3 ms·

I don't know where you're getting that information. Burning wood produces significantly more CO2 than coal or oil regardless of your air flow; not to mention CO

by byerley 12y ago

I don't know where you're getting that information. Burning wood produces significantly more CO2 than coal or oil regardless of your air flow; not to mention CO, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides. If you've ever had the displeasure of being within a few miles of a forest fire, it's really rough on the lungs. You can argue that by growing the tree specifically to burn and then being careful how you harvest it, the wood burning ends up being carbon neutral. That's obviously not the case here, and it doesn't scale in general.

personZ 12y ago
Worldwide, and across all scientific realms, burning wood is considered carbon neutral. This is not an "argument", it is actual reality -- the carbon released when you burn wood is identical to the carbon captured to form the same, and which will be captured in its place. The branches that fall to the ground will often become, in a relatively short timeframe, CH4, which is much worse than CO2. Add that this is relative to coal or oil or natural gas that have been carbon stored underground for millions of years. This is not up for debate. It is not open for you to argue whether it "scales". It is the reality of the planet that we live on. Your opinion on it is utterly irrelevant. And it's actually humorous that you mention forest fires given that removing the brush that camp stoves like this burns helps prevent forest fires, not to mention decomposition methane. As to being rough on the lungs, the whole point of this whole initiative is clean burning the wood, eliminating the vast majority of particulate that is the result of an incomplete burn. I suspect you really don't care about the actual facts though, but just for anyone else coming along.
- byerley 12y ago
  > Worldwide, and across all scientific realms, burning wood is considered carbon neutral, right? Absolutely not. For wood burning to be carbon neutral, you have to replace the wood and produce exactly zero CO2 during harvesting and transportation. Even if we gave your picking up twigs example a good 50yrs to cycle, you're removing fertilizer that would otherwise help the growth of current/new trees. There's a reason we put restrictions on wood burning and overall traffic in a lot of forest areas; it reduces the forestation. > This is relative to coal or oil or natural gas that have been carbon stored underground for millions of years. The length of the cycle doesn't make a difference because we're growing energy production exponentially and seeing consistent global deforestation (thus the scaling problem). That carbon from your stove might get replaced in 10-50 years.... if not for the environment suffering immediate effects that propagate. > And it's actually humorous that you mention forest fires given that removing the brush that camp stoves like this burns helps prevent forest fires Not in any significant way. As far as we know, forest fires are caused by weather patterns, forest life-cycles, insect life-cycles, ect. Clearing brush is a stop-gap fire fighters use to protect homes. > As to being rough on the lungs, the whole point of this whole initiative is clean burning the wood, eliminating the vast majority of particulate that is the result of an incomplete burn. The vast majority? I doubt either of us is going to do a study on this particular stove, but given that Biomass power facilities still produce large amounts of particulates, I'm pretty sure the little self-charging fan doesn't solve the problem. > I suspect you really don't care about the actual facts though, but just for anyone else coming along. I'm doing my best not to be confrontational, but your only "fact" is the misapplied notion that trees can only release carbon that they've previously absorbed. Every study I've read on using biomass for power generation has concluded that their only "environmental" advantage is that the fuel is easier to renew.
  - personZ 12y ago
    "you're removing fertilizer that would otherwise help the growth of current/new trees" There is astonishingly little fertilizer potential of fallen wood (and the little there is remains in the ash). In parks it is controlled primarily because it acts as an ecosystem for levels of the pyramid, so overharvesting in dense areas is a problem. "The vast majority? I doubt either of us is going to do a study on this particular stove" Good thing we don't have to. https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/390169 https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/390169 "carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions reductions of 91% and 94%, respectively, while lowering fuel usage by 42%" I'm doing my best not to be confrontational, but your only "fact" is the misapplied notion that trees can only release carbon that they've previously absorbed. Well, it's good that you're not being confrontational, especially when you are speaking such utter nonsense, with a complete lack of any facts whatsoever. We are talking about a stove picking up scrap wood, which is, by every scientific definition on this great Earth, carbon neutral.
    - byerley 12y ago
      > There is astonishingly little fertilizer potential of fallen wood. What possible reason could you have for thinking this? Pointing out that wood has been used in mulches and fertilizes for ... millenia ought to suffice, but since you seemed vexed by my lack of "facts". Here are some studies showing increased growth as a result of wood chip use - http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19910650274.html http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19910650274.html https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/56/4/SS0560041177 https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts... Feel free to google as many more as you like. > Good thing we don't have to. From your link, "Standard water boil tests of early BioLite prototypes demonstrated carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions reductions of 91% and 94%, respectively, while lowering fuel usage by 42% relative to a three stone fire" So... not useful figures because they're from a prototype and not compared to another stove. I also wouldn't call that a vast majority in context since the relevant comparison is to a gas or alcohol fueled stove. > Well, it's good that you're not being confrontational, especially when you are speaking such utter nonsense, with a complete lack of any facts whatsoever. I was trying not to insult you by googling references for well-known results. That was evidently folly on my part - http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/does-burning-wood-instead-of-fossil-fuels-increase-ghg-emissions/ http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/does-burning-woo... ( http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/biomass/manomet-biomass-report-full-hirez.pdf http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/biomass/manomet... , http://www.manomet.org/sites/default/files/publications_and_tools/BiogenicGeologic%20August%202011.pdf http://www.manomet.org/sites/default/files/publications_and_... ) http://www.pfpi.net/carbon-emissions http://www.pfpi.net/carbon-emissions http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Forests%20-%20Incinerators%20-%20Biomass/Documents/Carbon%20Emissions%20-%20Pollution/Fact%20sheet-Logging%20Forests%20Not%20Carbon%20Neutral.pdf http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Forests%20-%20Incinerator... ect. ect. ect. good summary - http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/14/biomass-emissions-question-arises/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/14/biomass-emissions-questi...

by byerley 12y ago

personZ 12y ago

Worldwide, and across all scientific realms, burning wood is considered carbon neutral. This is not an "argument", it is actual reality -- the carbon released when you burn wood is identical to the carbon captured to form the same, and which will be captured in its place. The branches that fall to the ground will often become, in a relatively short timeframe, CH4, which is much worse than CO2. Add that this is relative to coal or oil or natural gas that have been carbon stored underground for millions of years. This is not up for debate. It is not open for you to argue whether it "scales". It is the reality of the planet that we live on. Your opinion on it is utterly irrelevant. And it's actually humorous that you mention forest fires given that removing the brush that camp stoves like this burns helps prevent forest fires, not to mention decomposition methane. As to being rough on the lungs, the whole point of this whole initiative is clean burning the wood, eliminating the vast majority of particulate that is the result of an incomplete burn. I suspect you really don't care about the actual facts though, but just for anyone else coming along.

byerley 12y ago
> Worldwide, and across all scientific realms, burning wood is considered carbon neutral, right? Absolutely not. For wood burning to be carbon neutral, you have to replace the wood and produce exactly zero CO2 during harvesting and transportation. Even if we gave your picking up twigs example a good 50yrs to cycle, you're removing fertilizer that would otherwise help the growth of current/new trees. There's a reason we put restrictions on wood burning and overall traffic in a lot of forest areas; it reduces the forestation. > This is relative to coal or oil or natural gas that have been carbon stored underground for millions of years. The length of the cycle doesn't make a difference because we're growing energy production exponentially and seeing consistent global deforestation (thus the scaling problem). That carbon from your stove might get replaced in 10-50 years.... if not for the environment suffering immediate effects that propagate. > And it's actually humorous that you mention forest fires given that removing the brush that camp stoves like this burns helps prevent forest fires Not in any significant way. As far as we know, forest fires are caused by weather patterns, forest life-cycles, insect life-cycles, ect. Clearing brush is a stop-gap fire fighters use to protect homes. > As to being rough on the lungs, the whole point of this whole initiative is clean burning the wood, eliminating the vast majority of particulate that is the result of an incomplete burn. The vast majority? I doubt either of us is going to do a study on this particular stove, but given that Biomass power facilities still produce large amounts of particulates, I'm pretty sure the little self-charging fan doesn't solve the problem. > I suspect you really don't care about the actual facts though, but just for anyone else coming along. I'm doing my best not to be confrontational, but your only "fact" is the misapplied notion that trees can only release carbon that they've previously absorbed. Every study I've read on using biomass for power generation has concluded that their only "environmental" advantage is that the fuel is easier to renew.
- personZ 12y ago
  "you're removing fertilizer that would otherwise help the growth of current/new trees" There is astonishingly little fertilizer potential of fallen wood (and the little there is remains in the ash). In parks it is controlled primarily because it acts as an ecosystem for levels of the pyramid, so overharvesting in dense areas is a problem. "The vast majority? I doubt either of us is going to do a study on this particular stove" Good thing we don't have to. https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/390169 https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/390169 "carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions reductions of 91% and 94%, respectively, while lowering fuel usage by 42%" I'm doing my best not to be confrontational, but your only "fact" is the misapplied notion that trees can only release carbon that they've previously absorbed. Well, it's good that you're not being confrontational, especially when you are speaking such utter nonsense, with a complete lack of any facts whatsoever. We are talking about a stove picking up scrap wood, which is, by every scientific definition on this great Earth, carbon neutral.
  - byerley 12y ago
    > There is astonishingly little fertilizer potential of fallen wood. What possible reason could you have for thinking this? Pointing out that wood has been used in mulches and fertilizes for ... millenia ought to suffice, but since you seemed vexed by my lack of "facts". Here are some studies showing increased growth as a result of wood chip use - http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19910650274.html http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19910650274.html https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/56/4/SS0560041177 https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts... Feel free to google as many more as you like. > Good thing we don't have to. From your link, "Standard water boil tests of early BioLite prototypes demonstrated carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions reductions of 91% and 94%, respectively, while lowering fuel usage by 42% relative to a three stone fire" So... not useful figures because they're from a prototype and not compared to another stove. I also wouldn't call that a vast majority in context since the relevant comparison is to a gas or alcohol fueled stove. > Well, it's good that you're not being confrontational, especially when you are speaking such utter nonsense, with a complete lack of any facts whatsoever. I was trying not to insult you by googling references for well-known results. That was evidently folly on my part - http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/does-burning-wood-instead-of-fossil-fuels-increase-ghg-emissions/ http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/does-burning-woo... ( http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/biomass/manomet-biomass-report-full-hirez.pdf http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/biomass/manomet... , http://www.manomet.org/sites/default/files/publications_and_tools/BiogenicGeologic%20August%202011.pdf http://www.manomet.org/sites/default/files/publications_and_... ) http://www.pfpi.net/carbon-emissions http://www.pfpi.net/carbon-emissions http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Forests%20-%20Incinerators%20-%20Biomass/Documents/Carbon%20Emissions%20-%20Pollution/Fact%20sheet-Logging%20Forests%20Not%20Carbon%20Neutral.pdf http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Forests%20-%20Incinerator... ect. ect. ect. good summary - http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/14/biomass-emissions-question-arises/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/14/biomass-emissions-questi...