Pellet stove

Page 5 of 10  
JoeSixPack wrote:

gasoline.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

Thats about 40 pounds/gallon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your conclusion does not follow from your postulates. This doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but it does mean that your argument is.
--goedjn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before our industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.
Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we are burning.
"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning carbon-based fuels altogether.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or find a plant or environment that's particularly good at sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. Crank the global temp a degree or so, And I'll bet you get algae blooms like you never saw... that ought to do it...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mail.uri.edu (Goedjn) says...

Until the algae dies.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Semantics but "carbon does not burn"

That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before our industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.
Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we are burning.
"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning carbon-based fuels altogether.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Solar Flare wrote:

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?
Solar Flare wrote:

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Solar Flare wrote:

I'm no chemist, but: (2)CO + O2 -> (2)CO2 ?
R, Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It wouldn't be "reduced" to anything. It would be *oxidized* from CO to CO2. Simple reaction: 2CO + O2 --> 2CO2.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Solar Flare wrote:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/producer.asp
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Solar Flare wrote:

Reduction and combustion are complimentary processes. If you want iron, you reduce iron oxides, if you want rust, you oxegenate iron (slowly, it rusts, fast and you use it to cut your way through things (thermite (<waves to Eschelon>))...
Ask a metalurgist, or potter...
....Brock. (Many Russian Nuclear Vessels are now complete bombs.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, yes it does.

And there will eventually be an equilibrium again. Probably at a higher concentration -- possibly *much* higher -- but there will be equilibrium again. Eventually.

Seems you've completely missed the point of the biofuel discussion. There is a qualitative difference in the effect of burning biofuel vs. burning fossil fuel: the carbon in biofuel came from the atmosphere, and returns to the atmosphere when burned -- hence no net change in carbon content in the atmosphere. The carbon in fossil fuel came out of the ground, and burning it produces a net increase in atmospheric carbon.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Solar Flare wrote:

We've been burning carbon fuels for something like 1 to 1.5 million years.
All of our fuel came from the bioshpere until the adoption of coal and oil to drive the Dark Satanic Mills of the industrial revolution.
The fuel was carbon neutral, it grew, mostly within a century of when we used it, we burned it (as opposed to it decaying), its carbon returned to the carbin cycle.
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry. I wrote none of the follow text.
Solar Flare wrote:

We've been burning carbon fuels for something like 1 to 1.5 million years.
All of our fuel came from the bioshpere until the adoption of coal and oil to drive the Dark Satanic Mills of the industrial revolution.
The fuel was carbon neutral, it grew, mostly within a century of when we used it, we burned it (as opposed to it decaying), its carbon returned to the carbin cycle.
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which Luddite said that originally?

So where did all the excess "carbin" in the atmosphere come from before we started burning petroleum?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There *wasn't* an excess -- precisely because burning wood *is* carbon-neutral.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been fairly stable until the industrial revolution started burning coal (A fossil fuel) and petroleum il, which may or may not be a fossil fuel, but in any case, niether were active parts of the atmospheric carbon cycle for the first million years or so of human use of combustion.
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly, but it's not a question of the total carbon budget. It's a question of emission rates exceeding assimilation rates. That's what they fail to get.
About 55 million years ago, there was a very rapid rise of global warming, almost 12C worldwide, in "just an instant" in geologic terms. It has taken a very long time for the temperatures to creep down to recent levels. It seems obvious that assimilation rates for carbon being fixed outside out of the cycle are very slow indeed. In other words, burning biofuels is just a way to pass the carbon around faster.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.