Pellet stove

Page 9 of 10  

Good grief Brock.... About the only thing I could understand is part of the first sentance.....

After that it gets a little heavy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Shiver wrote:

The point is synthesized as.
"...However, direct evidence of petroleum generation from potential source rocks is lacking, ..."
and
"The abundance of bitumen nodules and residual pyrobitnmen in black shales across the Pilbara craton suggests that hydrocarbon generation from kerogenous shales was a common phenomenon during the Middle to Late Archean. The petroleum was generated from organic matter that accumulated in marine environments,..."
What is found in these environments is, iow, still organic-based.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

[major snip]

In other words... it was *not* "left over from the formation of the solar system" -- it formed from rotting plants and animal carcasses.
--
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
wrote:

Excuse me, but that's a tough one to swallow. There's far too much oil in the earth to have all been formed from "rotting plants and animal carcasses"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

Why? What is a physical basis for that as a blanket aassertion other than your personal opinion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

OK, fine - demonstrate that. Show your work.
--
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:

Note the word _largely_ (whcich was required for a long time in the US peer reviewed press to be allowed to make any references to abiotic origin.
That is a reference to the conventional petroleum geology theory, which has problems of its own, and relies on biological truisms that predate the discovery of extremophile bacteria. I might note that the Russians, who believe in abiotic origins for oil seem to be finding it where they look with at least the same level of reliability of the US based theorists looking in somewhat different places.
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From time to time the bacterial origins theory rears its head and then disappears once again. Still one must consider the easter Ohio western Pennsylvania shallow oil fields originally tapped into by Drake.

During the soviet era the Russians used their sledgehammer-to-kill-a-fly routine with exploration for natural resources. It appears they weren't so selective as people who had to answer to shareholders every year, but lucked into some odd discoveries. We're probably not nearly as close to "the end" as the doomsday crowd preaches.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ulfsen) says...

The controversy is caused by a bunch of simplistic morons kicking the dirt in a desert and proclaiming that all petroleum resources are from the same source. There is little doubt that deep methane is left over from either the formation of the earth or as a fossil remnant of the earth's original methane atmosphere. OTOH, methane in sedimentary strata is probably the remnant of decomposed organic matter. In both cases, heat and pressure can cook methane into longer carbon chain molecules and free hydrogen, also reducing CO2 to CO, yielding our familiar natural gas fuel.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc


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

If it were not for the existence of a few rational thinkers who choose to maintain an open mind, instead of living up to the stereotypical "hall of laughing scientists" that have been proven wrong time after time, we wouldn't have been blessed with the many scientific breakthroughs we now take for granted.
When you think about it, many radical scientific breakthroughs have come as a result of dogged determination against a torrent of peer ridicule for many years. Continental drift, nanobacterial ulcers and powered flight are just a few examples. Our friend here seems to have the iron will to be counted among the fools who want to circle the wagons and shoot anyone who's not inside the comfortable little circle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

....
True, but I'm betting this one won't be one of them...we can "hide and watch" so to speak.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Goedjn) says...

You tend to overestimate the impact of the American consumer on the global carbon sink. They do, however have a disproportionately large influence on carbon emissions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Goedjn wrote:

If you eat the corn, much of the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. If you bury it and let it rot, it goes back into the atmoshpere...
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

No, they don't. All the carbon comes out of the atmosphere, so biofuel does not contribute anything to atmospheric carbon. It is pure solar energy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bottom line is: If everyone used biofuels, then the next years' crop would reabsorb the CO2 released the previous winter, rather than releasing the CO2 from carbon that has been safely buried for millions of years. Hope we might get there before climate change unleashes hopeless amounts of who knows what.

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

would
prices
A few years back these were sold everywhere. Now few places even will talk about them.
That should say something.
My thoughts were always that while the pellets were "less bother" than real wood. You were at the mercy of the pellet makers. and what they charge for a bag of "fuel"
Nothing like having a real woodstove that you can even get free PALLETS from factories in your area, saw them up and toss them in. I've had 2 woodburners for over 15 years and have NEVER paid for a piece of wood used in them. Neighbors are always cutting trees, and supply me with more wood than I can use.
AMUN
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What the hell are you talking about? They are EVERYWHERE. More and more places are now selling the pellets too. You can even get them at Home Depot and Lowes now. They are mainstream.
2 of my local news stations have done stories on them within the last month about how they are exploding in popularity because of the rise in fossil fuel costs.

A ton of pellet fuel is almost equal in price to a cord of firewood. The pellet fuel will provide, at minimum, 40% more BTU output. In other words, it will last much longer than a cord of wood.

Been there and done that for many many years. Wood stoves can be nice, but they are WAY too much work and messy if your intent is to heat the home for the winter. No more for me, thanks. My last 4 years with the pellet stove have opened my eyes to how nice it can be. I get to keep the house much warmer than with the thermostat and it costs much less and gas/oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I
any
of
I hate to point this out, but some of us on USENET, don't live just down the block from you.
<g>
AMUN
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thank you for your astute observation. It's a two way street, you know. Your statements were rather localized as well.
However, they are gaining popularity nation wide. But, seeing as it appears you are posting from Canada, I don't much care.
Oh - <g> to you too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We moved to southwest Missouri from Michigan in February 2005. We purchased a St Croix brand pellet stove at that time. We were able to heat our home (about 1600 sq ft, open architecture) with on 40# bag a day. A forty pound bag of hardwood pellets costs about $3.00. This winter we are going to buy in bulk. The best price we have seen so far is $134 a ton at Lowe's. That breaks down to $2.68 a bag. We have been told that two ton should do it for the winter. The pellet stove does have a thermostat and we try to keep it about 75 , but the house is usually about 80.
I hope this was helpful.
Amy
-
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.