More green lies.

On 08/01/17 20:48, newshound wrote:

Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral if the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing you do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner
TW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

I am actually burning stuff that is 200+ years old so I'm not doing much to help currently. There are new saplings growing in nearby locations and the otherwise suppressed stretch of hedgerow gets a lot more light.
--
Tim Lamb

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

What do you mean by "wasted" in this context? Trees just dying and rotting down naturally? Why would that not be carbon neutral?
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/01/17 12:06, Tim Streater wrote:

[...]

A forest in its natural state with vegetation growing, dieing back and rotting would be carbon neutral or even carbon positive as long as the organic matter is accumulating and increasing in the growth and in the soil.
I don't have any special knowledge on this subject but that is my understanding.
TW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Generally speaking carbon neutral, yes. People have mentioned that some of the rotting leads to methane but that eventually gets oxidised and so the end result is the same.
The exception is when conditions are wet, so the vegetation sinks into water and goes on to form peat and eventually coal and/or oil. That is then carbon positive, as you say.
--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TimW wrote:

So given the gas/coal/oil that gets burnt also releases CO2 that allows new wood to grow, isn't that good too? The only difference being between a few decades and a few hundred million years!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Presumably the total carbon content of the world has been constant, pretty much since it was formed, with the possible exception of the addition of a few carbonaceous chondrites over the millennia, which probably haven't changed the overall percentage by very much.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/01/17 20:53, Chris Hogg wrote:

well there's a bit of carbon 14 that gets formed from nitrogen here and there.
Mind you it turns back to nitrogen after a few thousand years.
More of God's Nuclear Waste eh harry?
--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:40:49 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:

We have carbon capture technology. Called trees.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/01/17 23:03, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

How could it not make sense? I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no? TW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. CO2 is good for plants. Leave it alone.
--
Smith & Wesson -- the original point and click interface.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:

ut if it can rake in subsidies...

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's li ke taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/01/2017 02:56, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press on the environmental impact of insulation materials.
While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the sense of seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why, reported wider environmental benefits are misleading.
Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only effects post-fit - they seem to throw about notions of CO2 savings with impunity. Not even in the introduction, where any focus should be made plain. Therefore, they can significantly overstate the environmental impact. Not sure about the conclusion (or the data!), but this is a good summary of the sorts of things that should be considered:
http://www.superhomes.org.uk/resources/whats-best-insulation-material/
That said, I've only read half a dozen or so articles. And I have no reason to doubt that even after taking into account pre- and post-installation costs of properly designed insulation, over time net benefits by most measures follow.
--
Cheers, Rob

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

Nope.

That's because the CO2 cost of the production of the insulation is a trivial part of the dramatic reduction in the CO2 produced when heating the place.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

No they don’t.

Corse they do, because the CO2 cost of the production of the insulation is trivial in the saving of CO2 in the heating of the place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/01/2017 08:46, Rod Speed wrote:

Well, a very rough calculation taking my house and insulating just floors and roof with Celotex would suggest that it would take about 5 years to offset the CO2 used in the manufacture of the insulation material (Celotex 160kgCO2e/m3, gas 0.2kg/kW/hr). And factor in building life, installation errors, use, ventilation - I find the science just lacking.
It obviously gets more complicated with walls - payback may be quicker due to high heat loss.
Worth it in the long haul, but not trivial. Especially to those who do things for 'green' reasons - the papers I've read are environmentally inclined.
Money saved is a different matter - depends a great deal on installation costs. Far and away the best value thing I've done here - two alcoves, about a day, less than £100. But it'd still take some yeasr to repay the materials costs.
--
Cheers, Rob

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

Where are you getting that number from ?

And even if your calculation is correct, 5 years is a reasonable payback period for house insulation. The house is obviously going to be heated for a lot longer than that with most houses.

That is almost always going to be a lot more than 5 years.

Those arent going to make a lot of difference to the 5 years and will in fact reduce it.

I don’t.

No maybe about it.

Less than 5 years isnt the long haul with a house.

Sure, but clearly insulation does pay for itself CO2 costs wise with a normal house.

Sure, but with a new house, hardly ever doesn’t the cost of insulation pay for itself quite quickly when done properly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/01/2017 18:56, Rod Speed wrote:

A guess based on the figures given on the 'superhomes' site. Celotex don't seem to cite a figure. On reflection I may be way out (I think I used expanding foam on what I thought might be a conservative estimate) - do you have a figure?
If I had decent figures i'd do a proper calculation.
snip
We'll just have to agree to differ on how trivial production and installation factors might be . . .

Yes, it certainly can. My experience (of managing housing) is that using the building properly can be a big factor, but that said, well worth doing.
IIRC, building regs have been relaxed to require a lower level of insulation, and/or carbon neutral design/build, as an attempt to stimulate the property market. And increase builders' profits.
--
Cheers, Rob

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

Yeah, IMO its miles out with polyfoam.

IMO it’s a mad number for polyfoam.

Fraid not, but I havent looked for one.

That’s why I asked.

I don’t operate like that.

I don’t see why they should have deliberately increased builders profits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/01/17 02:56, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture' should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon. It would be an idiocy, but I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in which you hoped it would stay put.
I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter, and besides it is good sense for many reasons.
Tim W
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.