Bad day in Oklahoma

"Dave Stadt" wrote

Wood burning stoves have been outlawed in some places due to the polution
they produce. In the US we are almost forced to consume unrenewable fuel
and in many cases it is due to environmentalist hard line stands.

Aren't there some kind of catalytic converters, for wood stoves, in use?
--
Jim in NC

Yes, there are. And within limits, they help. I am one of the very few in
my suburban neighborhood who actually heated his home almost entirely with
wood that I felled, split and burned. I used a little gas to fell the
trees, haul the wood and split the wood. If you have a decent sized house
and you want to heat with wood, you'd better use gasoline to help, or don't
bother with a full time job.

I didn't heat with wood because I was "environmentally conscious". I had a
house with two heat pumps and I am a cheap SOB. Heat pumps are massive
frauds on the scale of Social Security, but those are two more rants.

The problem with catalytic converters is that they have to be glowing to
work. It takes a while to heat it up and get it "lit off." When the fire
diminishes, the converter doesn't work. The converters really do help the
stove throw out extra heat, and it was neat to lift up the cook plate and
see the ceramic grid glow red. They also cut down on the creosote in your
chimney.

I also went through a converter or more per season, and they weren't cheap.
I also got some of the castings hot enough that they warped.

That stuff about heating with wood just doesn't work for most of the
country. It takes several cords of wood and enormous effort to keep your
house warm. And even if you are willing to spend the time, we were also
talking about getting to work, etc. Hope you have enough extra energy to
ride that bike.

You can wiggle all you want on the issues, there is nothing here or on the
horizon which will replace oil. Consider the humble string trimmer: think
about all the work you can get out of an ounce or two of gasoline. Think of
what you would have to carry around in the way of batteries to equal that
work.

I would like nothing more that to tell the oil-selling countries to take a
leap. Other than Canada and Britain, countries with significant oil
reserves are our arch enemies. But wishing doesn't make it so. We have to
make immediate short term plans to stabilize and protect our oil supply, or
we will lose our way of life.


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote

Wood burning stoves have been outlawed in some places due to the polution
they produce. In the US we are almost forced to consume unrenewable fuel
and in many cases it is due to environmentalist hard line stands.

Aren't there some kind of catalytic converters, for wood stoves, in use?
--
Jim in NC

On 2006-03-10, LWG wrote:
talking about getting to work, etc. Hope you have enough extra energy to
ride that bike.

Well, doing all that stuff would make me as fit as Lance Armstrong, so I
expect so g

horizon which will replace oil. Consider the humble string trimmer: think
about all the work you can get out of an ounce or two of gasoline. Think of
what you would have to carry around in the way of batteries to equal that
work.

Yes, and of course that's what makes it a difficult problem to address
and why we are so addicted to oil. I estimate it takes less than a pint
of gasoline for our glider winch to get a 1500' launch for my Ka-8
glider (dragging the thread somewhere near back on topic). Although you
can buy German-made electric winches now.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On 2006-03-09, Matt Barrow wrote:
pro-active about it. But continuing to throw our hands up and say 'oh
well' and continuing to change the atmospheric composition is not the
answer.

Ummm...BS!

OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.

Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.

Huh?

Well, to reply in your engagingly abrasive style:
http://just****inggoogleit.com/

But I will add a more constructive reply. Coal contains radioactive
isotopes. Burning coal turns this compact and solid form of matter into
hot gases which goes up the coal fired power station's smokestack,
complete with some of the radioactive isotopes. Since very large
quantities of coal are being burned, this results in a measurable amount
of radioisotopes being spread about the atmosphere.

Some references: the very first return from Google:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

Quote:
"Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the
United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040,
cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937
are predicted to be:

* U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):

Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 357,491 tons

* Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons"

There are plenty more similar references. The anti-nuclear lobby who
would rather we burn coal conveniently gloss over things like this.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-09, Matt Barrow wrote:
pro-active about it. But continuing to throw our hands up and say 'oh
well' and continuing to change the atmospheric composition is not the
answer.

Ummm...BS!

OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.

When you get rational instead of parroting the usual tripe, then we can have
a rational discussion.


Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.

Huh?

Well, to reply in your engagingly abrasive style:
http://just****inggoogleit.com/

Well, try being accurate with your snips and then I won't be abrasive.


But I will add a more constructive reply. Coal contains radioactive
isotopes. Burning coal turns this compact and solid form of matter into
hot gases which goes up the coal fired power station's smokestack,
complete with some of the radioactive isotopes. Since very large
quantities of coal are being burned, this results in a measurable amount
of radioisotopes being spread about the atmosphere.

Some references: the very first return from Google:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

Quote:
"Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the
United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040,
cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937
are predicted to be:

* U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):

Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 357,491 tons

* Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons"

There are plenty more similar references. The anti-nuclear lobby who
would rather we burn coal conveniently gloss over things like this.


Nice, but that wasn't the part I was responding to. As I said, be accurate
and contextual with your snips.

On 2006-03-10, Matt Barrow wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.

When you get rational instead of parroting the usual tripe, then we can have
a rational discussion.

Nice way to dodge the question.

(4th nesting, my article)
(3rd nesting, your reply, 2nd nesting, my reply to that):
Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.

Huh?

Well, to reply in your engagingly abrasive style:
http://just****inggoogleit.com/

Well, try being accurate with your snips and then I won't be abrasive.

The snip is entirely accurate. You replied 'Huh?' to the statement
'Burning coal apparently...'. Where was the lack of accuracy? Google
Groups shows that it is entirely accurate.

[snip quotation about radioisotopes, posted by myself]

Nice, but that wasn't the part I was responding to. As I said, be accurate
and contextual with your snips.

OK, you replied 'Huh?' immediately below 'Burning coal apparently...'.
What bit WERE you replying to, exactly? Your one word question doesn't
exactly provide any indication that you were replying to any other part
other than the immediately preceeding quotation. All the sole world
'Huh?' indicates is that you didn't understand something.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-10, Matt Barrow wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.

When you get rational instead of parroting the usual tripe, then we can
have
a rational discussion.

Nice way to dodge the question.

Here's a start.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speec...omplexity.html (about
half way through)