But I thought tree give off carbon dioxide
Lib Loo
Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
By Edward Felker
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has ordered his staff to revise a
computerized forecasting model that showed that climate legislation
supported by President Obama would make planting trees more lucrative than
producing food.
The latest Agriculture Department economic-impact study of the climate bill,
which passed the House this summer, found that the legislation would profit
farmers in the long term. But those profits would come mostly from higher
crop prices as a result of the legislation's incentives to plant more
forests and thus reduce the amount of land devoted to food-producing
agriculture.
According to the economic model used by the department and the Environmental
Protection Agency, the legislation would give landowners incentives to
convert up to 59 million acres of farmland into forests over the next 40
years. The reason: Trees clean the air of heat-trapping gases better than
farming does.
Mr. Vilsack, in a little-noticed statement issued with the report earlier
this month, said the department's forecasts "have caused considerable
concern" among farmers and ranchers.
"If landowners plant trees to the extent the model suggests, this would be
disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country," he said.
He said the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM),
created by researchers at Texas A&M University, does not take into account
other provisions in the House-passed bill, which would boost farmers' income
while they continue to produce food. Those omissions, he said, cause the
model to overestimate the potential for increased forest planting.
Mr. Vilsack said he has directed his chief economist to work with the EPA to
"undertake a review of the assumptions in the FASOM model, to update the
model and to develop options on how best to avoid unintended consequences
for agriculture that might result from climate change legislation."
The legislation would give free emissions credits, known as offsets, to
farmers and landowners who plant forests and adopt low-carbon farm and
ranching practices. Farmers and ranchers could sell the credits to help
major emitters of greenhouse gases comply with the legislation. That revenue
would help the farmers deal with an expected rise in fuel and fertilizer
costs.
But the economic forecast predicts that nearly 80 percent of the offsets
would be earned through the planting of trees, mostly in the Midwest, the
South and the Plains states.
The American Farm Bureau Federation and some farm-state Republican lawmakers
have complained that the offsets program would push landowners to plant
trees and terminate their leases with farmers.
The model projects that reduced farm production will cause food prices to
rise by 4.5 percent by 2050 compared with a scenario in which no legislation
is passed, the department found.
A department spokesman declined to comment about how quickly the review
would take place or whether Mr. Vilsack would revise the department's
economic-impact projections.
The Senate has not taken action on climate legislation, although the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee passed a bill similar to the House's
last month. That measure did not include agriculture provisions.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas Democrat and chairman of the Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry Committee, has said she will hold hearings on climate
provisions but has not indicated when those will take place.
The ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia,
and his counterpart on the House Agriculture Committee, ranking Republican
Rep. Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma, wrote to Mr. Vilsack and EPA Administrator
Lisa P. Jackson earlier this month to ask for new economic analyses of the
House and Senate bills.
"EPA's analysis was often cited during debate in the House of
Representatives and the study had a great impact on the final vote. If there
was a flaw in the analysis, then it would be prudent to correct the model
and perform a more current and complete analysis on both [bills]," they
wrote.
In a statement, the EPA said: "EPA looks forward to working with USDA and
the designer of this particular computer model to continue improving the
analytical tools that all of [us] use to predict the ways that different
climate policies would affect agriculture."
Allison Specht, an economist at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said
other studies have largely confirmed the results of the EPA and Agriculture
Department analysis.
"That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The biggest bang
for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees," she said.
HH&C
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study...
>
> Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
This legislation might finally ensure that Sir Thomas Malthus's theory
will work.
That's NOT a good thing.
Larry Fishel
Um...no. Or did I miss the joke?
dca...@krl.org
> "But I thought tree give off carbon dioxide "
>
> Um...no. Or did I miss the joke?
Actually trees only remove CO2 for a relatively short time. If the
trees are burned for firewood, they give off CO2. If they are allowed
to rot after dying, again CO2 released. If they are used for timber
then no CO2 released until a house burns or is wrecked so a new house
can be built.
Dan
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
>
>
> Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
>
> By Edward Felker
>
[snip]
>
> "That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The biggest
> bang for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees," she said.
That's an issue with the structure of the credits and regulations, not the
science.
The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
reaches maturity. Then they are carbon neutral. If you can go in and cut
the trees down before they get old, the carbon removed from the
environment is equal to the carbon hauled out of the forrest on logging
trucks.
But people become emotionally attached to trees and try to keep them around
long after they've stopped soaking up CO2.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Lib Loo
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:yPOdnfKXuLegMqfW...@posted.isomediainc...
> Lib Loo wrote:
>
>>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
>>
>>
>> Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
>>
>> By Edward Felker
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> "That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The biggest
>> bang for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees," she said.
>
> That's an issue with the structure of the credits and regulations, not the
> science.
>
> The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
> reaches maturity. Then they are carbon neutral. If you can go in and cut
> the trees down before they get old, the carbon removed from the
> environment is equal to the carbon hauled out of the forrest on logging
> trucks.
>
> But people become emotionally attached to trees and try to keep them
> around
> long after they've stopped soaking up CO2.
What kind of tree do you think Obama is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_X2Xd1iOmM
robert bowman
> The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
> reaches maturity.
Around here, that would be from 100 to 200 years for pinus ponderosa. The
human race may be back to the stone age before the present seedlings
mature.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
That's why they are referred to as "carbon sinks"
cl...@snyder.on.ca
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Lib Loo wrote:
>
>>
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
>>
>>
>> Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
>>
>> By Edward Felker
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> "That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The biggest
>> bang for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees," she said.
>
>That's an issue with the structure of the credits and regulations, not the
>science.
>
>The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
>reaches maturity. Then they are carbon neutral. If you can go in and cut
>the trees down before they get old, the carbon removed from the
>environment is equal to the carbon hauled out of the forrest on logging
>trucks.
>
>But people become emotionally attached to trees and try to keep them around
>long after they've stopped soaking up CO2.
Which for many types of trees could be in excess of 200 years.
Granted, they get less efficient as the years go by after a certain
point.
Alfred Pennyworth
"Lib Loo" <heez...@crazymother.kom> wrote in message
news:hheeb7$9o3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Tree? He's less than a shrub, some sort of low growing weed.
cavelamb
> On Dec 30, 12:37 am, Larry Fishel <ldfis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "But I thought tree give off carbon dioxide "
>>
>> Um...no. Or did I miss the joke?
>
> Actually trees only remove CO2 for a relatively short time. If the
> trees are burned for firewood, they give off CO2.
Carbon MON-oxide is given off when burned...
Di-hydrogen-Oxide is used to put them out.
oldjag
>
>
>
> > Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
>
> > By Edward Felker
>
> [snip]
>
> > "That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The biggest
> > bang for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees," she said.
>
> That's an issue with the structure of the credits and regulations, not the
> science.
>
> The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
> reaches maturity. Then they are carbon neutral. If you can go in and cut
> the trees down before they get old, the carbon removed from the
> environment is equal to the carbon hauled out of the forrest on logging
> trucks.
>
> But people become emotionally attached to trees and try to keep them around
> long after they've stopped soaking up CO2.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Have gnu, will travel.
Another way to look at though, is that a forest, even when it reaches
equilibrium, is still a "store" of carbon, at least until it is
burned, dies out or decomposes. It may not be net storing CO2, but as
decaying trees give up CO2, new growth is storing the same amount. The
CO2 that it took to grow the forest is tied up and not in the
atmosphere for the duration of the forest! We need diverse forests
with native species to avoid problems with massive tree die offs when
a pest gets out of hand. Forested areas also help with O2 production,
water resources, erosion control and wildlife. Also looks a lot nicer
than a strip mall. I agree that legislation if not done right could
result in non native, single species "factory tree arms" being planted
in areas that are not sustainable in the long term.
F. George McDuffee
<heez...@crazymother.kom> wrote:
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
>
>
>Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
>
>By Edward Felker
>
>Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has ordered his staff to revise a
>computerized forecasting model that showed that climate legislation
>supported by President Obama would make planting trees more lucrative than
>producing food.
<snip>
More information bubbles to the surface about how US energy
independence and carbon emission source control has been
sabotaged.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/the-lost-decade-of-algal-biofuel/
How Algal Biofuels Lost a Decade in the Race to Replace Oil
* By Alexis Madrigal * December 29, 2009
For nearly 20 years, a government laboratory built a living,
respiring library of carefully collected organisms in search of
something that could grow quickly while producing something
precious: oil.
But now that collection has largely been lost.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory scientists found and
isolated around 3,000 species algae from construction ditches,
seasonal desert ponds and briny mashes across the country in a
major bioprospecting effort to find the best organisms to convert
sunlight and carbon dioxide into fuel for cars.
Despite meager funding, the Aquatic Species Program (.pdf),
initiated under President Jimmy Carter, laid the scientific
foundation for making diesel-like fuel from the fat that
microscopic algae accumulate in their cells. Fifty-one varieties
were carefully characterized as potential high-value strains, but
fewer than half of those remain.
�Just when they started to succeed is when the plug got pulled,�
said phycologist Jeff Johansen of John Carroll University, who
collected algal strains for the program in the 1980s. �We were
growing them in ponds and we were going to grow enough to have
them made into a diesel fuel.�
<snip>
===============
Unka George
(George McDuffee)
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Gunner Asch
Loco Weed
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
dca...@krl.org
>
> <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
> That's why they are referred to as "carbon sinks"
So a temporary capture of CO2 is a sink. What does one call a
permanent capture of CO2?
Dan
dca...@krl.org
It may not be net storing CO2, but as
> decaying trees give up CO2, new growth is storing the same amount. The
> CO2 that it took to grow the forest is tied up and not in the
> atmosphere for the duration of the forest!
I bet that someone will be claiming more carbon credits for the new
growth.
Dan
Nik Rim
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:175bee08-13fe-4b77...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
Dan
A sunk?
Terry
wrote:
>dca...@krl.org wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 12:37 am, Larry Fishel <ldfis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "But I thought tree give off carbon dioxide "
>>>
>>> Um...no. Or did I miss the joke?
>>
>> Actually trees only remove CO2 for a relatively short time. If the
>> trees are burned for firewood, they give off CO2.
>
>Carbon MON-oxide is given off when burned...
CO is produced but in very tiny amounts unless the oxygen available is
restricted. Of course, it doesn't take but a fraction of a percent of
CO in a closed room to kill... About 99% of the carbon exits either
as soot or as carbon dioxide.
Hey! Why not change all the wood to charcoal, then just bury it? Take
the carbon permanently out of circulation.**
Terry
**I don't know how to make a tongue-in-cheek emoticon. The magnitude
of such a task would be formidable, to say the least.
Curly Surmudgeon
A black hole.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stormin Mormon
"Now, 146823, be sure to use carbon-free soap when you wash
your hands!"
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:nmglj5dt56ot2mipg...@4ax.com...
Dan
In nature, nothing is permanent.
Before humans, a significant sink was gas, oil, and coal...
Dan
Larry Jaques
<Alf...@waynemansion.bs> scrawled the following:
>
>
>"Lib Loo" <heez...@crazymother.kom> wrote in message
>news:hheeb7$9o3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
>> news:yPOdnfKXuLegMqfW...@posted.isomediainc...
>>> Lib Loo wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
>>>>
>>>> By Edward Felker
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> "That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The biggest
>>>> bang for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees," she said.
>>>
>>> That's an issue with the structure of the credits and regulations, not
>>> the
>>> science.
>>>
>>> The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
>>> reaches maturity. Then they are carbon neutral. If you can go in and cut
>>> the trees down before they get old, the carbon removed from the
>>> environment is equal to the carbon hauled out of the forrest on logging
>>> trucks.
>>>
>>> But people become emotionally attached to trees and try to keep them
>>> around
>>> long after they've stopped soaking up CO2.
Hehehe. Sounds like my neighbor's prized cherry tree died. It died 30
years ago but she won't cut it down. All branches but one have rotted
off. It's 9' tall with a 5" max diameter.
>> What kind of tree do you think Obama is?
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_X2Xd1iOmM
>
>Tree? He's less than a shrub, some sort of low growing weed.
Himalayan Blackberry, a type which (theory) promises nice treats but
(reality) ends up growing far beyond its means and ripping you to
shreads every time you deal with it closely.
Typical Demonrat.
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
nob...@nowhere.org
wrote:
Actually that would be an easy task. And it would work. We already
recycle many objects, this would just be the lastcycle for certain
items. Building charcoal plants is about as low tech as you can get.
Buried or dumped into the oceans works and it's not going to harm
either environment.
There are a few experts who've studied this very option and they
support it whole heartedly. I can't remember names at the moment but
a google search should find more info. I heard one speak last Summer
on a talk radio show. I do remember him saying that you'll not hear
Al Gore or his ilk discuss it.
Newb
Larry Jaques
scrawled the following:
> That's why they are referred to as "carbon sinks"
What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.
Lib Loo
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hhfp03$snj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:42:21 +0800, "Nik Rim" <que...@kbd.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> A sunk?
>
> A black hole.
Obama's economy
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
>dca...@krl.org wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 12:37 am, Larry Fishel <ldfis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "But I thought tree give off carbon dioxide "
>>>
>>> Um...no. Or did I miss the joke?
>>
>> Actually trees only remove CO2 for a relatively short time. If the
>> trees are burned for firewood, they give off CO2.
>
>Carbon MON-oxide is given off when burned...
Carbon MONoxide is only produced if incompletely burned.
Steve Ackman
> Hey! Why not change all the wood to charcoal, then just bury it? Take
> the carbon permanently out of circulation.**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
--
☯☯
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Better to tuck the CO2 out of the forest (in the form of lumber) and
replace the old trees with fast growing new ones.
> We need diverse forests
> with native species to avoid problems with massive tree die offs when
> a pest gets out of hand.
Old growth forests are not very diverse, either in terms of plant or
animal life. Once the forest floor becomes shaded, not much (aside from
a few ferns and moss) grows there. Walt through an old growth forest
sometime and you'll see that the space betwen the trees is pretty open
compared to that in newer growth. There's not much for animals to eat or
to provide cover from predators.
New forests (young trees that let in lots of light) support lots of low
plants and shrubs. And all the wildlife that depends on them for food
and shelter.
> Forested areas also help with O2 production,
> water resources, erosion control and wildlife. Also looks a lot nicer
> than a strip mall. I agree that legislation if not done right could
> result in non native, single species "factory tree arms" being planted
> in areas that are not sustainable in the long term.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
Steve B
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote
> What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
> wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
> they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
> us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.
Yes, but it does have so much of that Little House On The Prairie look and
feel, doesn't it? Compost pile in the back. Little office with moon and
star on the doors.
Steve
cavelamb
Or the Greenies buying new electric cars - because they are environmentally
friendly..
Regardless of what it took to make all that plastic in the first place...
cavelamb
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:27:03 -0600, cavelamb <cave...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 12:37 am, Larry Fishel <ldfis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "But I thought tree give off carbon dioxide "
>>>>
>>>> Um...no. Or did I miss the joke?
>>> Actually trees only remove CO2 for a relatively short time. If the
>>> trees are burned for firewood, they give off CO2.
>> Carbon MON-oxide is given off when burned...
>
>
> Carbon MONoxide is only produced if incompletely burned.
>
>
It ALWAYS burns incompletely...
Unless you are blowing pure O2 into the fire.
HH&C
wrote:
> "Lib Loo" <heezb...@crazymother.kom> wrote in message
>
> news:hheeb7$9o3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
> >news:yPOdnfKXuLegMqfW...@posted.isomediainc...
> >> Lib Loo wrote:
>
>
> >>> Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
>
> >>> By Edward Felker
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >>> "That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The biggest
> >>> bang for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees," she said.
>
> >> That's an issue with the structure of the credits and regulations, not
> >> the
> >> science.
>
> >> The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
> >> reaches maturity. Then they are carbon neutral. If you can go in and cut
> >> the trees down before they get old, the carbon removed from the
> >> environment is equal to the carbon hauled out of the forrest on logging
> >> trucks.
>
> >> But people become emotionally attached to trees and try to keep them
> >> around
> >> long after they've stopped soaking up CO2.
>
> > What kind of tree do you think Obama is?
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_X2Xd1iOmM
>
> Tree? He's less than a shrub, some sort of low growing weed.
I'll be kind and call him Herb. I don't want to insult Steve Forbs.
Ned Simmons
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
>wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
>they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
>us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.
I've asked you a million times to not exaggerate. If you look only at
the combustion products (which is far from the entire picture), and
make a SWAG for burner efficiency, the CO2 emissions from heating with
wood are perhaps 3-4 times that of gas.
--
Ned Simmons
Larry Jaques
<ne...@nedsim.com> scrawled the following:
Cite real stats on that, please, Ned. Having stood/lived downwind
from a fireplace/woodstove or two, I don't believe a word of it. Whole
valleys are polluted by one single wood fire, fer chrissake. It's
disgusting. I can't work outside when fireplaces are upwind. Catalytic
stovepipe inserts and pellets help for woodstoves, but it's still
lousy breathing downwind of any of those. You'd be hard pressed to
notice combustion downwind of a natural gas furnace.
Plus, everything I've read shows a 25-40x difference. If you have
other stats, show me.
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
Ned Simmons
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
><ne...@nedsim.com> scrawled the following:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:12:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
>><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
>>>wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
>>>they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
>>>us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.
>>
>>I've asked you a million times to not exaggerate. If you look only at
>>the combustion products (which is far from the entire picture), and
>>make a SWAG for burner efficiency, the CO2 emissions from heating with
>>wood are perhaps 3-4 times that of gas.
>
>Cite real stats on that, please, Ned.
This looks OK me:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html
At 100% efficiency burning wood releases 1.7x as much CO2 as natural
gas. My SWAG is a gas furnace is probably at least twice as efficient
as a wood stove, so 3-4x seems in the ballpark.
>Having stood/lived downwind
>from a fireplace/woodstove or two, I don't believe a word of it. Whole
>valleys are polluted by one single wood fire, fer chrissake. It's
>disgusting. I can't work outside when fireplaces are upwind. Catalytic
>stovepipe inserts and pellets help for woodstoves, but it's still
>lousy breathing downwind of any of those. You'd be hard pressed to
>notice combustion downwind of a natural gas furnace.
>
>Plus, everything I've read shows a 25-40x difference. If you have
>other stats, show me.
Now you're talking about stuff other than CO2, and I agree. In fact,
I'll bet 40x is way low for particulates when comparing wood and gas.
Wood stoves aren't a problem in that regard here in coastal Maine --
stagnant air conditions are very rare, especially in winter, and
population density is relatively low. But some larger towns have
started to regulate outdoor wood boilers due to their tendency to
smolder and smoke badly when they're damped down. And their short
stacks makes the problem worse because all that smoke is vented close
to the ground.
I did design work about 30 years ago for a company that was building
wood boilers based on a design by a University of Maine ME professor.
The Hill boilers ran full tilt and stored the heat in a large volume
of water. A normal hydronic heating system circulated the stored hot
water between burns. Burning the wood hot and fast resulted in a very
clean burn and pretty high efficiencies.
--
Ned Simmons
Wes
>The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
>reaches maturity. Then they are carbon neutral. If you can go in and cut
>the trees down before they get old, the carbon removed from the
>environment is equal to the carbon hauled out of the forrest on logging
>trucks.
So does that mean Algore has put away funding to replace mature forests storing sold
carbon credits with new forests every 200 years? I'm smelling fraud.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Larry Jaques
<ne...@nedsim.com> scrawled the following:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:05:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
>><ne...@nedsim.com> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:12:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
>>><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>What burns me up (sorry) is when the tree huggers all use "natural"
>>>>wood stoves, buring wood they so often defended. The result is that
>>>>they are putting out at least 40 times the amount of CO2 than those of
>>>>us who bought high-efficiency gas furnaces.
>>>
>>>I've asked you a million times to not exaggerate. If you look only at
>>>the combustion products (which is far from the entire picture), and
>>>make a SWAG for burner efficiency, the CO2 emissions from heating with
>>>wood are perhaps 3-4 times that of gas.
>>
>>Cite real stats on that, please, Ned.
>
>This looks OK me:
>http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html
>
>At 100% efficiency burning wood releases 1.7x as much CO2 as natural
>gas. My SWAG is a gas furnace is probably at least twice as efficient
>as a wood stove, so 3-4x seems in the ballpark.
"At 100% efficiency"
"SWAG"
"seem in the ballpark"
Yeah, you really put it to me, Ned. Those cites are gruesome!
Garsh, I'm soooo embarrassed. ;)
>>Having stood/lived downwind
>>from a fireplace/woodstove or two, I don't believe a word of it. Whole
>>valleys are polluted by one single wood fire, fer chrissake. It's
>>disgusting. I can't work outside when fireplaces are upwind. Catalytic
>>stovepipe inserts and pellets help for woodstoves, but it's still
>>lousy breathing downwind of any of those. You'd be hard pressed to
>>notice combustion downwind of a natural gas furnace.
>>
>>Plus, everything I've read shows a 25-40x difference. If you have
>>other stats, show me.
>
>Now you're talking about stuff other than CO2, and I agree. In fact,
>I'll bet 40x is way low for particulates when comparing wood and gas.
>Wood stoves aren't a problem in that regard here in coastal Maine --
>stagnant air conditions are very rare, especially in winter, and
>population density is relatively low. But some larger towns have
>started to regulate outdoor wood boilers due to their tendency to
>smolder and smoke badly when they're damped down. And their short
>stacks makes the problem worse because all that smoke is vented close
>to the ground.
Yeah, I suppose I should have said "total pollutants", not just CO2.
>I did design work about 30 years ago for a company that was building
>wood boilers based on a design by a University of Maine ME professor.
>The Hill boilers ran full tilt and stored the heat in a large volume
>of water. A normal hydronic heating system circulated the stored hot
>water between burns. Burning the wood hot and fast resulted in a very
>clean burn and pretty high efficiencies.
How efficient would you say a wood burning stove or fireplace is, Ned,
compared to a professionally run and serviced heating boiler system?
DOH!
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
>"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
>>The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
>>reaches maturity. Then they are carbon neutral. If you can go in and cut
>>the trees down before they get old, the carbon removed from the
>>environment is equal to the carbon hauled out of the forrest on logging
>>trucks.
>
>
>So does that mean Algore has put away funding to replace mature forests storing sold
>carbon credits with new forests every 200 years? I'm smelling fraud.
Yes, he has wholesaled himself carbon credits from his carbon credit
company, Wes. A Nobel Prize winning super-politician like Algore would
never tell a fib or do _anything_ underhanded, would he?
cavelamb
We burned the Christmas tree tonight.
I'm wild assed guessing 10 percent.
Ned Simmons
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
Yeah, a factor of 10 error is pretty embarassing. <g>
Catalytic stoves are rated as high as 80%, while modern gas furnaces
are 90%+ efficient. But there are too many variables in woodstove
design and operation to rely on a single number. So a 2 to 1 ratio is
a conservative number, erring in favor of gas, and close enough to
debunk a claim of 40x CO2 emissions from a woodstove.
--
Ned Simmons
Larry Jaques
<ne...@nedsim.com> scrawled the following:
Crikey! We'll just have to agree to completely and antithetically
disagree on this one, too, Ned. Ciao!
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
>>The problem with trees is that they only soak up carbon until the forrest
>>reaches maturity. Then they are carbon neutral. If you can go in and cut
>>the trees down before they get old, the carbon removed from the
>>environment is equal to the carbon hauled out of the forrest on logging
>>trucks.
>
>
> So does that mean Algore has put away funding to replace mature forests
> storing sold
> carbon credits with new forests every 200 years? I'm smelling fraud.
It depends on where the forests are. In this country, if you try logging a
forest with a conservation easement, the tree-huggers will tie you up in
courts for years.
But most of the funds for forest conservation is going overseas. It's
similar to making development loans to third-world countries where there is
going to be a loan forgiveness movement and then another round of loans.
We'll pay them to save their trees. They will, for a while. Then they'll
cut them down. The money we paid for credits is gone, so nobody gets sued.
But we want them to save forests, so we'll pay them to re-plant. Which they
will, until they decode to log them off again. Endless loop.
The end result is that the logging business has moved overseas. We can't do
it here anymore, since we might upset an owl. But nobody is going to stop
buying that nice wood furniture made in China.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> Catalytic stoves are rated as high as 80%, while modern gas furnaces
> are 90%+ efficient. But there are too many variables in woodstove
> design and operation to rely on a single number. So a 2 to 1 ratio is
> a conservative number, erring in favor of gas, and close enough to
> debunk a claim of 40x CO2 emissions from a woodstove.
Ole Wik's wood stove book that Lindsay once sold has a performance
chart for the Jotul 118, the old one instead of the Black Bear they
sell now.
It gives the maximum efficiency point at 22,500 BTU/Hr with 3.1 Lbs/
hour of air-dried wood, 20% moisture content.
This mentions the same data point, 76% efficient:
http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/8911/
The chart apparently comes from Jotul's resource book "The Art of
Heating with Wood", which I haven't found to download yet.
I run my import copy hotter than that to eliminate visible smoke but I
burn on average only about two cords a year, in cold NH. People with
similar houses tell me they burn 5.
jsw
Ned Simmons
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:38:47 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
><ne...@nedsim.com> scrawled the following:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:29:39 -0800, Larry Jaques
>><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>>How efficient would you say a wood burning stove or fireplace is, Ned,
>>>compared to a professionally run and serviced heating boiler system?
>>>DOH!
>>
>>Catalytic stoves are rated as high as 80%, while modern gas furnaces
>>are 90%+ efficient. But there are too many variables in woodstove
>>design and operation to rely on a single number. So a 2 to 1 ratio is
>>a conservative number, erring in favor of gas, and close enough to
>>debunk a claim of 40x CO2 emissions from a woodstove.
>
>Crikey! We'll just have to agree to completely and antithetically
>disagree on this one, too, Ned. Ciao!
I'm always willing to be disagreeable <g>, but I'm not sure what the
disagreement is, unless you still think a woodstove emits 40x the CO2
a gas furnace does.
--
Ned Simmons
Ned Simmons
We heat with a firebrick lined welded steel knockoff of a Jotul that I
built 25 years ago. Two and a half cords takes care of our small 1200
sf house with lots of glass in ME.
This stove is the 16" model. I built others as small as 12", and three
behemoths that burned 4' sticks for the service buildings at a
boatyard.
--
Ned Simmons
Larry Jaques
<ne...@nedsim.com> scrawled the following:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:17:56 -0800, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:38:47 -0500, the infamous Ned Simmons
>><ne...@nedsim.com> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:29:39 -0800, Larry Jaques
>>><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>How efficient would you say a wood burning stove or fireplace is, Ned,
>>>>compared to a professionally run and serviced heating boiler system?
>>>>DOH!
>>>
>>>Catalytic stoves are rated as high as 80%, while modern gas furnaces
>>>are 90%+ efficient. But there are too many variables in woodstove
>>>design and operation to rely on a single number. So a 2 to 1 ratio is
>>>a conservative number, erring in favor of gas, and close enough to
>>>debunk a claim of 40x CO2 emissions from a woodstove.
>>
>>Crikey! We'll just have to agree to completely and antithetically
>>disagree on this one, too, Ned. Ciao!
>
>I'm always willing to be disagreeable <g>, but I'm not sure what the
>disagreement is, unless you still think a woodstove emits 40x the CO2
>a gas furnace does.
Right, it's a helluva lot more pollutants than 2x, as you state. In
real life, not everyone runs catalytics (yet), either.
jbsl...@gmail.com
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
Many years ago when Suharto was president of Indonesia someone asked
him about to cutting of Indonesia's forests. He replied that it was
easy to control - "just stop buying the wood".
Regards,
J.B.