5 ms·

Is this better than boiling water over a fire?

by thorum 12y ago

ams6110 12y ago
That was my thought. A small fire can heat a litre of water to boiling in a lot less than an hour. And you don't need to actually boil water to sterilize it, 160-180 degress F is adequate.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
dublinben 12y ago
Indoor cooking fires are a significant source of pollution in developing countries. A solar-powered solution would be a significant improvement.
- ams6110 12y ago
  Wood or other biomass-fueled fires are CO2-neutral, but do cause particulate pollution. There have been a number of efforts to develop clean-burning wood stoves for developing countries to combat that problem.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    "Wood or other biomass-fueled fires are CO2-neutral" Okay, I'll bite. How does burning wood not result in a net increase in CO2? Are you assuming that for every cord of wood burnt, that someone is simultaneously planing and growing a cord's worth of tree (which, of course, pulls carbon out of the air?) That's a pretty big assumption.
    - nathannecro 12y ago
      In fact, I took his statement the other way: At one point, there was some n amount of CO2 in the air. A tree was planted. Through a few biological cycles, CO2 is exchanged and stored as various sugars within the wood. Burning the wood releases the CO2 back into the air. This is a net zero process.
      - eru 12y ago
        On a large enough time scale burning coal is net zero, too. (It's just, that we don't care about these scales.)
        nathannecro 12y ago
        I happen to agree with you; just pointing out what I thought OP meant.
        dredmorbius 12y ago
        The impacts of release (or sequestration) on those scales on other ecological systems are non-trivial. Which is why we care about those releases.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      Carbon embodied in wood is current-cycle carbon, it's already part of the biosphere. In most cases, it was sequestered from the atmosphere at most a few decades ago, for the very oldest trees, a few centuries (and most of those aren't burned for fuel). Carbon embodied in coal, oil, and gas was last part of the biosphere hundreds of millions of years ago. And that's precisely the problem: humans have re-introduced, mostly in the past 50 years (95% of all oil was burned since then, a large portion of coal and gas) carbon that was deposited over hundreds of millions of years. The biosphere portion of the carbon cycle (atmospheric uptake, oceans, plant growth) simply cannot keep up. Yes, if you were to burn all forests at once, you'd run up CO2 a bit. That is, however, a pretty self-limiting prospect.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      If you don't burn the wood, it will naturally decompose and release the same amount of C02 into the atmosphere. Possibly with methane which is an even worse greenhouse gas.
- javert 12y ago
  Suffering in abject poverty is infinitely worse than pollution. It doens't even compare. Thus, developing countries should optimize for economic efficiency. Hurting human well-being in favor of environmental "well-being" is criminal.
  - DavidAdams 12y ago
    You misunderstand. Indoor cooking fires are a major source of indoor air pollution that sickens the families, and particularly the women. Not to mention, many women spend hours per day gathering and hauling wood for their fires.
  - roywiggins 12y ago
    Particulate pollution kills people and causes suffering, mostly to women and children. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/ Over 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels. More than 50% of premature deaths among children under 5 are due to pneumonia caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      I'd rather die prematurely from pollution, than die immediately from exposure or lack of clean drinking water. Pollution really is way, way down on the list of concerns for people in impoverished nations. Water, Shelter, Food are much more pressing concerns.
knodi123 12y ago
in areas where fuel is pricey or ecologically unsuitable, sure
dredmorbius 12y ago
Fire requires fuel. Fuel is scarce in much of the world.

Is this better than boiling water over a fire?

by thorum 12y ago

Is this better than boiling water over a fire?

That was my thought. A small fire can heat a litre of water to boiling in a lot less than an hour. And you don't need to actually boil water to sterilize it, 160-180 degress F is adequate.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

dublinben 12y ago

Indoor cooking fires are a significant source of pollution in developing countries. A solar-powered solution would be a significant improvement.

ams6110 12y ago
Wood or other biomass-fueled fires are CO2-neutral, but do cause particulate pollution. There have been a number of efforts to develop clean-burning wood stoves for developing countries to combat that problem.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  "Wood or other biomass-fueled fires are CO2-neutral" Okay, I'll bite. How does burning wood not result in a net increase in CO2? Are you assuming that for every cord of wood burnt, that someone is simultaneously planing and growing a cord's worth of tree (which, of course, pulls carbon out of the air?) That's a pretty big assumption.
  - nathannecro 12y ago
    In fact, I took his statement the other way: At one point, there was some n amount of CO2 in the air. A tree was planted. Through a few biological cycles, CO2 is exchanged and stored as various sugars within the wood. Burning the wood releases the CO2 back into the air. This is a net zero process.
    - eru 12y ago
      On a large enough time scale burning coal is net zero, too. (It's just, that we don't care about these scales.)
      - nathannecro 12y ago
        I happen to agree with you; just pointing out what I thought OP meant.
      - dredmorbius 12y ago
        The impacts of release (or sequestration) on those scales on other ecological systems are non-trivial. Which is why we care about those releases.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Carbon embodied in wood is current-cycle carbon, it's already part of the biosphere. In most cases, it was sequestered from the atmosphere at most a few decades ago, for the very oldest trees, a few centuries (and most of those aren't burned for fuel). Carbon embodied in coal, oil, and gas was last part of the biosphere hundreds of millions of years ago. And that's precisely the problem: humans have re-introduced, mostly in the past 50 years (95% of all oil was burned since then, a large portion of coal and gas) carbon that was deposited over hundreds of millions of years. The biosphere portion of the carbon cycle (atmospheric uptake, oceans, plant growth) simply cannot keep up. Yes, if you were to burn all forests at once, you'd run up CO2 a bit. That is, however, a pretty self-limiting prospect.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    If you don't burn the wood, it will naturally decompose and release the same amount of C02 into the atmosphere. Possibly with methane which is an even worse greenhouse gas.
javert 12y ago
Suffering in abject poverty is infinitely worse than pollution. It doens't even compare. Thus, developing countries should optimize for economic efficiency. Hurting human well-being in favor of environmental "well-being" is criminal.
- DavidAdams 12y ago
  You misunderstand. Indoor cooking fires are a major source of indoor air pollution that sickens the families, and particularly the women. Not to mention, many women spend hours per day gathering and hauling wood for their fires.
- roywiggins 12y ago
  Particulate pollution kills people and causes suffering, mostly to women and children. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/ Over 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels. More than 50% of premature deaths among children under 5 are due to pneumonia caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    I'd rather die prematurely from pollution, than die immediately from exposure or lack of clean drinking water. Pollution really is way, way down on the list of concerns for people in impoverished nations. Water, Shelter, Food are much more pressing concerns.

knodi123 12y ago

in areas where fuel is pricey or ecologically unsuitable, sure

dredmorbius 12y ago

Fire requires fuel. Fuel is scarce in much of the world.