- Thread starter Geo-TH,In
- Start date
greenbeanman in Kansas
Well-known Member
And if you aren't carbon neutral you can buy some carbon credits from good ol' Al.
Janicholson
Well-known Member
Other than carbon from the chainsaw, splitter, pelletizer, and transportation, that is correct. There is only one big issue, and that is that there is not even 5% of the wood needed to let most people do this, (ask the 3rd world countries about deforestation for fuel).
The secondary issue is that even with a catilytic system, and high temp combustion, Wood is terribly dirty out of the chimney. Jim
The secondary issue is that even with a catilytic system, and high temp combustion, Wood is terribly dirty out of the chimney. Jim
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
in regard to your logic, burning fossil fuels releases previously stored carbon whereas burning wood releases carbon that the tree temporarily stored in the process of taking in co2, plant another tree and it will repeat this process but not increase the co2 amount in the atmosphere.
OP
OP
Geo-TH,In
Well-known Member
Coal is carbon too, add it to your list. However, I think the argument is that wood can regenerate where coal, gas and oil doesn't. All trees will die and in doing so they produce carbon too. Tree farmers cut them down and grow new ones. So using the arguement that cutting a tree down, making lumber out of it, prevents the tree from turning back into carbon has to be a good thing. However, tree huggers will never like the idea of cutting a tree.
K
Kruse
Guest
The scientists do a double standard on that one. Burning wood is carbon neutral, but crude oil (from algae and dinosaurs) does not apply since they were alive millions of years ago, not recently.
ALSO, some scientists (although the mainstream press is ignoring them) claim that the earth is constantly creating new crude oil from the process of calcium carbonite and iron oxide being forced together under the earth's crust from extreme pressure, even though this process cannot keep up with present world demands.
Food for thought.
ALSO, some scientists (although the mainstream press is ignoring them) claim that the earth is constantly creating new crude oil from the process of calcium carbonite and iron oxide being forced together under the earth's crust from extreme pressure, even though this process cannot keep up with present world demands.
Food for thought.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Techinically, overall they are carbon nuetral as either way, the wood will eventually release its sequestered carbon back into the enviroment, but not so much when you figure in all the manufacturing and transpotation costs. The real problem is in the rate at which it releases its carbon. Burning releases it far more quickly than if it was alowed to degrade naturally. The faster carbon builds up in the atmosphere, the quicker it overwhelms systems that remove it. Think of it this way: Drinking water is natural and your body uses and expels it at a fairly regular rate as long as its done in a measured rate. Now, if you increase your intake of water beyond your body's ability to remove it, your body will eventually go into a Hyponatremia induced state which can actually kill you. Over your life, you may drink a few thousand gallons of water, but if you try and do that in a week, you'll overwhelm your body's systems and you will die. Same for the earth, all things must maintain a balance and while the release of carbon/ removal cycle has been going on for at least 3.8 billion years, we are increasing that rate far beyond the planet's ecosystem's ability to incorporate it. Pay attention in the next few decades as the Siberian and Canadian permafrost reserves release their carbon stores at an ever increasing rate as the planet warms
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I often wonder about the effects of say Air Force one, and the other jets that cross our country for those ever so important trips as for the effect on our air quality.
K
Kruse
Guest
Or the space shuttle and rocket liftoffs.....
Do ya think those things have any emission controls on 'em?
Do ya think those things have any emission controls on 'em?
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Very good point, my hats off to you!
If the Uncle Sam was to take those costs, and pay it out in fuel to everyone, we could all afford the heat for our homes without burning wood.
Tree huggers should be publicly beaten with a branch from the tree they want to save???????
If the Uncle Sam was to take those costs, and pay it out in fuel to everyone, we could all afford the heat for our homes without burning wood.
Tree huggers should be publicly beaten with a branch from the tree they want to save???????
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I am wondering if most understand where wood gets it carbon in the first place?
Leyland-270
Member
We have to stay warm with some means of energy usage. There is currently no way to heat a home without pollution. The point here is that burning wood may well be one of the better ways to reduce ones carbon footprint. Your statement that burning wood for heat will speed up the natural order of things is slightly off base. Forest fires are also a natural occurrence. We no doubt have fewer forest fires today verses a century ago.
Leyland-270
Member
One issue with the use of wood for a heat source is for those in the city.
I was in Rochester MN around Christmas. There were several neighbors using their fire places us included. We went outside to bring in gifts and you could hardly see across the street.
Living in the country most of my life and having burn wood the entire time I had never considered the issue of so many stoves in a small area.
I was in Rochester MN around Christmas. There were several neighbors using their fire places us included. We went outside to bring in gifts and you could hardly see across the street.
Living in the country most of my life and having burn wood the entire time I had never considered the issue of so many stoves in a small area.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Yes, but forest fires are the exception, not the rule. Yes, they speed up the local out-gassing of carbon in a sharp temporary spike, but they do not burn continuiosly and with increaseed intensity over centuries as by analogy our petro-carbon based industries have. Luckily, the vast majority of the world's wood still rots slowly releasing its carbon back into the cycle at a controlled rate, but our added and increasing CO emmissions are overwhelming what nature can safely absorb.
The technology is still in its infancy and therefore quite expensive, but Geo-thermal and solar energy capture can heat a home in a carbon neutral way-provided you can afford it!
At a minimum, wood heat is at least substainable and renewable, just burn it hot and use a catylctic combuster equipped stove do control your carbon and keep your chimney from catching fire when you forget to maintain it
The technology is still in its infancy and therefore quite expensive, but Geo-thermal and solar energy capture can heat a home in a carbon neutral way-provided you can afford it!
At a minimum, wood heat is at least substainable and renewable, just burn it hot and use a catylctic combuster equipped stove do control your carbon and keep your chimney from catching fire when you forget to maintain it
Leyland-270
Member
Infancy or not you must realize that even geothermal will not be carbon neutral. Same as our electric wind tech. If you take into consideration the manufacture, erection, mining and use of raw materials to construct one of those monsters. Don't get me wrong I know that over the life of the unit it will reduce pollution. This is the point that is being made about the use of firewood. The point is, although wood is not free of pollution is is a better choice than most current alternatives. Not to mention affordable today by many.
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
Yea wouldn't want to have bad air after the bomb goes off.
Brian Jasper co. Ia
Well-known Member
I have a pellet stove and it burns very clean if you run it hot. Problem is, it heats me out of the house if I do that. If I burn it not so hot, I use a lot less fuel and don't have to open the windows. Burning it not so hot also coats the inside with soot and it doesn't radiate as much heat, so I have to clean out the ashes a little more often.
Michael Soldan
Well-known Member
It also means that the burning of the wood is not releasing "new" carbon into the atmosphere that burning fossil fuels does. Since the tree takes in carbon dioxide to produce food(photosynthesis), burning the tree releases that carbon only, and the process is renewable as new trees grow and take in carbon, thus burning wood does not add, nor deduct from the carbon cycle
olgentdc
Well-known Member
AMEN to Carbon Neutral,... common sense just might prevail yet ...2 air force ONE planes Always !Helicopter Too !!!,.. You and I will be walking and raising crops with horses and Mules , and Those fool Sundabich -is will still be POLLUTTING the AIR Bigtime in more Ways than One ....... and this is a FREE Cuntry?
OP
OP
Geo-TH,In
Well-known Member
40 years ago a man had a furniture factory and he blew his sawdust into a boiler. The flame looked like a blow tourch. It burned so hot and clean that you couldn"t see any smoke or smell anything. He dried his wood and heated his factory with sawdust. When he ran short on sawdust, he chipped his scrap wood and made more. I guess you could say he was Carbon Neutral before the term was invented. You can burn anything if you get it hot enough and have enough oxygen. I"ve heard that ground up tires burn 4 times cleaner than coal, when properly burned. Ground tires are used in making portland cement.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy