# Carpet, Wood Chips, Asphalt Shingles, coal, rubber tires ect..... expirements



## Seyiwmz (Dec 16, 2007)

I was wondering if anybody practices burning fuels other than solid wood?  I've tried these, and they work decent until my stove reaches high temp.   Without storage, I can't sustain a hard burn to finish off the alternate fuels completely.  The coal left me with clinker, the rubber left me with toxic smoke.  I'm thinking if the stove could sustain the high fire, I wouldn't have had any problems.  It's to bad, because I have access to an endless supply of almost all rubber tires without wires.  (Late model race car tires).  Just wondering out loud......


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 16, 2007)

You might try mixing wood chips in with shredded tires. That's what some papermills do to generate steam and electricity. Or pellets. You'd have to experiment to get a mixture that burns clean, but you might be able to do it. Seems to me that if you can get the rubber (or neoprene or whatever it is) to burn cleanly, then it's no worse than burning oil or coal. On the other hand, there might be toxic emissions that would survive the fire, in that case it's probably not a very good idea. But 2,000 degrees is pretty hot. I'd also be worried about CO.


----------



## Seyiwmz (Dec 16, 2007)

Well, what I've done is usually throw a piece of carpet or rubber in with the wood.  Not very big pieces, probably about the size of a paper plate.  It's makes for a roaring flame blast.  Try small pieces.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 16, 2007)

Does it smoke?


----------



## Seyiwmz (Dec 16, 2007)

Doesn't smoke in the quanities described if the fans are blowing good.  If it's idle, then you can get that residual smell from the rubber cause it ain't burning good.  That's why I'd like a storage vessel to allow a longer hard burn cycle.


----------



## webbie (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm glad I don't like downwind of you, Sey.....

No smoke does not mean that MANY poisons are not present. Industrial users can design around that stuff and monitor it, a home user cannot. Who the heck knows what chemicals are in that chit??

I say "Don't do it".....

Besides, it might eat away at your steel or chimney in unknown way.


----------



## Jim Post (Dec 16, 2007)

Interesting, I won't even knowingly burn wood with nails in it....something I heard about the zinc in nails being hard on chimneys.   I look at wood burning as being a natural process but carpet, shingles, and manmade materials burning is very un-natural.


----------



## Seyiwmz (Dec 16, 2007)

Craig,  I live down wind of a paper-mill, so that would give you 2 reasons not to live downwind of me.  I know they've tried expirements with burning tires, but never had any real success.   Instead, they burn thousands of tons of coal, natural gas, wood waste, and black liqour.  Their industrial design only goes so far as to what's cheap enough to get by with.   Needless to say, i don't have much faith in their industrial design.   My main concern is breaking away from the un-natural price of propane.  $2.70 a gallon is not good.


----------



## Nofossil (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm stretching the limits of my chemistry knowledge here, but this is my take on it:

Wood, paper, bark, grass, fuel oil, and most plastics are made up of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. Not much of any other elements, and most of the trace elements still combine with oxygen to give you flue gases that are pretty harmless. If you have a good secondary combustion going, your flue gases are CO2, H2O, and N2 with only traces of anything else.

When you throw in materials that contain a lot of sulfur or metals (pigments, for instance) then your flue gases may contain SO2 and various metal compounds that aren't as nice.

As I learned early, there are no toxic chemicals, only toxic doses. In small enough quantities, anything is safe. The trick is having an idea what the safe quantities are. No bad smells is probably a reasonable first approximation for the compunds we're talking about.


----------



## pdboilermaker (Dec 17, 2007)

olpotosi said:
			
		

> Interesting, I won't even knowingly burn wood with nails in it....something I heard about the zinc in nails being hard on chimneys.   I look at wood burning as being a natural process but carpet, shingles, and manmade materials burning is very un-natural.



The other option is the stuff goes into a landfill somewhere.  It can leach into the soil and contaminate water.  I say BURN IT, at least that way you are recycling it.  One mans trash is another mans heat


----------



## webbie (Dec 17, 2007)

Are you telling me that plastics and tires don't have bad stuff in them when burned at relatively low temps? I would need to hear that from additional engineers and chem majors!

I used to burn the plastic off my romex in a barrel and, wow, one whiff of that almost knocked me down! I never did that again. I think they do it chemically and/or with high temps when you turn it in to the scrap yard. 

In general, I don't approve of "open burning" because someone downwind ends up breathing it. Tires can be recycled, ground up for all kinds of things...including clean burning in special burners. Plastics can be made into treks decking and many other things.

Nah, I'm old school......keeping it clean.


----------



## Detector$ (Dec 17, 2007)

Burning PVC gives off tons of hydrochloric acid, ABS gives off even nastier stuff.
The local fire marshal won't even allow you to install PVC wire in a plenum space in a building due to the harmful gases that would be distributed to the rest of the building. This is a bad idea, wood is good.... Sounds like a recipe for cancer to me


----------



## pbvermont (Dec 17, 2007)

I echo Detecto$ comments, as somebody "downwind".   Aren't there a few others?


----------



## Nofossil (Dec 17, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Are you telling me that plastics and tires don't have bad stuff in them when burned at relatively low temps? I would need to hear that from additional engineers and chem majors!
> 
> I used to burn the plastic off my romex in a barrel and, wow, one whiff of that almost knocked me down! I never did that again. I think they do it chemically and/or with high temps when you turn it in to the scrap yard.
> 
> ...



I would tend to agree, but it's a totally legitimate question. We're not talking open burning, we're talking about a combustion process with extremely high temperatures and abundant oxygen (lambda greater than 1.5, for most gasification boilers).

Most plastics are pure hydrocarbons. PET (drink bottles) for instance is just carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. With high enough temperatures and a long enough reaction time, it will reduce to CO2 and H2O. I expect that a gasification boiler would burn moderate amounts of PET with no toxic emissions.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, rubber and other compounds may contain sulfur, metals, or other chemicals (chlorine comes to mind) that do not reduce to harmless compounds. Sulfur reduces to SO2, which then combines with the water vapor to produce H2SO4 - sulfuric acid.

I'm totally behind the idea of learning what works rather than assuming it's dangerous just because we don't understand it.

I'd love to see posts from someone with more chemistry than I have.


----------



## heaterman (Dec 17, 2007)

Toxic emissions aside, you do realize that burning crap like that will void your warranty. .........Don't you?  Call the manufacturer of your equipment and check it out before you throw any of that in your boiler................

And we wonder why wood burners are coming under scrutiny for polluting the air, water and ground.


----------



## webbie (Dec 17, 2007)

So it will "just happen by accident" that some outdoor wood boiler is burning at 2000 degree plus (or whatever the temp required is) to break down these things? 

Nah.

I am about 95% plus sure that we will discredit this idea - but, hey, I'll wait until we get to 100% .....meantime 85 is enough for me to tell folks that by burning that chit, they are sleeping with the enemy (Burning Issues). In fact, I'll bet there are here lifting these threads so they can raise more money!

I'm "green" first and biomass second. I don't see "incinerator" anywhere in my world view. I'd bury it or recycle it first.....


----------



## Nofossil (Dec 17, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> So it will "just happen by accident" that some outdoor wood boiler is burning at 2000 degree plus (or whatever the temp required is) to break down these things?



The picture and description seem to be a gasifier, which would reach and sustain these temperatures, and would provide a combustion environment vastly different than an OWB or conventional wood stove.



> Nah.
> 
> I am about 95% plus sure that we will discredit this idea - but, hey, I'll wait until we get to 100% .....meantime 85 is enough for me to tell folks that by burning that chit, they are sleeping with the enemy (Burning Issues). In fact, I'll bet there are here lifting these threads so they can raise more money!
> 
> I'm "green" first and biomass second. I don't see "incinerator" anywhere in my world view. I'd bury it or recycle it first.....



I'm quite sure that most of the items described should never go near a wood furnace, and I've described why. I'm not sure that a blanket dismissal is justified, and I've described why.

My assumption is that the purpose of the forum is to add to the sum of our knowledge. That means that hopefully all of us have the opportunity to learn something that we didn't already know. I hope I've helped explain why rubber would be bad. It appears to me that some plastics might burn cleaner than wood. I don't know for sure that's true, but it wouldn't be at all surprising based on the chemicals involved. If that's the case, then burning makes more sense and is far greener than burying it at the very least.

Sometimes what we know is true just ain't so. This could be one of those times.


----------



## TMonter (Dec 17, 2007)

I've seen tire chips mixed with wood burned before but you have to remember you have to have a hot fire with well distributed air which is something you're not going to get in a small boiler. You also don't have the thermal mass to deal with swings that come along and can make said chips put off some nasty emissions.

I would completely avoid any carpet, plastics or similar materials because of dioxins. You need temperatures 2500+ to destroy dioxins and you simply cannot get that in the OWB on the market. We ran an alternative fuels boiler for 8 years for Dupont and in order to stay in compliance we had continuous monitoring of temperature and variable combustion air zones to keep the boiler in compliance (We were burning PET, ground up x-ray film, and wood).

I'd say unless the manufacturer claims the ability to burn Tire chips with low emissions, they are something to be avoided.

Good article on Tire Combustion:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/tire_eng.pdf


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 17, 2007)

The guy has an EKO gasifier, not an OWB. Big difference.


----------



## Seyiwmz (Dec 17, 2007)

For all the non-believers, I assume that your running a conventional OWB.  So, yes I would agree to stay away from anything but wood.  I run an EKO 40 Gasification boiler and I intended this thread to be aimed at other gasifiers out there.  I have gasified small pieces of carpet as well as small quantities of shingles, and coal.   I don't get smoke when boiler is under high fire conditions, which would be the only time I'd try it.   Sorry for any confusion created.  Nonetheless, I think some of the "scrap" resources out there can be a utilized for the benefit of many.  There is so much construction waste, mainly shingles going into our landfills.  Too bad we can't use that for homeowner fuel source.  I haven't perfected the process yet of burning it, but continue to expirement.  Hopefully others will give it a shot and post their results.  Thank you for your ides/opinions so far.  Seyiwmz


----------



## webbie (Dec 17, 2007)

No smoke does not mean no dioxins, etc.

I would ask someone to put a thermocouple in their gasifier and tell me what temp the stuff is burning at.
I doubt it is ever above 2000 and probably lower. 

I'm not doubting that anyone "gasified" 80% or 90% of the junk in this "junk", but the other 10% is filling our lungs.


----------



## webbie (Dec 17, 2007)

BTW, Tmont is a combustion engineer who has vast experience with this stuff - so anyone that disputes his info better have a bit more to stand on than "no smoke" or "gasifier"....

My outlook (and therefore Hearth.com "unofficial" outlook)......is that this is bad for our industry, reputation, environment and perhaps your unit and your family and neighbors. That brings up enough questions for me to take the "conservative" route.


----------



## TMonter (Dec 17, 2007)

> The guy has an EKO gasifier, not an OWB. Big difference.



It doesn't change the fact that the primary combustion zone after the gasification isn't going to be consistently hot enough to burn all of the nasties off.

My experience with small units is that you cannot reliably burn fuels with contaminants in smaller boilers because of three things:

1) Average temperature due to thermal mass (Small boilers have almost no thermal mass)

2) Lack of sophisticated combustion controls.

3) No consistent fuel feed to keep temperatures up


----------



## Nofossil (Dec 17, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> No smoke does not mean no dioxins, etc.
> 
> I would ask someone to put a thermocouple in their gasifier and tell me what temp the stuff is burning at.
> I doubt it is ever above 2000 and probably lower.



See attached image. Combustion temp is the magenta line, divided by 10 to fit on the graph. Instrumentation is Omega inconel-jacketed high temperature thermocouple and Omega thermocouple signal conditioner.



> I'm not doubting that anyone "gasified" 80% or 90% of the junk in this "junk", but the other 10% is filling our lungs.



If you start with fuel that only has carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in it and it has time and temperature enough to fully react, I think you only get CO2 and water. I completely agree that fuels with heavy metals, chlorine, sulfur, and other noxious chemicals should not be burned. That includes rubber, and I've said that from my very first post.

That also includes PVC and many other compounds. That does not include all plastics or all non-wood potential fuels. I'd like to learn what can be burned safely as well as what can't, and I'd like to learn it based on facts and actual knowledge.


----------



## TMonter (Dec 17, 2007)

> If you start with fuel that only has carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in it and it has time and temperature enough to fully react, I think you only get CO2 and water. I completely agree that fuels with heavy metals, chlorine, sulfur, and other noxious chemicals should not be burned. That includes rubber, and I’ve said that from my very first post.



Do you have the 1.5 second residence time at temperature needed to burn the compounds formed off? That is another problem with small boilers.


----------



## Nofossil (Dec 17, 2007)

TMonter said:
			
		

> > If you start with fuel that only has carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in it and it has time and temperature enough to fully react, I think you only get CO2 and water. I completely agree that fuels with heavy metals, chlorine, sulfur, and other noxious chemicals should not be burned. That includes rubber, and I’ve said that from my very first post.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have the 1.5 second residence time at temperature needed to burn the compounds formed off? That is another problem with small boilers.



That's perhaps the critical question. Where my chemistry falls apart is in figuring out the reaction chain for a complex hydrocarbon like PET. I assume that the coal bed in the primary chamber acts as a cracking tower, so that a good deal of the sequence happens before you get to the flame front. Is there anything that requires a longer or more complex intermediate stage than wood does? Are there any nasty intermediate hydrocarbon compounds that don't break down easily in the combustion environment?

I would guess that there's a good deal less than 1.5 seconds between the end of the flame zone and the heat exchanger pipes that serve to drop the gas below reaction temperature. However, there's a good deal of time spent at elevated temperatures in the primary chamber.


----------



## Seyiwmz (Dec 17, 2007)

Sometimes the "Conservative" approach needs to be ditched.  What if Christopher Columbus, Chuck Yeager, John Glenn, or Ozzy Ozborne took that approach.   Were would we be then........ I probably emit more toxins in the air from my commute to work than by throwing in a piece of carpet now and then.  I make it worse when  I leave the parking lot  doing a smoky burnout until the tires almost melt off my rims.  Maybe not quite that much.   But the smoky burnout will fade into the plume coming from my workplaces smokestack.  They only burn 600 tons of coal a day.


----------



## Nofossil (Dec 17, 2007)

Seyiwmz said:
			
		

> Sometimes the "Conservative" approach needs to be ditched.  What if Christopher Columbus, Chuck Yeager, John Glenn, or Ozzy Ozborne took that approach.   Were would we be then........ I probably emit more toxins in the air from my commute to work than by throwing in a piece of carpet now and then.  I make it worse when  I leave the parking lot  doing a smoky burnout until the tires almost melt off my rims.  Maybe not quite that much.   But the smoky burnout will fade into the plume coming from my workplaces smokestack.  They only burn 600 tons of coal a day.



In all fairness to Web, I wouldn't want to burn anything that adds to the problem, regardless of what my workplace does. I spent the extra bucks for a gasifier in part to have cleaner air in the neighborhood.

I am interested in what items could be burned cleanly, though. I agree about pushing the envelope, but the examples that you cited were backed up by instrumentation, and with the exception of Ozzy, by hard science. I thought that you asked a good question.

Based on my understanding, there are things that you probably shouldn't burn, at least in any meaningful quantities. Some things might be able to be burned safely. Shingles are a good question. How many shingles could you burn without exceeding the emissions of a paving machine, for example? What's in a shingle, anyway?

If you created a synthetic material that was chemically identical to wood, would you be able to burn it? I'll bet that there are people who would be up in arms about all of the chemicals that you'd be releasing into the air.

We'll see if people with actual knowledge help out. Seems like there are a few here.


----------



## Seyiwmz (Dec 17, 2007)

No Fossil, you hit the nail on the head with that last post.  I agree that we need to find out if certain items like shingles  can be incorporated safely into our burning pattern.  If I could safely burn 25% less wood, because I use normally landfill material, like shingles, I'd like to try.  People would actually pay you to take the stuff,,,,, that's better than free.    But it's gotta be safe also.   Somebody has done testing using boilers simialr to ours, I'm sure.  I'm just trying to find out "those" results specific to our boilers.   More research and expirementing to come........


----------



## webbie (Dec 17, 2007)

OK, so a combustion engineer who works in the field know nothing about it? neither do the hundreds of easily findable sources on google which say, for instance:

"PBDEs, to take just one example, are used in many products, including computers, carpeting, and paint. As for phthalates, we deploy about a billion pounds of them a year worldwide despite the fact that California recently listed them as a chemical known to be toxic to our reproductive systems. Used to make plastic soft and pliable, phthalates leach easily from millions of products—packaged food, cosmetics, varnishes, the coatings of timed-release pharmaceuticals—into our blood, urine, saliva, seminal fluid, breast milk, and amniotic fluid. In food containers and some plastic bottles, phthalates are now found with another compound called bisphenol A (BPA), which scientists are discovering can wreak stunning havoc in the body. We produce 6 billion pounds of that each year, and it shows: BPA has been found in nearly every human who has been tested in the United States. We're eating these plasticizing additives, drinking them, breathing them, and absorbing them through our skin every single day."

An yet, folks are willing to accept "experiment" that are scientific which think that no smoke means no dioxins! These are generally classified as "odorless" chemcials!
Meanwhile, every human in our country has this chit in our tissues! 

C'mon, now, use just a little bit of common sense. No one is going to really do a study of how well your residential boilers incinerate poisons! The facts already exist. So the onus if on the folks who say "these chemicals are safe" to prove it, not on "proven science" to dispute these (silly) notions.

Some related info - :
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/environmentprotect/ob/agplasticseffects.html
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/environmentprotect/ob/dioxinfaq.htm
http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/eh/HlthHaz/fs/WoodBrn.htm

http://www.woodheat.org/environment/garbage.htm
http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/healthier.html
http://www.swcleanair.org/properuse.html

So my suggestion to those who want to burn crap is to contact the manufacturer of the boilers and see if they have certified test results of the chemical output from said boilers from burning that crap. Otherwise, burn wood. 

My opinion (one persons), anyway!


----------



## Nofossil (Dec 18, 2007)

Tmonter had some great information, and I haven't argued with any of it. He raised some questions that are relevant to the discussion. He also reinforced my point that items which contain chemicals other than carbon and hydrogen present serious risks.

I've consistently pointed out why some items should never be burned, based on my knowledge. The original poster seems quite prepared to accept this information, hopefully improving on the original situation.

Where I'm not sure about the results of burning in a gasification environment, I've tried to ask questions to learn. The most common plastics contain nothing except carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. No chlorinated dioxins. No PBDE. Maybe they emit toxic fumes when burned in a gasifier type environment - maybe not. I'd love to be enlightened. I don't think there are a lot of toxic chemicals that you can make from those elements that will survive a 2000 degree oxygen rich fire, but I'm willing to learn. 

Continuing to refer to links about indiscriminate burning of rubbish and tires in conventional woodstoves, barrels, or OWBs adds nothing to the net knowledge on this topic. That's not what this thread was ever about.

I'm quite sure that the manufacturer's lawyers would not allow them to answer in a meaningful way for the purpose of this discussion.

I'm sorry if asking these questions makes you uncomfortable.


----------



## TMonter (Dec 18, 2007)

It's not to say that you can't burn some of the things mentioned here but more of should you burn them.

Asphalt shingles, plastics, and carpet remnants all have nasty chemicals and binders in them that would not only void the warranty of the boiler burning them, but are also unlikely to completely be destroyed in the limited residence time/temperature of a small home boiler.

I've done several TDF/RDF/Autofluff projects and none of them has been under 100MMBtu/hr, mainly because you cannot maintain good combustion characteristics below that. Most projects of this type also require SO2 scrubbing capabilities.

Craig's right, you really should only be burning biomass in your wood boiler, and not engineered products (wood or otherwise).

In fact one of the local guys here actually takes leaves and cubes them into a biobrick form and burns them in his boiler.


----------



## Moose (Dec 18, 2007)

This was a very interesting thread to read.  Don't have any knowlage about chemical engineering or thermo engineering.  I do know that I love burning wood there is a certain romance about going into the woods pulling out tree's processing them and using them to keep your family safe and warm.  Its a natural process tree's storing energy you extracting said energy.  I'm all about trying to find new and inproved ways of doing things, but I don't just buring things to see if they will burn is the way to go.  I don't see it any better to put the solid waste in the air then to put it in the land fill.  If that is the concern I think that the most reasonable option is to recycle.  I guess I don't think I personally could find satisfaction in burning any of the tires, shingles, carpet etc.  just my opinion.  besides my pocket book is not deep enough to "experiment" with a gasifier.


----------



## Nofossil (Dec 19, 2007)

A little research turned up two sites that specifically discuss burning plastic. Links and excerpts from each are shown below.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00922.htm

"Question -   What are the hazardous products of burning Polyethylene
Teraphthalate or PET; high density polyethylene, HPPE; low density
polyethylene, LDPE; polyproplene, PP?

----------------------------------------

     Question 1: All of the polymers you list are hydrocarbons so other than
the usual hazards of the combustion of hydrocarbons -- CO2, CO, carbon
particles -- there are no unusual hazards.
Additional hazards might be present from components used in the manufacture
of plastic parts however. I am thinking of pigments, and other additives."

http://www.ifenergy.com/50226711/can_you_burn_plastics.php

" The answer is yes, several types of plastics can be burned. Toxins come from "Halogenated Plastics", those that are made from chlorine or fluorine, which clearly should not be burned. On the other hand, Polyethylene which is a common plastic and is not made from these chemicals can be burned. Polyethylene has the same heating value as oil and can be mixed with other fuel types easily (grounded and mixed thoroughly).

But why should we burn polyethylene, when it burns easily and produces black smoke and soot? Some researchers in India are looking at binding briquettes using polyethylene. Mixed with well ground agro-residue for use in high temperature combustion systems, polyethylene plastic can be used as a major component for char briquettes.

The most important reason for burning plastics this way is that when collected, sorted, and used as fuel, the amount of plastics used by one household on a daily basis is almost equal to the amount of plastics reused as fuel, thus solving an energy and a waste management concern."


----------



## Beanscoot (Jan 5, 2008)

An interesting discussion!  Perhaps it would be a good thing if our garbage dumps were replaced with state of the art incinerators that would generate power, with all necessary emissions controls.  We could stop wasting fuel to separately pick up recyclables such as paper and plastic, and stop leaching nasty stuff from landfills into our ground water.
     As an aside, because something is natural doesn't make it good.  I burnt a piece of nice pitchy wood in my outdoor burner last summer and was a little shocked to see a thick cloud of black smoke coming out the chimney.  Cautious sniffing revealed a foul stench like that of burning motor oil.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 5, 2008)

Easy to agree that we can talk about controversial things -- but it is irrational to the point of stupidity to claim you have the right to do something just because you can. One who experiments with potentially dangerous stuff that can harm others when the ability exists to reasonably determine in advance whether that harm is likely to result, and then proceeding without making that determination, is surely irresponsible and may be lunacy. Let's be greedy about preserving and protecting the only environment we have rather than be greedy about one more dollar in our pocket.


----------



## wdc1160 (Jan 5, 2008)

I hadn't seen in this conversation whether some of the these manmade products have high BTU/LB ratios.  In other words does someone have a large supply of plastics that burn very hot.  Is there some specific product or material that sticks out as a good fuel.

Or, are we just kicking this idea around.


----------



## JustWood (Jan 5, 2008)

There could be a liability issue burning these materials also. A few years ago a neighbor a mile down wind from me tore the asbestos shingles off his house and resided with vinyl. For about 2 months during the summer when everyone had their windows open and kids playing outside he burned a wheelbarrow load every night after work on a burn pile. I have athsma and it killed me to go by on the way home from work. Started going a couple miles out of my way to not pass his house. I called him to let him know what he was burning and got a not so pleasant response. Called the neighbors with kids to let them know what he was burning and they did nothing . If my house had been downwind I would have had every environmental dept. under the sun knocking on his door


----------



## wdc1160 (Jan 5, 2008)

You are quite lucky to have such a considerate neighbor. I have never seen anyone who would admit to burning asbestos. I am surprised you didn't throw him to the local authorities.

In any-case, since the time of the Greek's they knew asbestos was dangerous to be in close contact with humans.

I hope in earnest that we are not going to be likening this discussion to the burning of asbestos.
I don't think that is fair or accurate. 
Ironically, asbestos is a natural material, we have only been talking about man-made stuff.

There will always be a liability issue. IME you can sue anyone for anything, but our goal in this line of discussion was is it safe, practical, even reasonable.

I agree with you it wouldn't be politically correct. I would be viewed as you put it like burning asbestos- even though there is no relationship. 

While were being PC I would like to say I don't condone killing of neighbours with any chemical compounds natural or synthetic.


----------



## Bartman (Jan 6, 2008)

Let's remember asbestos doesn't burn. Asbestos shingles are not made of 100% asbestos, only 10% max, they call it ACM asbestos containing material. Asbestos was added to shingle material to give it toughness, and fire resistance. All those noxious fumes came from the resins holding the stuff together. IMO the poor bastard kept all the asbestos to himself and his own airspace.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Jan 6, 2008)

Burning asbestos . . .what a novel idea . . .

Anyway, just curious how many of you bitchin about burnin' plastic also smoke tobacco . . . :smirk:


----------



## Bartman (Jan 6, 2008)

eeeeeewwwww.........that was low...........


----------



## wdc1160 (Jan 6, 2008)

Of course your correct, but Indiana state forbids it being burned, because they are worried about the fibers being moved with the hot air currents-- not smoke inhalation.  I think they included it in flooring too??? right??


----------



## Bartman (Jan 6, 2008)

Yes it was also in flooring to increase wear resistance.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jan 6, 2008)

I've breathed my share, fixing up old houses/heating systems. It takes at least 20 years to find out if you're screwed. My dad worked on ships and in power plants for many decades and is still cutting wood for a living, so I'm not overly concerned about genetic dispositions, but it does seem to hit some people and not others. Knock on wood, or whatever non-asbestos-impregnated product you have handy. Quitting the cigarettes is a big factor, I hear.


----------



## deerhuntrer (Jan 6, 2008)

Here in Maine, certain people have burned these things in their OWB. Then certain people got bent out of shape and started banning them in towns and the state legislature has had a couple of bills on to curb them somehow. It only takes one bad apple to start a witch hunt. This is MAINE!! er have burned wood here to stay warm for ages, now certain people want to ban them, even though a large majority of people use them correctly. I have not burned anything but wood, and yed I have burned wood with nails in it but nothing like tires. I do not hink its a great idea, but what do I know.


----------



## Bartman (Jan 6, 2008)

My cousin in VA had a bumper sticker on her car once, it said "Ignore your rights, and they'll go away", how true. Over here on Long Island, not many people have wood burners, but the few who have OWBs have to remove them if they are not more than 200' away from school, nursing facility, or park by the year 2010. Hell, they're even trying to ban the sale of incandescent lamps by 2012. Like I said, the land of no. It's like the people that move next to a racetrack or airport, then try and sometimes succeed in getting rid of the "nuisance". It's true that there are some people who don't really care about anyone else's life and will burn anything that will burn, but usually they are few. All it takes is one person that doesn't know when to quit, and has plenty of time o their hands to be a thorn in a legislator's side to push they're self serving will into law..............just my 2 cents.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jan 6, 2008)

Not too many years ago, you hauled your trash up to the town dump and some local drunk would bulldoze it into piles and burn it in a smoldering fire that never went out. So it's not like somebody burning garbage in an OWB is suddenly unleashing heretofore unseen toxins into the environment. Now, around here, they load the trash into semi trailers and truck it down to a landfill in Pennsylvania where presumably it's put into longterm storage for some future generation to worry about.

I think it would be good to find a way to handle our waste locally and responsibly, but I agree that burning it in our boilers is probably not the best approach. All our wet, organic garbage goes into our compost bins. That's a minor drop in the bucket, but aside from satisfying my need for good, organic fertilizer, why should somebody in Pennsylvania have to deal with waste that I can easily dispose of in my backyard?

Maybe if enough people get woodburners, somebody can analyze and code different packaging products according to their ability to be safely burned--kind of like the recycling codes they have now. If I could safely and responsibly recover some heat value from some of the things I now toss into the trash, it would be a win-win as far as I can see.


----------



## Bartman (Jan 6, 2008)

When it comes to cardboard, and paper, I usually burn those, maybe 50% of the time, the remaining 50% gets recycled. Who knows, I'll probably be fined in the future because I'm adding to my carbon footprint.


----------



## deerhuntrer (Jan 6, 2008)

I wasnt talking about paper and cardboard in OWB, I burn all those in mine have a HUGE composter in the garden, I do not consider paper products trash, I consider them fuel. (Xmas time was great, all that cardboard from presents, it last half a day)


----------



## webbie (Jan 6, 2008)

Its a good point of discussion, if nothing else. The fact is that when we choose to live in close proximity to others (Long Island, for instance), I think we should be held to a high standard of certain behavior...for instance, without decent automobile emissions regs those on LI (and in Europe!) would be breathing dirtier air and getting more diseases.

I live in a hollow, which is in a valley - there is only one wood burner in the general area, and I can smell it pretty heavily when I go outside to take the dog for a walk. So anytime there is ANY density of population, the effect on other people has to be taken into account.

The OWB makers, dealers and (yes) some owners have brought the regs on themselves...by smoking up entire valleys (I have seen this in VT) and burning tires, stumps, trash etc. - This is not, IHMO, a case of too much regulation, but a case in which the industry and users failed to uphold the basics of keeping their smoke to themselves.

Whether 300 feet or 1000 feet, or whether 10 acres of 100, that is still not an excuse to pollute excessively. This country is shared with 300 million other people - where ever one happens to live, and that requires that we each do our part. 

Clean burning appliances can (and could have) been made at very little additional cost, especially when the excess fuel use and poor air quality is taken into consideration. In my opinion it is pay now or pay later.


----------



## payton (Jan 6, 2008)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_terephthalate

PET, as with many plastics, is also an excellent candidate for thermal recycling (incineration) as it is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen with only trace amounts of catalyst elements (no sulphur) and has the energy content of soft coal.

Payton


----------



## wdc1160 (Jan 6, 2008)

Payton, 

Do you have a large amount of this available to you?

Can you tell it from other platics?  It says that it makes up 30% global bottiling 
Is it closer to 100 percent in US?


----------



## payton (Jan 6, 2008)

well most of it has a 1 is the arrows.  and says PET or PETE under the recycling arrows.


----------



## Beanscoot (Jan 6, 2008)

There's a tremendous garbage problem in the modern world and we are trucking vast quantities of it many miles to fester and leach into the groundwater and be a "present" for future generations.  Maybe one day we can design clean burning, medium size incinerators with extremely low emissions for apartment buildings or institutions so this waste could be used to provide heat in winter and even a little power.

   Or we could reduce our garbage production.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jan 6, 2008)

payton said:
			
		

> from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_terephthalate
> 
> PET, as with many plastics, is also an excellent candidate for thermal recycling (incineration) as it is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen with only trace amounts of catalyst elements (no sulphur) and has the energy content of soft coal.
> 
> Payton



Are you saying that it's probably OK to burn PET, payton? Cause I throw out quite a bit of it.


----------



## webbie (Jan 6, 2008)

First of all, it takes a lot of bottles to make a pound! So much for the energy value......

And, keep in mind that "thermal incineration" refers to an industrial process (as T mentioned earlier), where temps and other stuff are carefully monitored. 

I think a lot of this stuff is already burned for fuel value - I remember seeing trash sorting machines that ended up using whatever was left to make pelletized fuel - but, again, this was for use in high-temp incinerators.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jan 6, 2008)

I guess that's my question. The Wiki quote seems to suggest that there isn't anything particularly hazardous contained in this type of plastic, which to a non-chemist like me, implies that it would be safe to burn at any temperature. If that's the case (and I'm not suggesting that it is), then it would make more sense to burn it than ship it to a landfill. Of course, if it's recycled into something useful like polar fleece, then I guess recycling would be the highest and best use.

For the sake of harmony in the Boiler Room, I keep hoping this thread will die, but now you guys sucked me into it.

I'm going to go insulate some more piping.


----------



## payton (Jan 6, 2008)

i dont have the education to say that it is ok but i can't find any reason why it wouldn't be.  i think that if you have JUST carbon hydrogen and oxygen it is impossible to create anything worse than CO, and that should not happen if you have excess oxygen.


----------

