Pellet stove

Page 6 of 10  
Solar Flare wrote:

I think you misjudge the ability of life to deal with our excess.
Have you noticed that crop yields have also increased with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It could be that it is simply the action of fertilizer and selective breeding alone, but I've noticed that when I dose aquatic plants with excess CO2 they proliferate rapidly.
One might even suggest that to continue our parisitic relationship with the world, humans may require an increasing atmospheric CO2 quantity just to meet our food needs... that is if our increasing population trend continues (and it shows no great signs of slowing down).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I haven't. Show us some evidence for that.
Greenhouses use CO2 generators to elevate the level much higher than atmospheric levels, and there is some benefit. The difference between 1860 levels and 2005 is about 100 ppm. That is a rise of 1 in 10,000. If you got a yield increase of about 1- 10,000th, or (1% of 1%,) that would make sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

Er, no. CO2 level rose from about 280 PPM to 370 PPM.
That is a rise of 90 from a baseline of 280, or an increase of over 30%

No, that wouldn't make any sense at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

our
the
we
atmospheric
alright, then. please explain why you think that is ridiculous ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very simple. The atmosphere won't know the difference between fossil fuel or biofuel. The carbon emissions are the same. Growing more crops for biofuels won't cause the CO2 to go down, only slow it's rise at best. Most of the arable land on earth is already covered with vegetation, consuming CO2. Radically increasing the arable land on earth to supply all the biofuels as a direct replacement for fossil fuels is not a feasible option for a very long time.
In-short, "carbon-neutral" doesn't translate into significant CO2 reduction in the atmosphere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nonsense -- of course it will. The carbon which those plants incorporate as they grow comes from atmospheric CO2.
--
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
Doug Miller wrote:

But you intend to burn those plants, putting the carbon back into the air. So you are not reducing the carbon, just keeping it at the same level. To reduce the carbon you would need to grow the plants then take the carbon out of the cycle by not using the plants for fuel.
Bruce

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Sep 2005 12:26:02 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@my-deja.com wrote:

How many blocks of dry ice do we need to eject into space to fix all this?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kryppy wrote:

More practical...grow bamboo...turn into charcoal....bury in mine shafts...
thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno
--
Seen it all, done it all, can\'t remember most of it

This tag line is generated by:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do a little mental math. How any tons of carbon would you need to handle to make a significant difference to the atmosphere?
We are putting 7 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere annually, so to just to hold the levels static, you would have to handle about 2500 lbs of bamboo for every man, woman and child on earth. How practical is that scheme?
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to reduce our consumption of carbon-based fuels?
Do we really need to burn up 75 kilowatts of hydrocarbon fuel energy just to visit a friend in the next city? Electricity or hydrogen fuel seem to make more sense.
You sound like someone who finds the hardest possible way to do a task.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

LOL....my idea gets rid of more carbon with less energy then making dry ice and shooting it into space..I think..more practical....<grin>....
Hydrogen is not a replacement for oil ..it is a storage medium...like a battery...you need to separate from whatever it is chemically bound to...in order to get...and when you use it you get less energy back.. if the separation is done by electricity that is not produced by oil, it ends up not being a losing game..
Electricity works if not generated by oil...using hydro or wind or nuclear you can produce more out then you have to put in, the first two put in the energy from the sun which is basically free, nuclear puts in the binding energy of the atom which is a lot more energy then it takes to refine the fuel....bio fuels are iffy...it is not clear yet whether it takes more energy to produce...energy to run farm machines, energy for fertilizer, etc...
have fun.....sno
--
Seen it all, done it all, can\'t remember most of it

This tag line is generated by:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Electricity and hydrgogen fuel cells are not energy sources in the macro context. they are energy transfer, just like springs. They do not solve the problem you seem to think they solve.
(They do solve a DIFFERENT problem, which is why they're a good idea, anyway.)
--Goedjn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Electricity is the cleanest currency for which to transfer energy from the source to the end use. We won't always believe that burning hydrocarbons are the answer to everything. Alternate energy potential is truly vast but expensive to utilize compared to fossil fuels, which are bound to be a short-term party. Once we grow up and realize the future is in renewable sources, electricity and hydrogen won't look like such bad energy carriers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

just
carriers. Electricity has alot more effeciency than hydrogen which is about 12%. 149kw of energy for 21kw delivered by the hydrogen. Hydrogen has the potental of jumping carbon fuel use by 3 to6 times present level. www.caranddriver.com

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

Much of the arable land is used for grass, or grain to feed cattle, where the carbon is released into that atmosphere as either exhaled CO2 or farted methane. If we used that same land to grow hemp to make paper and stored the paper in nice dry buildings (made of fibrepanels produced from hemp) for centuries, that carbon would be sequested, and hemp produces more biomass per acre tham grass.
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

....
And less food and other necessary products...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

All I suggested was we use the land currently used to feed cattle.
Burgers become more expensive, more people eat less meat.
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

....
Much of that (at least in the US, and I would assume in Oz as well or it would already be doing something else) isn't suited for other than range land.
I great number of cattle are also fed on dual-purpose crops already such as what we do--we run heifers on wheat pasture and milo stubble over the fall/winter/early spring, take them off in the spring and send them on to the feeders while the wheat goes on to grain and we prepare non-summer fallow ground for the spring planting...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That last staement spurs me to a response.
Oddly enough, there may be a non-human culprit that bears some responsibility for increasing carbon levels. I was surprised to find that the common earthworm is not indiginous to north america, but was imported by the europeans. While earthworms do aerate the soil, they are also implicated in shinking the layers of detrius called "duff" that carpets forest lands. That duff is a huge carbon sink that is being lost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harry Chickpea wrote:

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

Site Timeline

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.