are all wood boilers bad?

Technical questions that one would like posed to experts
(scientists) in fields related to particulate pollution.

New Pellet boilers with forced air

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:33 pm

Forced air is the key to these new pellet boilers and the pellets themselves can be dry and the smaller size and composition of loosely glued sawdust is a factor too. The fire has an oxygen sensor and a mini computer as well. The glue may be a catalyst. What is the big deal? The cost of heating is one half the cost of oil. Still don't like em. They are the best but still are 5 times as polluting as oil! Wish we had gas here in Maine. Personally, I like free energy. Free energy is pouring through windows just waiting to be tapped with Jeffersonian indoor shutters or shades or popout insulating panels made of bubble plastic or cheap low E plastic films made by people themselves to avoid the high cost of windows. It's God's gift to us. The Romans tapped it and it is the reason why east west roads are best and why they used them. They also put houses next to one another to save energy. Beware woodburner, God is watching you. You reap what you sow and you are creating a hell on Earth. Guess where you are going? God will throw more than one log on for you.

Sweden has also developed small electrostatic precipitators and the Energy Dept. has written that air toxics can be reduced with gravel beds. If activated carbon blocks don't burn up in hot exhaust gases they would be best. If they can't be used then perhaps activated carbon injection systems could be used. I had to ask the IQ air company to combine their nano filter with activated charcoal for toxic gases to protect my asthmatic daughter and they did it. Why don't all you woodboiler designers get serious about reducing pollution at the source and why don't all you legislators pass laws requiring them to do it? It can be done. The answer of course is money. It is always money vs. health. Greed vs. purity. Good vs evil. God vs the devil.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Postby woodburner » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:24 am

Beware woodburner, God is watching you. You reap what you sow and you are creating a hell on Earth. Guess where you are going? God will throw more than one log on for you.


:shock: :shock: :shock:

You might want to take it down a notch. Pass on that extra cup of coffee next time.
woodburner
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:37 am
Location: Upstate NY

Postby Wilberforce » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:56 am

Let us be careful not to attack one another. We are all good citizens.
Just let us agree to disagree on some of the issues.
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Sigh! Who says this Swedish boiler is cleaner?

Postby pm2.5mary » Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:46 pm

Pellets are expensive and have been know to run out. I am very uneasy 'promoting wood burning' in any form. The testing programs are run by the industries that create them. I am sure that everyone is excited about it as everyone wants a way out. Had we spent all the development money that has been sinkholed with wood on wind and geothermal everyone would be cozier and safe too.

Australia decided after 9 years of change-outs that the cleaner stoves did not work.

Refer to the 12 year study under our science section, no improvement.

Ernie, lets go back to the bubble wrap and radiant space heaters, you can buy a lot of both for $12G.
"Particulate pollution is the most important contaminant in our air. ...we know that when particle levels go up, people die. " (Joel Schwartz, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health, E Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2002)
Find more at http://burningissues.org
User avatar
pm2.5mary
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:04 pm

Fire and Brimstone

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:14 am

People on the web have asked me to tone down the rhettoric, therefor I will. But I ask woodburner to do the same. He should stop ending every blog with, ' I'll throw another log on for ya." To me this is deliberate, repetitive, provacation and I am not one to back down from a fight as important as this one. My asthmatic daughter's life, health, safety, and welfare have been put at risk with extreme smoke, estimated to be around 75 - 110 mcg/c.m. of pm2.5 according to estimates checked by the DEP. And the Am Lung Assoc. has said Dr. Brown's statement that 30 mcg for a few hours can cause asthma attacks and heart attacks is correct. This is enough to make any man get a little angry. Even Jesus got a little angry with the money changers.

I also apologize for bringing religion into this if it offends some but I know that the vast majority believe in God and the churches in Maine have come together to fight global warming and toxics in homes, and toys and I welcome them and say ,"Good job, I'm with you". " We need you and are on your side". My belief in God right now is a motivator for me and I am trying to help God create a better world and be a steward of the world as it is written in the bible. Others have said they feel like they are in purgatory with all the woodburning and wildfires. God is a very powerful motivating force and I'm not surprised that woodburner would be upset by it. But I am not alone. 90% of people in Maine have been polled as preferring to live in smoke free environments and are abstaining from woodburning. I also believe that any citizen who harms his neighbors by creating health nuisances is not a good citizen and there is a small minority who do so out of ignorance. But woodburner is not ignorant. He has heard and refuses to care. One old fireplace, burning wood, in a tight house, in an atmosphere with 50% of the oxygen before the industrial revolution creates 30 mcg of pm2.5 in an inversion and the pm2.5 from just cars can create another 30 mcg. This can kill and it is a commandment that we not kill. It is also the golden rule that we care for our neighbors. Many people on the website have said they love me for what I am writing and they ask me to continue writing but I can tone it down. I have written so much, it is not surprising that I have made some mistakes.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

We can't handle the pm we have , Why add more.

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:52 am

The DEP says pm in the summer gets up to 35 mcg twice per month for a few hours. This is legal. But the Am. Lung Assoc. says public health authoriteis say 30 mcg for a few hours can cause asthma attacks. Therefor, I believe our governments, federal, state, and local are making another mistake regarding air pollution. Observation of past standards reveals gross errors in the past that they recognize every time they change the standards. Is it legal to kill? Obviously not.

I agree with Mary that most woodburning is bad for the environment, but I also know that replacing all the old uncertified equipment with certified equipment will stop 90% of the air pollution. It would be a big improvement and this is as far as the government can go right now till the EPA changes the standards. There will always be woodburners and it is not wrong of me to suggest a better alternative to 100 gm/hr boilers. The swedish boilers put out .5 grams of pm 2.5 and do not cause 42 mcg/c.m of pm2.5. They put out .21 mcg/c.m. and that is a great improvement. It takes 30 mcg to cause heart attacks and asthma attacks. I point out the room for improvement and note that Sweden still has a very bad air pollution problem because 80% are burning with wood. That is why they have developed small electrostaic precipitators. We need to develop wood burning more because it is a radical new technology, greatly different from the comparitively clean oil and gas burners. If we developed the electrostaic precipitators and activated carbon beds perhaps we could use wood on a small scale for houses and small buildings. But really the best way to use wood for energy is to develop pyrolysis to convert wood to oil or gas. But this is pie in the sky stuff to unscientific governors and the like who are in another energy crisis and can harken back to another era where woodburing was common, IE the depression. They also point out and ask rhettorically, ' What are you going to do, throw the poor out in the cold where they die of exposure" ?

We have had some spirited debates in Maine and these arguments have all been brought out in the Governors wood to energy task force meetings. I am participating as an audience member and the pro wood group ordered to promote wood has recognized that old stoves and fireplaces and boilers should be replaced. This is a dramatic improvement that could reduce Maines air pollution 90%. In this long fight for clean air we may have to be satisfied with small temporary victories in battles while we wage a 40 year long tobacco war. Let's give the woodburners credit for compromising and try to sieze on the opportunity they present. If we try to go for the whole thing at once, we could lose the whole fight and be called extremists.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

New swedish pellet boiler info sources

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:48 pm

People asked for sources about new swedish pellet boilers. Go to www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conferance/ei17se ... /_pres.pdf. I got my info from the Maine wood to energy task force report: The Benefits to the State of Maine of providing Tax Incentives for Heating System Efficiency Improvements, page 8. Fireplaces: 28 lbs pm/mmbtu. Uncertified wood stoves: 4.6 lb pm/mmbtu. Epa cert stoves: 1.4 lb pm/mmbtu. Pellet stove: .49 lb pm/mmbtu. Pellet furnace: .04 lb/mmbtu. Oil furnace: .013 lb pm/mmbtu. Gas Furnace: .0083 lb pm/mmbtu. Source: US EPA and Swedish National Energy Administration. Note that the pellet boiler is described as having forced air and a computer to optimize combustion. This puts out about 1/10 of the pollution of a pellet stove. These figures lead me to believe this is the least polluting wood boiler available now. It is still 4 times as polluting as oil and we can't really handle the air pollution we have now according to the Am Lung. The Maine dir. of the Am Lung helped write this report I am referring to. It is in a preliminary form being changed a little from week to week. Still like fre energy from the sun coming through windows waiting to be tapped with moveable insulation as suggested by Prof. Shurcliffe of Harvard a long time ago. Passive solar like this can be cheap if you make the moveable insulation yourself. It is common for window salesman to see all sorts of variations on this and I sold windows briefly in between engineering jobs.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Postby Wilberforce » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14 pm

The Swedish boiler seems to be a good idea — for now.

About the future: In my humble opinion, we need to start getting
away from this outdated practice burning stuff to make energy.
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Previous

Return to For the Experts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests