RE: Not really fuel for our woodstoves . . . but fuel nonetheless
- Thread starter firefighterjake
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
firefighterjake said:
One can hope. I think there were 3 posts on topic- something I was actually interested in
Adios Pantalones said:barwick11 said:Which also is riddled with errors and inaccuracies, being based on a false presupposition about the age of the universe. +1 again.
Yeeaw- the urth is 6000 years old and the debil put dems fossils there in order to make um look oldur. Yip.
Do you really want to go there? I've debated PhD geologists, professors that teach it for a living, on this topic. They were at least cordial and able to hold an intelligent conversation on the topic though. And I didn't say anything about "tectonic" plate movement, I said the theory. Naming convention, etc...
Bah, you want to talk about the presupposition that the earth is billions of years old, and the fact that there's just as much *scientific* evidence for the other side of that debate, eMail me. If you want to send this thread right into the ash can, keep talking about it here.
LOL. I'm not impressed with PhD credentials (since I gots em myself, and know plenty of dumb PhD's), and having debated this a dozen times- I've seen all the arguments. "As much evidence" is... laughable.
too funny. The interwebs- where fact is decided.
too funny. The interwebs- where fact is decided.
Adios Pantalones said:
you dare to challenge me?? the wizard (you become an official wizard by puting "Warlock" in front of your name, you can be a wizrd and a PhD if you like)?? I will draw power from the interweb nether regions to conjure something horrible to unleash upon you (the general you, not just you AP). WHen I say "Who's the master", you say "Sho Nuff". Let us all keep in mind that it was just a few hundred short years ago that daily temperatures started getting recorded....and few hundred short years (plus or minus a few thousand years) prior to that we had big chunks of ice covering things....and another distant human relative has been discovered acounting for some 1% of all the DNA in Asia. Lets not get so hung up on things that we forget to reassess things when new/more/better information presents itself.
There are complicating issues... like heterosexuality, we're both dudes, both married, and I been fixed- but we can work it out
Adios Pantalones said:Dune said:firefighterjake said:Soooo . . . how about that research about wood products being used as a fuel?
That looks like a pretty massive breakthrough.
If the process could be run from waste heat, the efficieny question may be moot.
Clearly it needs to be capable of being scaled up, which remains to be seen.
There are often caveats about "use solar to charge x" or "use waste heat..."- these involve large considerations of infrastructure that are probably difficult to put in place after a plant has been built (like retrofiting a heat pump). It's interesting chemistry, to be sure.
What about a plant designed from the git.
Combined with an existing practice such as a chip fired electric plant, but designed from scratch.
I doubt a modern chip plant is more than 30-35% efficent, so size the distillation plant to the amount of heat that could be scavenged.
i think its interesting that the whole energy debate usually falls back on inefficiency of "x". I dont think we'll ever really overcome that one. the dream of high efficiency cogeneration is a nice one to have, but I think its too much "magic bullet". I think, if we can develop a system that may be inefficient, but is low cost, and low impact (to the environment, to society, to the socio-political dialogue) that we can count that as a "win". I have high confidence that in the next decade or so we'll see PV materials become ubiquitous and integrated into everything (a win) and maybe the proliferation of small scale biogas plants. One of the really important steps IMO is the scaling down of power plants. More plants, smaller, driven by locally procured fuels (whatever they may be). I think the recent snow event and power outage here in the northeast is a great reminder that we need to have smarter grid technology along with more, and more diverse power solutions.
Delta-T said:
Defintely.
There is the factor of viability too though, and efficiency plays a big role there.
barwick11 said:
We have a fundamental difference in philosophy here. The idea that we (as a society) can just do whatever we please, consequences be dammed, and our technology will always find a way to clean up the mess is a recipe for disaster IMHO. Its thinking like that that time and again has brought species to the brink of extinction, and then at the last second we call them protected and expend heroic efforts to save whats left (think whales, buffalo, the bald eagle, etc). Or destroying our rain forest and wetlands then at the last minute place a few acres in a protected reserve hoping to save it. Or the declining honey bee populations that nobody knows the cause of? Or the new super bacteria (MRSA, NDM-1, etc) that antibiotic research cant keep up with? And on and on.
What happens when the old investing mantra "past results are no guarantee of future performance" kicks in in the natural world and we stumble into some problem we cant come up with some last minute miracle techno fix for? Wouldn't it make sense to try and, just once, actually attempt to prevent a mess before it happens rather than reacting to it after the fact?
Also, this "100 years of natural gas" claim is interesting. Ive see the figures that estimate the shale resources at close to 2000 TCF, vs. US consumption of around 20 tcF a year. Those proclamations say "look we have a 100 years worth!" Right after that they mention that at 2-3% a year growth or more our consumption will double by 2035 and keep going up form there. Suddenly 100 years becomes 50 or less.
We all know the timescales that it takes to make a wholesale shift in our energy infrastructure. If its going to be mostly gone in 50 years or less we really need to be building the replacement TODAY to have a chance at a smooth transition. Our children will be around to witness the day there is nothing left, its really not much time at all when viewed against how long people have lived on this rock.
Can't help but wonder if we had proceeded with at least some of the ideas for getting off of foreign oil that your Pres Carter had begun to propose - where would we be now?
As it stands, all we have done is kick the can down the road 50 years or so & we are discussing the same issues. Not much progress at all in getting off foreign oil given those 50 years.
Maybe George Carlin had it right & our species is screwed, as we just can't seem to get past that greed/self interest thing, no matter how hard some try.
As it stands, all we have done is kick the can down the road 50 years or so & we are discussing the same issues. Not much progress at all in getting off foreign oil given those 50 years.
Maybe George Carlin had it right & our species is screwed, as we just can't seem to get past that greed/self interest thing, no matter how hard some try.
I'd bet that 100 years of gas is like nuclear fission generated electricity being too cheap to meter. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too.
Shill!
Shill!
- Status
Similar threads
