Secondary Burn

[fixit1960]

Those tubes are going to plug. I don't know why they're adding them, but there are only two reasons. Either they're trying to extract more heat from the flue gases by adding tubes, thereby improving the technology from the 1650's to the 1850's, or they're adding tubes to catch particulates by increasing surface area contact of the flue gases, basically encouraging sooting as a pollution control method. In a gas or oil fired boiler, sooting is to be avoided at all costs as an indication of bad combustion tuning, but since the outdoor boilers have terrible combustion tuning by default, this could be a really bad, cynical way of trying to improve their flue emissions. It's not the four or five times a day the thing goes to high fire, it's the 20 hours a day that it's the combustion equivalent of a tire fire that are the problem. Increasing exhaust path length, coupled with really low velocity since the blower won't be running during those times, might encourage the particulate matter to just fall out of the air stream.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "the 20 hrs a day the combustion is equivalent of a tire fire". After the initial 4 or 5 cycles my stack output is un-noticeable. It does not resemble a tire fire. When my boiler cycles off when up to temp the fans shut off and the blower adapter doors drop sealing off the fire box. 1850's technology? You evidently have not seen one in operation. In any case it's worked fine for me for 15 years, It heats my 2000 sq ft home built in 1897 and my work shop that is 45x54.

Evidently you are a believer in climate change.........

 

[Oxford]

As it happens, I do believe in climate change. I also heat my home with wood via a non-EPA stove, so I'm not on any moral high ground in that regard. I also applaud you for at least having the decency to raise your stack, meaning that more people downwind get to breathe less of your smoke.

You don't see anything out your stack because nobody can see what's coming out your stack, but it is absolutely the case that your boiler is dumping particulate (and other) emissions to atmosphere. I have witnessed many, many industrial burners that have essentially zero visible emissions fail emissions testing miserably. Seeing it is not a meaningful test.

As to the technology, all the outdoor hydronic heaters (they aren't boilers) are essentially a fire under a kettle. They are miserably inefficient, in no small part because they don't shut off, regardless of how tight the door shuts, because they have no means to reignite. Between times of high fire, they smolder, and that's when the emissions go crazy. They are also massively oversized for the typical load people put on them, your example to the contrary. I imagine yours actually does run pretty well, because the load is more suitable to the burner.

By adding tubes, which most of the boiler manufacturers did in the mid 19th century, the manufacturers are making a quantum leap forward.

 

[Whitespider]

Perhaps the same reason you ran your stove in your shop when it was 40°?

Ummmm.... I'm thinkin' not for the same reason.
The 40° (actually 37°) came 'round 2:00 - 3:00 PM or so, it was only 21° that Saturday morning 10 days ago... I made a fire because the shop was 30° when I went out there, even though outside temps had made it into the 30s by then. I'm thinkin' I'm safe assuming your house weren't 30°... willin' to bet it weren't even 50°.

That wasn't the intent of my reply...There is only one FL...

I know that wasn't your intent... your intent had nothing to do with mine.

FL?? I'm drawin' a blank. Flat-Lander?? Free-Loader?? Feline-Lover?? Furnace-Loader??
Oh‼ Now I see‼ Naughty-naughty... no name callin'.
Really though, if'n you're gonna' call someone a lier, you should be able to back it up with something hard-fast... and you ain't, and weren't here, so you can't know sour owl squat. But, whatever makes your owl crap.
*

 

[Chris-PA]

Burning wood, even inefficiently, has little impact on climate change, as all the carbon in the wood was taken from the environment (mostly the atmosphere) in recent decades and so releasing it has no net impact in this period. Even if it isn't burned most of it will reenter the atmosphere anyway. Carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years as fossil fuels is the problem.

Ummmm.... I'm thinkin' not for the same reason.
The 40° (actually 37°) came 'round 2:00 - 3:00 PM or so, it was only 21° that Saturday morning 10 days ago... I made a fire because the shop was 30° when I went out there, even though outside temps had made it into the 30s by then. I'm thinkin' I'm safe assuming your house weren't 30°... willin' to bet it weren't even 50°.

Actually you said the ambient was 40°, which is warmer than it was here. But you don't live in the shop, and we were both burning on a mild day for the same reason - because it wasn't quite warm enough.

 

[Oxford]

Burning wood, even inefficiently, has little impact on climate change, as all the carbon in the wood was taken from the environment (mostly the atmosphere) in recent decades and so releasing it has no net impact in this period. Even if it isn't burned most of it will reenter the atmosphere anyway. Carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years as fossil fuels is the problem.

I absolutely agree, and I should have stated that more clearly. I do think we have a responsibility, if for no other reason than common human decency, to not make our neighbors' lives miserable as a result of our choices, and not filling their houses full of smoke falls under that heading, to me at least.

 

[cmsmoke]

Ummmm.... I'm thinkin' not for the same reason.
The 40° (actually 37°) came 'round 2:00 - 3:00 PM or so, it was only 21° that Saturday morning 10 days ago... I made a fire because the shop was 30° when I went out there, even though outside temps had made it into the 30s by then. I'm thinkin' I'm safe assuming your house weren't 30°... willin' to bet it weren't even 50°.


I know that wasn't your intent... your intent had nothing to do with mine.

FL?? I'm drawin' a blank. Flat-Lander?? Free-Loader?? Feline-Lover?? Furnace-Loader??
Oh‼ Now I see‼ Naughty-naughty... no name callin'.
Really though, if'n you're gonna' call someone a lier, you should be able to back it up with something hard-fast... and you ain't, and weren't here, so you can't know sour owl squat. But, whatever makes your owl crap.
*

When did I call you a "lier" spelled liar, your welcome! My intent was I heard your story many times. Give it a rest. I don't want to know sour owl squat, whatever that may be.

 

[Whitespider]

When did I call you a "lier" spelled liar, your welcome!

Yes... thank you... I appreciate the spelling correction.
Now let me return the favor and correct your punctuation... you need a question mark (?) somewhere in there.

So then, just in case it comes up again, what did/does "FL" stand for?? Florescent Lamp?? Fat Lady?? Forgotten Love?? Forever lost??
*

 

[Whitespider]

I ain't buyin' the "carbon neutral" theory of burning wood.

Burning wood releases carbon in a matter of minutes that took years or decades to sequester. Decomposition, unlike burning, may take decades, and may not result in a complete release of carbon into the atmosphere. Acidic soil can inhibit complete decay. Accumulation on top of downed wood can eventually compress it into the subsoil, eventually causing much of it to become humus, which is stable and doesn't break down further. All sorts of flora and fauna live in/on decaying trees, consuming and using the carbon which may be passed onto other life forms through consumption and so forth... carbon that never enters the atmosphere "in this period." Decomposition enriches the soil, promoting more and faster flora based growth... which would sequester more carbon "in this period." More and faster flora growth promotes more and faster fauna growth... also carbon based. And... well... enough for now...

I ain't buyin' the "carbon neutral" theory of burning wood... the idea "it has no net impact in this period" seems ridiculous to me.
*

 

[Whitespider]

Oh... not that it matters anyway.
I ain't buyin' the activities of man have any appreciable impact.
*

 

[blacklocst]

Oh... not that it matters anyway.
I ain't buyin' the activities of man have any appreciable impact.
*

How about with air pollution or is that an EPA conspiracy?

 

[Tonyd56]

WS, I think yours is a misunderstanding of the effect of carbon decay over a period of geological time. You're correct in arguing that wood burnt in hours releases the same amount of carbon that decay would release over decades, but when you consider the proportion these emissions make of worldwide carbon emissions, statistically speaking, "no net impact in this period" is not at all outlandish, and certainly not as far fetched as denying anthropogenic climate change outright.

"Oh... not that it matters anyway.
I ain't buyin' the activities of man have any appreciable impact."

This seems a tad contradictory coming just one post after a soliloquy on your disbelief that burning wood could be carbon neutral.

 

[fixit1960]

 

[Whitespider]

How about with air pollution or is that an EPA conspiracy?

Air pollution (or any pollution) is relative... I've never argued it doesn't exist, I've argued a one-size-fits-all approach (example; EPA regulations) are flat silly.

WS, I think yours is a misunderstanding of the effect of carbon decay over a period of geological time. ...statistically speaking, "no net impact in this period" is not at all outlandish, and certainly not as far fetched as denying anthropogenic climate change outright.

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory and nothing more... denying that is outlandish.

...seems a tad contradictory coming just one post after a soliloquy on your disbelief that burning wood could be carbon neutral.

Not really contradictory at all when taken in context.
I believe the anthropogenic climate change theory is based in truths (or facts) arranged in such a way to fit the assumptions, and therefore support the theory. I see the idea that burning wood is somehow "carbon neutral", as just re-arrangement. I was just pointing out that, in my mind, it's akin to "having it both ways".
Either the burning of carbon based fuels is contributing to anthropogenic climate change during this period (how long is this period?)... or it isn't... you can't have it both ways. I don't buy any of it... especially when I see double-standard reasoning.

Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong?? No it don't.
But it don't mean you're right and I'm wrong either.
It's all theory... which is interesting to contemplate... but...
*

 

[513yj]

How about with air pollution or is that an EPA conspiracy?

Your friendly neighborhood EPA sells the rights to pollute in excessive amounts to major corporations. I'm willing to bet that all the woodstoves in the United States don't pollute nearly as much as these "extra" pollution rights alone that are sold by the EPA. If they are looking out for the "people" I can't imagine why they don't make these fat wallets clean up their act like the woodburners are having to do. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's really not about the climate, it's all about money, period.

 

[Tonyd56]

"I see the idea that burning wood issomehow "carbon neutral", as just re-arrangement. I was justpointing out that, in my mind, it's akin to "having it both ways".
Either the burning of carbon based fuels is contributing to anthropogenic climate change during this period (how long is this period?)... or it isn't... you can't have it both ways. I don't buy any of it... especially when I see double-standard reasoning."

And I see your picking at the "wood burning being carbon neutral" idea as a way for you to question the validity of global warming without actually questioning it. You're right in a sense that wood burning would contribute to a net increase in carbon emissions, for aforementioned reasons. But again, Chris and Oxford are also quite right in saying that wood burning is effectively carbon neutral, because the aforementioned net effect is so statistically minuscule, that it cannot reasonably be considered a driver of global warming. As to your point about "having it both ways," the fact is, there is data that supports both the idea that anthropogenic global warming exists, and that wood burning is statistically no part of it. Interpretation of said data is open to debate, as is all data, but the argument that many who deny climate change make is one based upon agreement of like minded individuals on the non apparent visible effects of climate change, and the economic detriment of addressing climate change, as opposed to skeptical scrutinizing of available date through a lens of understanding the scientific principles involved. For those of us (like myself admittedly) who lack this understanding, we have to rely on the perspective of other learned people. I am more willing to accept the views of renowned scientists, with the attitude that they could be wrong, than I am to accept the ideas of opponents, whose argument largely boils down to "You're really going to spend money on a muffler so the global warming fairy doesn't kill your kids?"

 

[Tonyd56]

BTW WS, I appreciate your passion on this issue, even if this forum does get a little noisy from time to time.

 

[Chris-PA]

it's all about money, period.

Yes, it is all about the money. This the US in 2014 - everything is all about the money, in every quarter 24/7. It's who we are.

 

[Whitespider]

And I see your picking at the "wood burning being carbon neutral" idea as a way for you to question the validity of global warming without actually questioning it.

Naaaa... I just remain unconvinced... nothing more than that.
I remain unconvinced about a lot of things... I'm naturally skeptical I reckon.
*

 

[olyman]

Your friendly neighborhood EPA sells the rights to pollute in excessive amounts to major corporations. I'm willing to bet that all the woodstoves in the United States don't pollute nearly as much as these "extra" pollution rights alone that are sold by the EPA. If they are looking out for the "people" I can't imagine why they don't make these fat wallets clean up their act like the woodburners are having to do. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's really not about the climate, it's all about money, period.

hot rod, did a article, about this very thing about 5 yrs ago....seems this air polluting corp, would buy your "polluting" car from you, for 200 smacks, to get "air" credits[what a scam], then CRUSH the car right there on the property!!! so hot rod,, met some folks,, before they got on the jackasses property...they bought a 66 stang,,and a 67 maro,,for that 200 clams each.... they took em to where they work on em,, did a major tuneup, and both passed emissions testing, with flying colors!!! corporations don't lie,,, why, who ever think such??? and the gov is in on the scam...spose they resold those ca cars for much??? uh huh.... gov lying to the public,,, AGAIN!!!

 

[blacklocst]

You're friendly neighborhood EPA sells the rights to pollute in excessive amounts to major corporations. I'm willing to bet that all the woodstoves in the United States don't pollute nearly as much as these "extra" pollution rights alone that are sold by the EPA. If they are looking out for the "people" I can't imagine why they don't make these fat wallets clean up their act like the woodburners are having to do. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's really not about the climate, it's all about money, period.

If you're taking about Cap and Trade it still limits the release of pollutants into the atmosphere.The loops holes are there to protect polluters who have trouble meeting the standards. Never said the EPA was perfect.