.
    - personZ 12y ago
      You seem really passionately against this. This is a camp stove. You cook things on it. It has a fan to provide a very efficient, very clean burn. It happens to have a charger on it as a side effect of being a fan driven burner. I guarantee that "getting power for free while cooking breakfast" is dramatically more efficient than a solar panel. Add that hiking I'm going to cook multiple times. Number of times I'm in open sunlight, at a fixed location for a period of time -- approximately zero. Not sure what you have against this, but it seems to be founded in the notion that you think this is a wood-powered USB charger, when it's a camp stove that also provides USB charging.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    Wood is free and available on the trail. You have to buy (and carry!) alcohol.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      You could buy a lifetime supply of alcohol for the price of this stove, and carry a month's worth of it for the weight of this stove. This is a gimmick for people who can't go camping without their electronic gadgets. It's a bad stove and a bad charger put together.
      - Turing_Machine 12y ago
        This stove weighs 33 ounces. The Trangia backpacking alcohol stove sold by REI weighs 5.75 ounces. 1 quart of denatured ethanol weighs about 28 ounces (varies slightly depending on denaturant, but not by much). 28 + 5.75 = 33.75 > 33. Next.
hyperbovine 12y ago
What are you talking about? I have a solo stove (same idea but without the USB gimmick). These things burn twigs that you find the the forest floor. An entirely carbon neutral and renewable resource. They are the total opposite of burning fossil fuels, that is why we use them.
- sitkack 12y ago
  Right, putting that carbon back into the atmosphere instead on the forest floor where it started is carbon neutral. Just because it is "part o the carbon cycle" doesn't make it neutral.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    The forest floor decomposes and releases just as much CO2 as burning it would.
    - sitkack 12y ago
      This is a ridiculous statement.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Actually it was a correct statement. Decomposition is a sort of 'slow burn'.
  - KC8ZKF 12y ago
    Yes it does. Learn and read about photosynthesis. Plants get carbon from the atmosphere.
KC8ZKF 12y ago
What happens to the wood you don't burn? It decomposes letting CO2 into the atmosphere. Fossil fuels release carbon captured millions of years ago, over millions of years, in a very short time. That's the difference.