Wood stoves with back boilers

A._Badger

alleycat` wrote: »

I assume this bit is your little joke?

Wood is considered carbon neutral because the tree took in and trapped the co2 it releases when burned.

In effect it took in, and when burned, released the same amount of co2 over its life.

Coal and Oil are from dead animals and, i suppose, some level of green matter compressed over time at great pressure.
(Most) Animals do not process co2 to grow or live, it's a poisonous by product.
Ergo it's not carbon neutral when burning coal or oil.

I suspect you know this and just like an argument.

I would agree with you that importing wood, the processing of wood by machinery and other aspects of the chain are not "carbon neutral" but i don't think this was really ever your point.

Even if the entire 'carbon neutral' thing wasn't a load of twaddle, as a point of order, coal is not composed of 'dead animals', I'm afraid It is the result of the geological compression of forest areas, following flooding. In other words, coal is largely wood and other vegetative matter.

Much as I hate to seem to be supporting Highrisk, the common misconception about coal and oil being from animal remains needs addressing before the truth is lost to everyone except geologists.

alleycat`

A._Badger wrote: »

Even if the entire 'carbon neutral' thing wasn't a load of twaddle, as a point of order, coal is not composed of 'dead animals', I'm afraid It is the result of the geological compression of forest areas, following flooding. In other words, coal is largely wood and other vegetative matter.

Much as I hate to seem to be supporting Highrisk, the common misconception about coal and oil being from animal remains needs addressing before the truth is lost to everyone except geologists.

Ok i can live with that to a certain extent.

Without trying to take this off in a different direction the time to replenish on coal, i'm sure you'd agree is much higher?

Greenfires

There's loads on the internet about the carbon cycle and what constitutes a carbon neutral fuel. I'd suggest people go and have a look if they want any confirmation of the status of woodfuels rather than encouraging certain members to keep stirring things.

A._Badger

Greenfires wrote: »

There's loads on the internet about the carbon cycle and what constitutes a carbon neutral fuel. I'd suggest people go and have a look if they want any confirmation of the status of woodfuels rather than encouraging certain members to keep stirring things.

Isn't one moderator sufficient?

Greenfires

Sorry Badger - I just have a low tolerance for people who make a concerted effort to argue the world is flat. I think I'll stop bothering to be honest - if people want to take his advice then that's their call.

A._Badger

Greenfires wrote: »

Sorry Badger - I just have a low tolerance for people who make a concerted effort to argue the world is flat. I think I'll stop bothering to be honest - if people want to take his advice then that's their call.

Sorry, Greenfires, I'm 100 per cent with you about Highrisk - in fact I'm not even sure he shouldn't be banned (something I consider anathema) on the grounds that he gives advice which could lead to some very expensive, not to say dangerous, results for the unwary or inexperienced.

On the other hand, hearing people (especially in the States) refer to oil as 'dino juice' and seeing common (but hopelessly unscientific) ideas about what coal is drives me to distraction.

alleycat`

A._Badger wrote: »

On the other hand, hearing people (especially in the States) refer to oil as 'dino juice' and seeing common (but hopelessly unscientific) ideas about what coal is drives me to distraction.

Probably be fair to put me in this catergory.

I was under the impression, incorrectly that a lot of coal was due to sea bed entrapment of various animals (as well as plants) and the sediments + pressure stopped them rotting as would be the "norm".

The sea / wetland flooding aspect of my knowledge appears to be somewhat correct but i didn't realise it was flooding of forestry type areas that were the primary source of carbon for coal seam formation.

As with all things it never hurts to be wrong about things from time to time.

highrisklowreturn

Ah, so there we have, wood burners just as bad as wood derivative ie coal burners.


I of course should also helpfully point out that you see all those forests they whack down for you to sit nice and cosy and think of how pro environment you are, they aren't replacing them. In other words, there is nowhere for co2 produced from other sources to go - unlike of course if you were to burn coal instead.

muckybutt

HR is I am afraid to say a misguided person at the best of times - he knows better than anyone on the forum - even knows more than us that are in the business one way or another.

We'll see what if anything MSE say / do about a recent derogatory post he made, I know he has been warned in the past about making crude references to certain organisations etc.

Anyhow I digress, HR should just be ignored from now on - he isn't worth wasting time and effort on being replied to as all he does is stir shi*

That block feature is going on for me

A._Badger

muckybutt wrote: »

That block feature is going on for me

The problem with the filter, Mucky (much as I do genuinely sympathise) is that you then can't intervene if he is giving someone bad advice. His recent rubbish about pet coke could cost someone a very expensive stove repair - if not an outright failure.