3 ms·

> Worldwide, and across all scientific realms, burning wood is considered carbon neutral, right? Absolutely not. For wood burning to be carbon neutral, you hav

by 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...
  - personZ 12y ago
    You are incredible. Do you realize that nothing, at all, that you have referenced supports your arguments at all. Yes, you know how to use Google: Congratulations, you have achieved a primary school level of achievement. Yet you remain blissfully and completely unaware of any contextual relevance of what you are linking. "This looks related...". Further, the reduction was specifically about this method of burning wood versus your comical, hysterical claims. Wood burning creates soot and particulate when it is oxygen starved. The solution is to have a fan to feed it a steady supply. This is not rocket science. Do you understand that we are talking about people burning twigs that have fallen to the ground? Do you understand how incredibly specious it is to talk about industry biomass production facilities. I have never seen someone so profoundly wrong so steadfastly try to stick to an absolutely, utterly nonsensical opinion. You having NOTHING interesting to say on this. And filling your posts full of links saying nothing of the sort borders on pathological.

by byerley 12y ago

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...
- personZ 12y ago
  You are incredible. Do you realize that nothing, at all, that you have referenced supports your arguments at all. Yes, you know how to use Google: Congratulations, you have achieved a primary school level of achievement. Yet you remain blissfully and completely unaware of any contextual relevance of what you are linking. "This looks related...". Further, the reduction was specifically about this method of burning wood versus your comical, hysterical claims. Wood burning creates soot and particulate when it is oxygen starved. The solution is to have a fan to feed it a steady supply. This is not rocket science. Do you understand that we are talking about people burning twigs that have fallen to the ground? Do you understand how incredibly specious it is to talk about industry biomass production facilities. I have never seen someone so profoundly wrong so steadfastly try to stick to an absolutely, utterly nonsensical opinion. You having NOTHING interesting to say on this. And filling your posts full of links saying nothing of the sort borders on pathological.