Wood Heater Pollution and CO2

[sharpiel]

Originally Posted by Nebulous

+1

Good post Al. We're in much the same position - a country location and our own trees that die at a natural rate. We would have to wait for many years before a freshly cut down tree was seasoned enough to use for firewood. Even the firewood sold locally has been harvested as dry dead logs from the local forests.

Like you, I believe that a properly adjusted wood fire is not necessarily more harmful, in terms of producing pollutants, than any other form of home heating - if you look closely at the whole supply and production chain.

The major problem,as i see it, is population density. When you cram enough people together in a city you get more waste, of every kind, than can be disposed of simply. Many solutions just push the problem somewhere else on the "out of sight out of mind" principle.

To put it into perspective, when I was born in 1946 the population of the entire world was less than two and a half billion. Now it's already blown out to seven and a half billion. So, in the space of a single lifetime (which isn't quite over yet!) the population has trebled. The pressure on resources and environment is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Getting a little "greener" is clearly desirable, but if we keep breeding at that rate, recycling our beer bottles etc will only delay things by a few eye-blinks.

We all contribute to this. For instance, I'm personally addicted to breathing in oxygen and other gases and exhaling some of it as carbon dioxide. And it's not just me - my wife and son are addicted too. And we're addicted to food as well - we eat some almost every day. And it takes a lot of good land to keep us chomping away.... Water too (and we all know what humans turn that into...)

I don't have a firm opinion on nuclear power, but maybe if we could just nuke a few cities we could thin the population out a bit? Well, maybe not.... there's bound to be a fuss of some kind...

But IMO the greenest tool isn't an electric heater, it's a vasectomy knife...

Cross your legs fellers, I'm coming after you...

Cheers,

Chris

You've already populated the planet with your own weapon of mass consumption. Bit inconsistent to suggest the vasectomy for others now isn't it...?

[alan meehan (Alan)]

I have the best way to stay warm at night is do what my wife and I do its called a hot water bottle and a blanket very little pollution and will not wreck the atmosphere and is cost effective
AL

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by sheeny

Yeah, there's a lot of variables behind that statement Renato. That's why I emphasized the anecdotal nature of it. I've heard similar stories, but if there's real fact behind it, it would have to be due to a biological (and indeed chemical) difference between hardwood and softwood that I'm not aware of.

The reason I am skeptical is that 100% of the wood fuel we burn at work is softwood (radiata pine and radiata pine bark plus traces of additives such as resins), and we have NO evidence of creosote formation and while we get fly ash build ups, they aren't building up in condensation layers. Radiata pine is typically 1% ash, while bark is 6% ash but has a higher calorific value so we burn both.

Al.

Well, your observation I give more respect to than theory. The plumber said that pine was one of the worst woods to burn in wood heaters, and you have seen nothing adverse from burning it 100% of the time!

Anyhow, I don't have any pine to burn at the moment, just a lot of varied trees. And a power pole that someone chainsawed and left on their nature strip a few doors down the road. I know that is hard wood.
Cheers,
Renato

[cruxo (Craig)]

As I did bring up the conversation about nuclear energy, I have to admit that I am not sold on it myself. I don't think many will agree with my belief that CLEAN coal fired power is where we should be looking while green(clean*)/renewable energy is perfected. co2 is not a poisonous gas. It is the carbon particulates which cause the problems. This insane push for renewables is doing so much damage to households and business across the country. Given that if Australia were to produce and run on 100% renewables, would make absolutely no difference on a world scale makes me wonder the real reasons for this renewable push. PLease take note anyone installing solar panels and battery storage, there has been over 60 houses burst into flames in the last 2yrs (I think that is in Qld only)due to cheap panels and batteries coming from china, and also inexperienced installers. There are no cheap ways around this. You must buy quality here.

[The_bluester (Paul)]

I recall seeing on one of the science programs a catalyst product that was supposed to be coming which was supposed to significantly reduce emissions and flue deposits from wood fires (Closed combustion stoves) unfortunately I never saw any more of it. From memory the CSIRO had some hand in it. It was a metal tube containing a heat activated substance which then acted as a catalyst ina chemical reaction that resulted in lower emissions.

I think it my have been on the old ABC show "The New Inventors" though after first hearing about the Biolytix water treatment system on the show and ending up with one after quite a bit of discussion, to replace a completely worn out old septic system, I look back at the program with a less favorable view. The Biolytix turned out to be a dud and the major failures of older units started to show up about a year after ours was installed. The eventual fix for the basic design flaws involves a backhoe.

I will add to my previous posts, we use wood heating but I think in areas with significant population density wood heaters are simply inappropriate.

[xelasnave]

Hi Craig
I think it is interesting how all energy providers present their product as the answer when the teal problem is probably too many humans who consume too much.

No one focuses on the waste ...get more efficient light bulbs sure but even inefficient ones would be OK if not left on all night...who is around at 4 am? Yet all the city lights are on...
Why not consider removing the carbon foot print of car, boat bike etc etc racing...the energy used just for tires ... Its not just the fuel but all the electricity to manufacture the racing toys...

I don't care but the hypocrisy of going on about nasty fossil fuel and not addressing the arras where things could be done differently.

Why do we have cars with motors over 1500 cc in the city...I sat stationary in the traffic in Sydney as they all left work for home...4wd v8 and cars just so inappropriate...one person in each car...why not address these things.

Well I suspect its all about a fight for market share between the various vendors of energy...NP ...if you use NP everything will be OK...sure it will...Use solar, wind whatever ... no one is coming forward and saying use less, turn off the lights, cars only need to be used for transport.
I have a 1200 cc car and it will easily do 160 klms per hour probably manage 180 maybe a little more...and yet it is about the smallest you can get...one thing for sure it has no trouble keeping up with traffic one the freeway that has a speed limit of 110 klms per hour...why allow ownership of unnecessary toys..

Well its the economy you see .If we were to be sensible and address waste the economy would collapse..If we didn't need to incorporate wind and solar a lot of folk would not have work...

I mean all I say is obvious and as I say its the hypocrisy that this problem generates.

And the supreme champion of the cause Al Gore does not practice what he preaches.. I wonder if he still has his v12 motor car or does he now turn out the lights in his mansion...

No one cares about the planet really as with everything it is always about the money...that's OK it just ticks me off that there is this pretence that it is not that way...
Alex

[cruxo (Craig)]

I agree Alex. (and thanks for the welcome earlier) As for Al Gore, a little bit of vomit comes up when I hear his name. How many US$100's millions has he made from his scaremongering, and now he's back and people are just gobbling it up. I hear what you're saying about people mindlessly contributing to the problem. Being on low income myself,I'm forced to save energy to take the sting out of the hip pocket. Like you have pointed out, it is more to do with the way we use energy, as opposed to the way we produce it. So keeping that in mind, the call for expensive power production is extremely naive and irresponsible. We need cheap power production, with a change to the way we use it. Otherwise we will all be using woodfired ovens/heating to stay alive. But that's just my opinion.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by glend

more than 100w of power, the same with the electric throws for lounges, chairs, or just used as wraps. I would like to see the Greens get behind a campaign to stop the growth of these heaters.. What is the situation in your area?

At university (I did electrical engineering) we were taught that if you want to maximise your long term exposure to electric and magnetic fields, get an electric blanket. The large surface area, long usage time and close proximity are about as bad as it can get. I wouldn't go near the things.

On wood heaters, I have one, and you cannot see the smoke from the chimney. It looks like the problem is with how people are using it.

The CO2 argument is wrong, as decomposing (not burnt) wood releases more methane, which is a far worse greenhouse gas. This would also be accompanied by burnt gas or coal as an addition.

The worst particulate emitters in major cities is the massive growth in trucks and cars, caused by an allergy of politicians to building commuter rail, and watching freight rail rust.

[glend (Glen)]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

At university (I did electrical engineering) we were taught that if you want to maximise your long term exposure to electric and magnetic fields, get an electric blanket. The large surface area, long usage time and close proximity are about as bad as it can get. I wouldn't go near the things.

On wood heaters, I have one, and you cannot see the smoke from the chimney. It looks like the problem is with how people are using it.

The CO2 argument is wrong, as decomposing (not burnt) wood releases more methane, which is a far worse greenhouse gas. This would also be accompanied by burnt gas or coal as an addition.

The worst particulate emitters in major cities is the massive growth in trucks and cars, caused by an allergy of politicians to building commuter rail, and watching freight rail rust.

I can not believe the stuff that folks claim. If it were true, at my age there is not enough years left for damage to build up. BTW, my practicing electrical engineer son had a laugh when i asked him about the dangers, saying your in more danger sitting in any modern office building. Besides i only use it to warm the bed, its off when i am sleeping.

[xelasnave]

The fable about chicken little and the sky is falling is lost on many if indeed they ever heard it.

As I tell anyone who will listen...follow the money...when you hear this should be done or that...follow the money and ask who gets paid here.

The Tabulam bridge is to be replaced.
An old wood bridge a thing of beauty.
Why..oh it costs one million per annum to maintain...first who the hell is getting that cash when a quick costing tells you that you could have two men full time and materials for a fraction of that...so why this we need a new bridge..maybe it is that someone is in line to build this new bridge...and so this thing of beauty will be torn down...wonder why it has not been heritage listed?

Alex

[Nebulous (Chris)]

Originally Posted by sharpiel

You've already populated the planet with your own weapon of mass consumption. Bit inconsistent to suggest the vasectomy for others now isn't it...?

Not inconsistent at all. It would only be inconsistent if we already had a large family, but we don't. We only have one child. If every couple had only one or two children the population would shrink back again.

Of course, the Chinese tried to make that an official policy and it failed - for a variety of reasons.

You can't force people to make choices, but you can certainly suggest them.

Cheers,

Chris

[sharpiel]

Originally Posted by Nebulous

Not inconsistent at all. It would only be inconsistent if we already had a large family, but we don't. We only have one child. If every couple had only one or two children the population would shrink back again.

Of course, the Chinese tried to make that an official policy and it failed - for a variety of reasons.

You can't force people to make choices, but you can certainly suggest them.

Cheers,

Chris

I should have put a smiley face after my post to take the lecturishness out. My bad. And you're right about choices etc

[Nebulous (Chris)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi Craig
I think it is interesting how all energy providers present their product as the answer when the real problem is probably too many humans who consume too much.


Alex

I think you're right there Alex. But the two aspects of that are a) too much consumption and b) too many humans. And it's hard to come up with fair and workable solutions, that will gain any broad acceptance, for either problem.

We are experiencing what amounts to a plague of humans. That might sound over-dramatic but it's hard to argue with. In 1946, when i was born, the whole of human history had led to a total living population of only two and half billion. Now, in a mere 70 years, that has trebled to seven and a half billion- a massive increase.

Largely due to great advances in such things as medicine, diet, sanitation, agriculture, better wages, etc we've learned to live longer and drastically lower the rate at which humans used to die young. Perhaps we don't even kill each other now at quite such brisk rate as we once did?

All those advances surely can't be a bad thing - I certainly appreciate them - until you step back and look at the bigger picture. Then the outcome does seem a little concerning. The resources of the earth are finite, and we can't sustain the rate at which we're currently depleting them, let alone keep ramping up the speed of it to cater for more and more people. There are also a great many other creatures living on earth who would probably like to keep their own species going too.

Reducing personal consumption is certainly desirable, but it can't come close matching the rate at which the sheer numbers of us are increasing. And we in the West can't expect to successfully lecture the developing nations about not doing what we've been doing so assiduously for years, and still do.

Now plagues are nothing new, they happen quite regularly among other species. But it's worth looking at what the outcomes of population plagues are. Whether you call it Mother Nature's solutions or just basic reality the answer is the same - degradation of habitat leading to death by either starvation or fighting amongst the survivors for the remaining resources. Usually both. Mother Nature plays by some pretty tough rules. Rules which are still clearly operating in some parts of the human world too.

The question isn't whether the earth can keep accommodating such a rate of expansion - because it quite clearly can't - it's whether humans are smart enough to find voluntary and humane ways of limiting the expansion before we end up having the nasty solutions forced on us.


Related story:

This isn't a new problem. When my father-in-law came back from serving in Europe during WW2 they passed through India. When the train stopped at one city there had been some kind of plague or famine and they were literally stepping over bodies in the street. Later in the journey they were talking to a local man and relating the experience. His response was "Bad business really..... not enough people died this time". Which, to us in our rather sheltered and over-privileged modern Australia seems like a shockingly callous response.

But the man saying that was brought up in a country where the pressure of high population was already seen as a problem. There was an acceptance of the "natural culling" that had been going on for thousands of years, coupled with some very different cultural attitudes towards the value of some human lives. It made his attitude seem normal to him. Scary thought.

But will we do any better when the crunch comes?

I hope so.

[Nebulous (Chris)]

On a lighter note... and a bit more back on topic...

I used to have an electric heater but I had to get rid of it because gave me respiratory problems.

Every time the electricity bill came in I'd be gasping for breath....

[AndrewJ]

Every time the electricity bill came in I'd be gasping for breath.

Dont worry, the doctors can fix that for you now
( but their bill WILL kill you )

Andrew

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by glend

If it were true, at my age there is not enough years left for damage to build up. .

That can be true of many things. Smoking, chewing paint chips

Originally Posted by glend

Besides i only use it to warm the bed, its off when i am sleeping.

Then you are using it safely.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by Nebulous

If every couple had only one or two children the population would shrink back again.

On a global level, yes. But any individual who thinks they can reduce the population by having less kids is delusional.
The current Australian economic model relies almost completely on population growth. Falling birth rates are matched (usually overcompensated) by increasing immigration rates.
The only way you'd put a halt on our population growth (an subsequent increasing carbon footprint) would be to have zero net migration, and let our low birth rate go from there.
There is near zero chance of that kind of policy being implemented.

[sharpiel]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

On a global level, yes. But any individual who thinks they can reduce the population by having less kids is delusional.
The current Australian economic model relies almost completely on population growth. Falling birth rates are matched (usually overcompensated) by increasing immigration rates.
The only way you'd put a halt on our population growth (an subsequent increasing carbon footprint) would be to have zero net migration, and let our low birth rate go from there.
There is near zero chance of that kind of policy being implemented.

Limit the growth of future tax paying populations...are you mad!?? No government would ever do that.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

On a global level, yes. But any individual who thinks they can reduce the population by having less kids is delusional.
The current Australian economic model relies almost completely on population growth. Falling birth rates are matched (usually overcompensated) by increasing immigration rates.
The only way you'd put a halt on our population growth (an subsequent increasing carbon footprint) would be to have zero net migration, and let our low birth rate go from there.
There is near zero chance of that kind of policy being implemented.

And that is because we have a government driven by the fatally flawed economic model that treats devastation of our environment as an "externality". If they don't strive for infinite growth, the system falls over which is, of course, complete stupidity on a planet that has a finite surface area. This explains it perfectly: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...G4FrKQAGwOJnPw

Read my signature.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Rom. I have another word for it. Ponzi scheme. By the time it falls down, those who created it have already made their money. Every single person we bring here from a poorer country, increases the global CO2 output, and pushes us one step closer to disaster. But who cares if it's keeping developers rich eh!