Odog
ArboristSite Operative
Zogger you are absolutely correct. Green energy is best when it's the little guy doing it for himself. Corporate green energy is around to collect government subsidies, and that's about all.
Keep up on the Wood Stove News and Politics
- Thread starter huntindog1
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Paragon Builder
AS Enthusiast
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,029
- Reaction score
- 3,078
So how much do these homeowner size units cost? And how much energy can you realistically expect to get from them?
I have a neighbor who put up one that he bought from Northern tool, and the bearings seized about two months in. Now it's just lawn decoration about 80 feet up.
zogger
Tree Freak
Years and years ago, I don't know any prices now. Used to be decent ones at around 1500 and up. And cheaper ones designed for say sailboats and real small cabins for less than that.
Northern tool is probably the last place to get something like that.
You'd have to search out the enthusiast forums for alternate energy and do some more reading.
philoshop
Addicted to ArboristSite
Collection is not where the cost is in 'active' wind and solar energy at the homeowner level. It's about storage, and that basically means battery cells. Good storage batteries aren't cheap and they have a relatively short life in the payback scenario. They're a thousand times better than they were when I first started looking at 'alternate' systems 30 years ago, but they're still not cost-effective, at least for me.
Commercial uses are about tax incentives and other sorts of government payola and don't generally apply to homeowner systems available today unless you know for a fact that your children or grandchildren night want to live in your house when you're gone.
'Passive' solar is a different animal. Letting the sun heat up your tile and concrete floor during the day or pre-heat your hot water delivery systems is a smart move and can be pretty inexpensive, especially in new construction or substantial remodeling. Preventing loss of heat is always the best first step though, no matter what energy source you use.
Commercial uses are about tax incentives and other sorts of government payola and don't generally apply to homeowner systems available today unless you know for a fact that your children or grandchildren night want to live in your house when you're gone.
'Passive' solar is a different animal. Letting the sun heat up your tile and concrete floor during the day or pre-heat your hot water delivery systems is a smart move and can be pretty inexpensive, especially in new construction or substantial remodeling. Preventing loss of heat is always the best first step though, no matter what energy source you use.
My friends planned--engineered their house for passive solar. They've got fiberglass insulation with pinkboard added. On a sunny day, in winter, their house will get too hot. It works. Before the powerlines were rerouted closer to their house, they had a Pelton wheel and solar panels. That was in the 1980s. The hydro was in a creek that was perennial, so solar had to fill in. This is in Western Warshington where we are not known for sunshine.
zogger
Tree Freak
Good high level intelligent designed and installed insulation is the best, I agree. buck for buck, best "energy" dollar spent for heating/cooling.
I don't think this is accurate. I believe that wood fired cogeneration plants are about the same as coal fired power plants, emissions/kWh. Where wood is at an advantage when the plant is sited well is in fuel production. Limit transportation and "mining" impacts, and wood fuels do well. Coal is a much more dense power source, so it has greater electricity production capability, but burning rocks isn't clean.
Of course, that's what I remember from research a while ago, when they were talking about a 250 mw? wood fired plant in my area. The plan went away for other reasons, but it seemed a good idea to me. They discussed building a plant in downtown Vancouver, WA, and it appeared it would have met emission requirement even there, with the wind blowing into the Columbia Gorge. Moving fuel into a downtown area wasn't going to work, the proposed site would have relied on trucks. Design info said was cleaner than the coal plant in Boardman, OR.
That's all Kool-Aid
First of all, wood-fired electric plants burn wood chips, not cord wood (they're more properly referred to as biomass-fired).
The reason they're considered "greener" (by some) is because the burning of biomass is considered "carbon neutral" (
)... no matter how much higher the CO2 emissions. Because of the "carbon neutral" status (which is a joke) they actually get "carbon credits" ( ) which gives them an even lower (on paper) carbon footprint. And... unrelated to the "green" thing... it more expensive to use biomass, a lot more expensive.Here's a quote for ya'...
"The carbon neutral assumption does not account for CO2 that would be absorbed by the natural vegetation that grows on land not used for biofuel production. Substitution of wood for coal in electrical power plants is actually increasing carbon dioxide emissions."
It comes from this article if ya' care to read it...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/wood-burning-power-plants-misguided-climate-change-solution/
OK, looks like you are correct, biomass vs. Coal CO2 per kWh. I discounted that article, seems to me it has an obvious bias. However, looking at several other sources, and crunching some numbers myself, it look like biomass emits about 1 1/2 times the CO2 that coal does. I'm not finding any other comparative emission data, and I think particulate emissions, and other components of stack emissions should be taken into account, too.
Now, as a home heating source, I suspect wood fire emissions may be easier to treat than coal but that's just a feeling. Is there scrubber technology for home heating with coal? Do EPA stoves reduce CO2 emissions?
Now, as a home heating source, I suspect wood fire emissions may be easier to treat than coal but that's just a feeling. Is there scrubber technology for home heating with coal? Do EPA stoves reduce CO2 emissions?
No "scrubber" that I'm aware of.
My guess is, because they more completely burn the fuel (or convert it to gasses), they would emit more CO2 gas than a conventional box.
But that was my point when noshow74 said burning wood for home heating was "greener" than using electricity. When you look at on a per unit of energy produced, after all the considerations (right down to producing the stove)... even electricity produced by coal burning is "greener" than burning wood in a homeowner stove. Of course, there is the "carbon neutral" theory, which I discount because of all the holes in it.
Seriously though, I have no dog in the fight... I'm not a "green" supporter, I don't see CO2 as a pollutant, nor do I see carbon particulates as a pollutant (although, a potential health hazard in some areas, under certain conditions). And I don't buy into the idea that the activities of man can have any significant impact on (so-called) climate change.
*
Funny, I am a "green" supporter, I just believe all of the so called greenies have it wrong. I disagree that we don't have the ability to affect climate change, but I haven't seen proof either way. I believe that electric cars are worse for the environment, because of the huge mess we make in obtaining some of the raw materials.
It would probably be more accurate to say I think we are a boil on the posterior of the earth, and until we realize everything we do has an impact, we should work harder to limit our impacts. My grandmother's backyard dump was an environmental disaster, and it was important that our family cleaned it up.
I don't know the answers, but I'm smart enough to recognize it's only because I didn't listen to the questions.
Electric heat has a lot of other impacts, PCBs in the transformers, creosote in the poles, too many factors to measure.
It would probably be more accurate to say I think we are a boil on the posterior of the earth, and until we realize everything we do has an impact, we should work harder to limit our impacts. My grandmother's backyard dump was an environmental disaster, and it was important that our family cleaned it up.
I don't know the answers, but I'm smart enough to recognize it's only because I didn't listen to the questions.
Electric heat has a lot of other impacts, PCBs in the transformers, creosote in the poles, too many factors to measure.
huntindog1
ArboristSite Operative
So just a review of what I was trying to communicate is you can sign up for the news letter as its pretty complete on all the current events around wood burning news.
The news letter isnt making the news it is just bringing in all the news into one newsletter.
https://www.facebook.com/AllianceforGreenHeat
http://www.forgreenheat.org/blog.html
Sign up for the newsletters I find them very informative.
http://visitor.r20.constantcontact....E5Wra3T3StsQhYm9ulDQeGWUL9pzt5Uau1oSQhl68xLA=
The news letter isnt making the news it is just bringing in all the news into one newsletter.
https://www.facebook.com/AllianceforGreenHeat
http://www.forgreenheat.org/blog.html
Sign up for the newsletters I find them very informative.
http://visitor.r20.constantcontact....E5Wra3T3StsQhYm9ulDQeGWUL9pzt5Uau1oSQhl68xLA=
zogger
Tree Freak
Then there is the atmospheric spraying with a variety of chemicals that they won't admit to, but enough people have seen and noted and photoed to show it is going on. What that is all about can't say, but it happens here and there.
Odog
ArboristSite Operative
It's Population control, it's the guvment sterilizing all us "normal" people so there isn't as many of us to revolt
zogger
Tree Freak
It's Population control, it's the guvment sterilizing all us "normal" people so there isn't as many of us to revolt
No idea. the guys who have analyzed samples as best as they could collect say it is high in barium and aluminum, which certainly isn't very good for you.
I had no idea what this stuff was, just way back in the 90s I saw, and thousands of other people saw, some pretty dang strang spraying going on over north georgia. Even had my BIL cvall me up and say DID YOU SEE THAT?? blah blah. And he lived an hour and change north of me.
Back then, the web was a tad more open for "casual surfing", I investigated, and it didn't take me long to find a rather poorly designed website and page at one of the big mil industrial complex places, with some rather *interesting* information. Within minutes of me finding this gem, it was off and certain "orgs" became highly interested in my IP and threw every microsoft trick at the book at me, but I was running mac classic, also on a dynamic, not static, connection, so...they didn't break anything.
I can't say any more than that, other then since then it has come out, all over, and a lot of other people have noticed it.
I talked to an air traffic control guy once, asked him if there were any interesting flights they were supposed to ignore, flights doing a regular grid pattern, back and forth, he got absolutely livid with me, instantly, I mean, borderline hysterical. You could see and hear how freaked out he was and I was quite casual about it. I didn't push him one syllable past that, but it was enough for me to show they have people who know about it scared bad.
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
There is no way to use the amounts of energy we do without huge impacts on the environment. Either we use stored solar energy from ages past, or we try to get by mostly with the real time flows of solar energy. Releasing the carbon and toxins of fossil fuels has had a huge cumulative negative effect, one that will continue to have impacts for 1000's of years. Diverting the real time flow of solar energy from the things it is already doing will also have negative impacts. All of the ideas for how we can keep using this much energy, whether it's drill, baby drill, or a clean green renewable future of windmills and solar panels, ignore that reality.
Dead trees contribute greatly to the local biosphere, providing habitats and the energy stored in the carbon bonds gets diverted by many life processes on the way to its release. Not all that much of it ends up in the soil for long if it is not buried - most goes into the atmosphere. But not until it has flowed through various other paths. So burning all the dead fall does have an impact, but I don't believe it as bad as many other ways of diverting energy flows into heating my home. And in the end, I do use a lot less energy in total using wood.
Nuclear has never been economically viable and never will be, and we never got around to designing some way to deal with the waste, not even through the peak of prosperity - so we haven't, and we never will. It all sits around in pools of water, or in casks, none of which has even a hope of lasting as long as that waste will be dangerous. Even if we had any workable ideas of what to do with it, we cannot afford to do it. Therefore all of it will be released, mostly right in the places it sits right now, destroying the local environment in those places. Look at a map of those sites, and those will all be dead zones in the future.
Dead trees contribute greatly to the local biosphere, providing habitats and the energy stored in the carbon bonds gets diverted by many life processes on the way to its release. Not all that much of it ends up in the soil for long if it is not buried - most goes into the atmosphere. But not until it has flowed through various other paths. So burning all the dead fall does have an impact, but I don't believe it as bad as many other ways of diverting energy flows into heating my home. And in the end, I do use a lot less energy in total using wood.
Nuclear has never been economically viable and never will be, and we never got around to designing some way to deal with the waste, not even through the peak of prosperity - so we haven't, and we never will. It all sits around in pools of water, or in casks, none of which has even a hope of lasting as long as that waste will be dangerous. Even if we had any workable ideas of what to do with it, we cannot afford to do it. Therefore all of it will be released, mostly right in the places it sits right now, destroying the local environment in those places. Look at a map of those sites, and those will all be dead zones in the future.
What I find interesting is how few will allow themselves to see what is clearly right above their heads. I'll walk across the parking lot with a group of people and say "Wow, they sure are making a lot of clouds today", and they will look up and see the exact same thing I do, but not one will say anything in agreement. Of course, they've known me for years and know I'm nuts, but I know the topic makes them uncomfortable (which is of course why I say anything).
Odog
ArboristSite Operative
I've seen a lot of the weird "con trails" that don't make much sense. I was being a smart a$$ about the population control, but it is a theory I have heard. Out here we have a lot of weird booming west of us. The air base has a bombing range out there and they drop a lot of concrete practice bombs, but this booming isn't those. Not sonic booms either. Almost like blasting, but there is nobody shooting at 11 pm, plus we are the only blasters within 300 miles
That argument don't fly with me.
The exact same thing can be said for solar, wind, and bio-fuel... but that hasn't stopped us from spending mountains of coin on it. As the rhetoric goes, it will (supposedly) become economically viable as research and technology advances. I guess only tree-huggers may have the magic crystal ball that sees into the future (that ain't a reference on you Chris).
Of course, the same rhetoric can be applied to nuclear energy, including the waste handling... and we'd get many time over more energy for each of our dollars spent while we waited for "supposedly" to happen.
It ain't about economic viability... unless one side or the other is arguing against something.
If it was about cheap and/or cost effective, we'd have dumped all regulations on energy production... heck, we'd have never enacted the regulation. And we sure-in-hell wouldn't be subsidizing the "green" and/or "renewable" crap with tax dollars.
OH... and by pure definition... nuclear is "green" and "renewable".
*
