Some states fight to keep their wood fires burning

[Old Goat]

This article ran on a Utah online news outlet, but it is an AP story out of Jefferson City, MO. I thought that most of you might find it interesting. Sorry if it is old news.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=33...-keep-their-wood-fires-burning&s_cid=queue-18

 

[slowp]

Don't move here.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Nort...od-to-burn-among-top-polluters-295538011.html

 

[Chris-PA]

Thanks for keeping us updated. I note that in these articles people who heat with wood are presented as abnormal - non-conformist, probably too poor to do the "normal" thing, which is of course to heat with fossil fuels. There is discussion about the harmful particulate emissions of wood stoves, but no discussion of CO2, and no discussion of the negative environmental and health impacts of using fossil fuels for heat.

We see the quote "What we're breathing is slowly killing us" from a neighbor of a wood burner (and indeed we have no idea how responsible that wood burner is), but how about the damage that the chosen heating system of the "victim" is doing?

Overall a complete absence of whole-systems thinking and an assumption that what is considered normal now - fossil fuel energy - will always be available and affordable.

 

[Fred Wright]

Yet nothing in the AP article mentions a look at burning habits. Poor burning practices are the cause of much particulate that escapes through the flue.

As is often the case, a federal agency jumps in to fix the symptom, not the problem.

 

[CTYank]

One might consider also that the particulates in question are not some neutral fuzzy dust. When the fire's not going right, a large percentage of those particulates are "POM" polycyclic organic matter- powerful carcinogens. Not just a bit more fly axh. A bit more of a problem than some CO2.

Question is, as Fred points out, what can you do with people who focus purely on their own needs, and won't see to preparing quality fuelwood, nor see to burning it cleanly. The one strong point of liquid & gaseous fossil fuel burners is that once properly adjusted, they'll likely burn cleanly for an extended period. Yeah, don't press your luck with oil. At least nat. gas generates proportionately less CO2 than oil or coal.

How to enforce "Don't poison your neighbor" on people who just don't see a problem? Or care.

 

[Chris-PA]

One might consider also that the particulates in question are not some neutral fuzzy dust. When the fire's not going right, a large percentage of those particulates are "POM" polycyclic organic matter- powerful carcinogens. Not just a bit more fly axh. A bit more of a problem than some CO2.

Question is, as Fred points out, what can you do with people who focus purely on their own needs, and won't see to preparing quality fuelwood, nor see to burning it cleanly. The one strong point of liquid & gaseous fossil fuel burners is that once properly adjusted, they'll likely burn cleanly for an extended period. Yeah, don't press your luck with oil. At least nat. gas generates proportionately less CO2 than oil or coal.

How to enforce "Don't poison your neighbor" on people who just don't see a problem? Or care.

Yes, but the negative environmental and health impacts of fossil fuels are not just limited to the burning stage, they also manifest in the increasingly complex and dangerous things we have to do to get them. And fossil fuels are not just gas and oil - don't forget the coal that supplies most of the "clean" electricity (and what we use now is more like dirt with some coal in it). So one of the effects of using fossil fuels is that the negative impacts of using them often occur much farther away from the user, unlike with wood stoves where usually those impacted live closer.

There will always be negative impacts from this many people using this much energy, it's just a matter of how these show up and who is impacted. The attitude that seems to drive these regulations is that the "normal" (= fossil fuel) way has no impact, but that is not true. It's just easier to ignore, as we have so much experience in ignoring it.

That's not to say burning wood is appropriate everywhere - it's not the best choice in many places. I just think that since the impacts of burning wood are more localized then those places where it is a problem should make that decision.

 

[Hddnis]

The US has the cleanest air in the world of all developed countries, and cleaner than all third world countries. On top of that a good portion of the measurable pollution here comes from China.

That won't stop the power grabbers though.



Mr. HE

 

[jb6l6gc]

I love how they say may save you money! LOL I am by no means poor but I do have a hard time paying $650/month to keep my house warm on electric heat, as this is my only other option where I live. I think people have become quite soft these days!

 

[slowp]

It isn't a power grab, it isn't a conspiracy. Our world's population is growing too fast. Why do you think I don't want more bodies taking up space here? The newcomers are contributing to the loss of working forests, farm land, etc. If everybody had a wood stove for their heat, the valleys would be a miserable place to live. They already become miserable when a wildfire breaks out.

 

[Hddnis]

It isn't a power grab, it isn't a conspiracy. Our world's population is growing too fast. Why do you think I don't want more bodies taking up space here? The newcomers are contributing to the loss of working forests, farm land, etc. If everybody had a wood stove for their heat, the valleys would be a miserable place to live. They already become miserable when a wildfire breaks out.

World population is going into decline.



Mr. HE

 

[Chris-PA]

It isn't a power grab, it isn't a conspiracy. Our world's population is growing too fast. Why do you think I don't want more bodies taking up space here? The newcomers are contributing to the loss of working forests, farm land, etc. If everybody had a wood stove for their heat, the valleys would be a miserable place to live. They already become miserable when a wildfire breaks out.

Yes - so your solution is to hope people don't move there? Does that fix anything?

If everybody used fossil fuel energy rather than wood then that cannot possibly harm the places near you that you care about? How's the snow pack?

There are not a lot of ways to finish the phrase "If everybody..." that don't lead to disaster, it's just the nature of of how that plays out that changes a bit. There is one: "If everybody used less energy." However, there is no "Everybody" and there can be no coordination. People will try many different approaches to keep themselves supplied with energy and wood will be one of them. It won't work everywhere and it will have negative impacts.

It isn't a matter of how fast our population is growing, as it is already much too large for the resources, energy and natural systems available to support it.

 

[CTYank]

Yes, but the negative environmental and health impacts of fossil fuels are not just limited to the burning stage, they also manifest in the increasingly complex and dangerous things we have to do to get them. And fossil fuels are not just gas and oil - don't forget the coal that supplies most of the "clean" electricity (and what we use now is more like dirt with some coal in it). So one of the effects of using fossil fuels is that the negative impacts of using them often occur much farther away from the user, unlike with wood stoves where usually those impacted live closer.

There will always be negative impacts from this many people using this much energy, it's just a matter of how these show up and who is impacted. The attitude that seems to drive these regulations is that the "normal" (= fossil fuel) way has no impact, but that is not true. It's just easier to ignore, as we have so much experience in ignoring it.

That's not to say burning wood is appropriate everywhere - it's not the best choice in many places. I just think that since the impacts of burning wood are more localized then those places where it is a problem should make that decision.

I'm fully aware of the "system" cost of providing fossil fuels, like including procuring body bags for military personnel killed abroad. There are oft-overlooked system-costs of providing biomass fuels like cordwood & pellets, such as point-source 2-stroke pollution and skidder damage to woods & streams. (Lots of POM in 2-stroke exhaust from vaporized mix oil- decidedly not good, either.)

That's not the point here. There are innumerable aspects of energy supply that need to be addressed, starting with waste.

I was merely shining a light on some aspects of wood-burning that are way-larger health threats than the effluent from burning fossil-fuels, and that are kinda romanticized by many. Aah, the old-timey smell of curling wood-smoke. Pullleeze! Spare me.

Of course, air quality in the US is the best anywhere, and global population is in decline, so eat, drink & be merry!

Per John Connally (Dixiecrat-to-Repub. Texas Gov.) "America did not conserve its way to greatness." Good Luck.

 

[Hddnis]

Of course, air quality in the US is the best anywhere, and global population is in decline, so eat, drink & be merry!

Per John Connally (Dixiecrat-to-Repub. Texas Gov.) "America did not conserve its way to greatness." Good Luck.

Thanks, I will. While the rest of you wither in conservation I'm going for riches, and the merry they bring.


Mr. HE

 

[Chris-PA]

Thanks, I will. While the rest of you wither in conservation I'm going for riches, and the merry they bring.


Mr. HE

You're in banking or finance then?

 

[Hddnis]

You're in banking or finance then?

I wish, but deliberately steered clear of that when my bank mogul uncle offered it up. I didn't want to move to Cali.


Mr. HE