Global Warming: Resonable renewable technologies.

Air out your smoke complaint here. We can give advice from members who have found themselves in a similar situation as yours, gasping for a breath of fresh air.

Moderator: pm2.5mary

Postby Wilberforce » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:21 pm

Rely on and vote for the politician who tells the truth.
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: G Warming

Postby Smokelessinvancouver » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:54 pm

Do you have the report that that is in?


But I know that the EPA says that woodburning is bad for global warming and I accept that.[/quote]
Smokelessinvancouver
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:02 pm

Postby Wilberforce » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:10 pm

Don't have the study yet, but this one will do for now
(same author)
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/v ... php?t=1504
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Postby Smokelessinvancouver » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:21 pm

Thank you
Smokelessinvancouver
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:02 pm

EPA on Global Warming.

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:52 pm

I just called Allison Simcox of the EPA in Boston at 616-918-1684 to check a quote. She now says the EPA has no position on woodburning and global warming and says I must have misquoted her when she was speaking her personal opinion. I do not trust her or myself anymore in dealing with verbal quotes. I feel like just quoting written sources and using formal bibliographical references from now on. Or quitting the discussion all together. The only reason I may stay in the discussions and the fight is that the voice of ordinary citizens has been very effective in getting things done in the fight against outdoor woodboilers in Maine and wood chip boilers and wood burning. So forgive my errors. I will try to get better sources.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Postby Smokelessinvancouver » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:00 pm

I too have learned that lesson. It is better to have it in writing:):)
Smokelessinvancouver
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:02 pm

New post on industrial wood gasification.

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:24 pm

Someone posted a site on industrial wood gasification. Sounds promising. It is different from the old German coal gasification plants. They produce gas and pipe it to existing gas burners. Potentially, burning gas is about 1000 times cleaner than the common wood combustion. www.woodgasification.spaces.live.com/. This is medium size technology and might fall below the size needed for state modelling of pm so pollution could still be a problem but it sounds like a step in the right direction. At larger sizes, you might be able to upgrade the gas to mimic natural gas and inject it into gas pipelines. The increase in prices of energy stimulates alternatives of all kinds. We have to work towards all the new technologies despite the return to lower energy prices.

An article in the news described a building at the U. Maine at Farmington that uses geothermal energy and they said it was about 60% cheaper than oil. Cheaper than wood! Locally clean. If they can switch to electricity from the Interfaith Power and Light Company that sells hydropower and windpower they would have the ideal set up. They have the option at least.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Wood Gasification

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:31 am

There is a lot of material in the website provided on gasification. They try to make it simple for the masses, which is good, but a lot get's lost. Still, the concept and sites reported sound promising based on what they say. Possible errors include the description of the gas produced. One article says hydrogen and carbon monoxide which would be very unusual but another includes methane which is pretty common in these types of units. This is the problem with reporting. Another article mentions venturi scrubbers but others mention electrostaic precipitators. You have to really dig for emissions but the gist of it seems to be that the particulates emitted are only twice that of a gas burner vs. 1000 times more pm with an OWB. Based on this, it sounds good. A bug might be air toxics but the high temp's are said by others to burn off most of the benzene which is an air toxic. The other toxics could be burned off as well since they are similar. They are concentrating on carbon dioxide as usual, but this sounds a lot more promising that regular boilers. The price is not discussed well. One mill says it is cheaper for them than gas which is good but another site in Madison says the Nexterra boiler is 60% more than gas and the Hurst boiler is about equal to gas. The time could be the reason for the differences. All energy prices seemed to go up with the oil speculators doubling prices. Now, oil is cheaper. Maybe gas too. this volatility plays havoc with the alternative energy market and gives you thoughts that it could all be deliberate action by the oil speculators whoever they are. I am referrring to un named speculators referred to by a ND congressman or senator in a news article that I remember. Sorry, CAR for not documenting things, but that is the way a lot of things are. This subject is very complicated and not much is out there. For a government official searching for a place to start to find alternative energy sources, this is typical. It would take an engineer 1 year to study just one of these sites and I do not have that kind of time or money. Perhaps better information could be obtained from Nexterra or Hurst Boiler Co. which also makes a gasification boiler that appears to be 1/2 the cost. Why am I so interested? My state is searching for this very thing and in discussions, I suggested researching this because I studied pyrolysis for solid wastes a little bit in school. The potential is enormous according to the Maine Planning Dept, but they do not know of this yet. They think it is all pie in the sky undeveloped technology. This website shows otherwise. They are being built.

This web site was quite interesting for an old engineer. Hurray, www.woodgasification.com. Thanks.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Wood Gasification

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:31 am

Just called the state Planning Office with this wood gasification information. They were happy to get it and will check it out. Left messages with the Conservation Dept and an aide to the Governor. You never know if the messages will get through so I made sure I talked to a real person who is somewhat knowledgeable of the subject like me. He knows me too so I think it will be checked out. Thanks CAR and www.woodgasifcation.com whoever you are.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Wood gasification.

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:30 pm

Sent info to Conservation Dept. because they are interested in this technology. It could be less polluting and therefor betterthan straight woodburning, but I have my doubts and voiced them. Said I preferred hydropower and wind and tides and otecs and even photovoltaics to make electricity and leveraging that with a heat pump to bring costs down to gas and wood. But if they insist on wood in the mix, this might be less polluting. Said the state position on woodburning was not accepted by the EPA per phone conversations and said that a tre takes 1 year to grow and i day to burn so carbon dioxide was concentrated because of the time delay and NASA and the U.N. believe pm is probably bad for global warming though more study must be done. The conservation dept is being told or ordered to promote wood burning to raise taxes, so they will to keep their jobs.

All the publicity talks about money which is good but refers to air pollution only briefly. Pm is mentioned but the air concentration is not. Forget about air toxics. Because of the undeveloped air pollution contol technology, I am becoming closer to being against all woodburning and all coal burning and even fear gasification because of what Gore experienced with an incinerator in Ohio. It met standards but hundreds were complaing about cancer just like coal ! Gore believed them and promised to investigate. The air toxic studies started as a result but got cut under Pres G.W. Bush. I suspect that the 200 air toxics are eventually going to make all solid fuels be banned. Pyrolysis sounds good but what if you live next to one. They are so big that the air toxics are multiplied. The precipitators allow larger sizes allowing more toxic gases. They are reported to be a problem at Rumford and violating guidelines but the guidelines don not have to be enforced and Maine will only do what it is forced to, to cut enforcement costs and help businesses to give tax revenues. Money vs. health, and greed wins. Same old story.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Re: Global Warming: Resonable renewable technologies.

Postby billardbobby » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:37 am

Hi
I am bobby from USA.
I am becoming closer to being against all wood burning and all coal burning and even fear gasification because of what Gore experienced with an incinerator in Ohio. It met standards but hundreds were complain about cancer just like coal ! Gore believed them and promised to investigate. The air toxic studies started as a result but got cut. I suspect that the air toxics are eventually going to make all solid fuels be banned. Pyrolysis sounds good but what if you live next to one. They are so big that the air toxics are multiplied. They are reported to be a problem at Rumford and violating guidelines but the guidelines don not have to be enforced and help businesses to give tax revenues. It is unnecessarily use and people can make food and biasness.
Thank you.
billardbobby
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:14 am

Re: Global Warming: Resonable renewable technologies.

Postby EAB22 » Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:33 pm

Hi All!
I just wanted to say that I am a science teacher and have been spending some time this year trying to get my students to give their opinion even if they think it is incorrect. In science there is no "incorrect" opinion! This thread is great for back and forth and different thoughts! I am enjoying this site in general. Thank you for all the good material!
EAB22
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Global Warming: Resonable renewable technologies.

Postby cobbie » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:16 pm

very good analysis.. thanks
cobbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Global Warming: Resonable renewable technologies.

Postby mike65 » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:34 pm

Can you explain the direct impact? :D
mike65
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:14 pm

Previous

Return to Smoke Complaints and Advice from our members.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron