Wood Heater Pollution and CO2

[Zuts]

Originally Posted by 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

Well, the council employee who produced the costing report for a start, there's 150K a year right there....

[skysurfer]

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.

Australia is a bad example, there is no need for such a policy. With only 40 million people on 9 million sq km it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.
Some parts of the EU, particularly, the Netherlands, are overpopulated, 17 million on only 32000 sq km and is still increasing. In such countries such a policy would work, but not on a mandatory basis.

Anyway, back to wood stoves.
I always wonder why there are no particulate matter filters available for it, as PM is the largest problem of a wood stove.
A combined heat exchanger and PM capturer would be technically possible ?

[sheeny (Al)]

Originally Posted by skysurfer

Anyway, back to wood stoves.
I always wonder why there are no particulate matter filters available for it, as PM is the largest problem of a wood stove.
A combined heat exchanger and PM capturer would be technically possible ?

I don't think it's practical or economical on a domestic scale.

Industrially, we start off by blending cool air into the flue gas to get it below 350°C so we can use mild steel ducting instead of expensive stainless and manganese steel grades. Then the flue gas is passed through multicyclones or cyclones to remove the bulk of the particles.

At the time our plant was built in the 1980's, the limit for particulates was 400 ppm and multicyclones easily achieved that. During the '90s the limit for particulates reduced to 250ppm, and here multicyclones and cyclones can achieve this limit except in adverse conditions (such as burning bark, wet fuel, etc).

These days I think the limit is about 100ppm. We can't achieve that with our existing plants except under exceptionally favourable conditions - but we don't have to because the plant only has to meed the requirements for which it was built. If we change the plant or build a new one we have to meey the 100ppm level.

The only way to get to 100ppm is to use and ESP or WESP (Electrostatic Precipitator or a Wet Electrostatic Precipitator). These are not cheap. High temperature bag filters can also be used, but they don't economically achieve the 100ppm limit.

What kills all this for the domestic situation is the pressure drop in the flue stream. Once multicyclones, cyclones, a bag filter and/or ESP/WESP are put into the flue stream you need a fan to over come the pressure drop.

There is a greater risk to the public from carbon monoxide poisoning due to failure of the fan or blockage of the filter and lack of maintenance than there is with the current system.

Imagine being at a ski lodge in winter and the fan drawing the flue gas out of the lodge fails? The whole lodge is now not habitable. Hope you have a good sleeping bag to sleep in the snow.

The basic wood heater system is simple, cost effective and reliable.

Al.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by skysurfer

Australia is a bad example, there is no need for such a policy. With only 40 million people on 9 million sq km it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.

An often used and completely misleading statistic. Of the 9 million sq km, only a tiny fraction is "usable". We have extremely limited water suupply and 75% of our arable land is already stuffed or heading that way. We are propbably over populated by 50% already

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by skysurfer

Australia is a bad example, there is no need for such a policy. With only 40 million people on 9 million sq km it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.
Some parts of the EU, particularly, the Netherlands, are overpopulated, 17 million on only 32000 sq km and is still increasing. In such countries such a policy would work, but not on a mandatory basis.

As Rom said, Australia is a bad example. Our population growth is only really occurring in less than 1% of our landmass, namely Melbourne and Sydney. 80% of Australia is not suitable for any population much higher than the pre 1788 levels.
The Netherlands is an even worse example. Western Europe has birthrates of the native population of generally between 1.3 and 1.8. These levels will cause a population decline. However the population is increasing due to mass immigration. So, again, reducing birthrates is not the answer. In any case, Europe is able to sustain high population due to the stable weather and large proportion of fertile areas.