4 ms·

> There is astonishingly little fertilizer potential of fallen wood. What possible reason could you have for thinking this? Pointing out that wood has been use

by 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.
- byerley 12y ago
  > Yet you remain blissfully and completely unaware of any contextual relevance of what you are linking. They're all about the complex carbon footprint of burning wood. Perhaps you might try explaining why they're unrelated. > Wood burning creates soot and particulate when it is oxygen starved. The solution is to have a fan to feed it a steady supply. Wood doesn't completely burn... when it doesn't completely burn. There are a lot of factors and a small fan doesn't solve all of them (this should be self-evident or the reduction would be 100%). Obviously, the comparison has to be made to stoves/generators using other fuels (ie gas/alcohol/petrol if you really want) because that was the original comparison - wood to other fuels, not wood burning stove to other inefficient wood burning method. Please refer back to the original post. > 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. If you'd bothered to read anything (the first article and associated reports go into a lot of depth on this), you'd see that burning dead branches sparingly (and correctly - this stove still has a lot of pollution relative to industrial methods) is one of the better methods. However, you have to be very careful about the type of wood you burn, the condition it's in when you burn it, the way you burn it, how much of it you remove, ect. It's very complicated and in general it's done less efficiently than alternative fuels atm. The "ZOMG BURNING WOOD IS INHERENTLY CARBON NEUTRAL" thing is short-sighted and has been outdated for a good two decades now. Do you want "facts" or not? Because you're not reading any of the ones I reference.

by byerley 12y ago

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.

byerley 12y ago
> Yet you remain blissfully and completely unaware of any contextual relevance of what you are linking. They're all about the complex carbon footprint of burning wood. Perhaps you might try explaining why they're unrelated. > Wood burning creates soot and particulate when it is oxygen starved. The solution is to have a fan to feed it a steady supply. Wood doesn't completely burn... when it doesn't completely burn. There are a lot of factors and a small fan doesn't solve all of them (this should be self-evident or the reduction would be 100%). Obviously, the comparison has to be made to stoves/generators using other fuels (ie gas/alcohol/petrol if you really want) because that was the original comparison - wood to other fuels, not wood burning stove to other inefficient wood burning method. Please refer back to the original post. > 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. If you'd bothered to read anything (the first article and associated reports go into a lot of depth on this), you'd see that burning dead branches sparingly (and correctly - this stove still has a lot of pollution relative to industrial methods) is one of the better methods. However, you have to be very careful about the type of wood you burn, the condition it's in when you burn it, the way you burn it, how much of it you remove, ect. It's very complicated and in general it's done less efficiently than alternative fuels atm. The "ZOMG BURNING WOOD IS INHERENTLY CARBON NEUTRAL" thing is short-sighted and has been outdated for a good two decades now. Do you want "facts" or not? Because you're not reading any of the ones I reference.