Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

Interesting little wood burning stove.

Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

Interesting little wood burning stove.

Reply

Old 05-25-17, 05:42 PM
  #51  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,902
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1081 Post(s)
Well.. not really.

To make carbon fiber you take one form of sequestered carbon (oil product) and turn it into another form of sequestered carbon (fiber). But along the way you need to process that oil to make the fiber via manufacturing and that generates a carbon footprint.

Wood pellets are also a form of sequestered carbon (trees) but when you burn them you release that carbon into the atmosphere (CO2). That CO2 will eventually be sequestered again by plants via photosynthesis but you can't say using a wood stove is carbon neutral. Everytime you use it you are creating a (small) carbon footprint.
Happy Feet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-17, 05:56 PM
  #52  
willibrord
Senior Member
 
willibrord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 340

Bikes: imagineering a new adventure rig !

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 293 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
Well.. not really.

To make carbon fiber you take one form of sequestered carbon (oil product) and turn it into another form of sequestered carbon (fiber). But along the way you need to process that oil to make the fiber via manufacturing and that generates a carbon footprint.
Depends where the energy to do that comes from. If it comes from a renewable source that carbon footprint is negligible.
Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post

Wood pellets are also a form of sequestered carbon (trees) but when you burn them you release that carbon into the atmosphere (CO2). That CO2 will eventually be sequestered again by plants via photosynthesis but you can't say using a wood stove is carbon neutral. Everytime you use it you are creating a (small) carbon footprint.
There is some carbon exchange between the wood and the atmosphere and then back into plant material again. It is not like you are taking million year old oil and suddenly releasing that stored carbon into the atmosphere.
willibrord is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-17, 08:03 PM
  #53  
saddlesores
Senior Member
 
saddlesores's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bangkok...and....Hainan
Posts: 2,961

Bikes: inferior steel....and....noodly aluminium

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
Well.. not really.
however, when your expensive calcium fiber bike inevitably
assplodes, you can collect the resulting splinters to feed
your equally expensive twigs and berries stove, thus
continuing the great circle of carbon life.
saddlesores is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-17, 08:35 PM
  #54  
willibrord
Senior Member
 
willibrord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 340

Bikes: imagineering a new adventure rig !

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 293 Post(s)
Originally Posted by saddlesores View Post
however, when your expensive calcium fiber bike inevitably
assplodes, you can collect the resulting splinters to feed
your equally expensive twigs and berries stove, thus
continuing the great circle of carbon life.
willibrord is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-17, 11:57 PM
  #55  
willibrord
Senior Member
 
willibrord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 340

Bikes: imagineering a new adventure rig !

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 293 Post(s)
Originally Posted by saddlesores View Post
however, when your expensive calcium fiber bike inevitably
assplodes, you can collect the resulting splinters to feed
your equally expensive twigs and berries stove, thus
continuing the great circle of carbon life.
Okay I was wondering if Carbon fiber would burn. I found this video


It burns, sort of. Maybe it is just the resin burning off. I would not recommend it for your portable wood stove.
Even if it is carbon neutral.
willibrord is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 12:11 AM
  #56  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,902
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1081 Post(s)
I agree it's a matter of degrees but that is how the process works and how footprints are measured. It's the release of greenhouse gasses (primarily CO2) during the manufacturing phase, whether it's manufacturing a product (CF) or heat to cook food (wood pellets). Carbon neutral would be to use a solar oven, for example. No release of CO2.

As someone said: bicycle riders are already pretty low on the polluting scale to be worried about CF or wood pellet stoves in that way.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-26-17 at 12:16 AM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 07:34 AM
  #57  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Posts: 36,480

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1973 Raleigh Twenty, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 387 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5033 Post(s)
I'll admit that the carbon footprint of your cooking method while camping is interesting, but I don't see how it makes much difference. If one cooking method makes twice as much pollution as another, that doesn't necessarily mean it's unthinkably dirty. There is so much we do in ordinary life that makes more pollution. Perhaps the fact that bike camping is something we don't do often is the reason we're thinking about the differences. If you live in a city or suburb, chances are you have a central heating system in your home, and that uses a whole lot of fuel, probably fossil fuel.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 07:52 AM
  #58  
Trakhak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,661
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
I'll admit that the carbon footprint of your cooking method while camping is interesting, but I don't see how it makes much difference. If one cooking method makes twice as much pollution as another, that doesn't necessarily mean it's unthinkably dirty. There is so much we do in ordinary life that makes more pollution. Perhaps the fact that bike camping is something we don't do often is the reason we're thinking about the differences. If you live in a city or suburb, chances are you have a central heating system in your home, and that uses a whole lot of fuel, probably fossil fuel.
If you live in New York City, like noglider, your carbon footprint is likely smaller than that of almost anyone else in the developed world. High population density plus centralized heating and cooling and ubiquitous mass transportation add up to spectacular energy efficiency.
Trakhak is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 07:53 AM
  #59  
jefnvk
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,163

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3531 Post(s)
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
I'll admit that the carbon footprint of your cooking method while camping is interesting, but I don't see how it makes much difference.
Yep, anyone's cooking method really has a very minuscule impact on the environment, whether it be an empty canister being discarded or wood begin scavenged.
jefnvk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 07:58 AM
  #60  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Posts: 36,480

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1973 Raleigh Twenty, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 387 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5033 Post(s)
@Trakhak, that's right, though living in such high density, the air is pretty bad to breathe. It's a lot better than when I was a kid, as environmental laws have improved things a lot. But we go out to the country often, and the difference is very noticeable.

Burning wood in cities is illegal, for good reason, but it makes sense in rural areas. It's one of the most popular home heating fuels in our rural area. Our house has a pellet burning stove which is a little more efficient than wood.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 08:54 AM
  #61  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,027

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 83 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2256 Post(s)
Originally Posted by willibrord View Post
The carbon comes from fossil fuels and instead of being burned and added to the earth's atmosphere it is turned into carbon fiber and into a bicycle, a solid form of carbon.

The small wood burning camp stove takes wood pellets, wood which would normally be discarded. so it is truly carbon neutral.
The issue is that the carbon is removed from "storage" in the lithosphere and reintroduced into the atmosphere where it hasn't been in millions of years. That's not "sequestration".

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
Well.. not really.

To make carbon fiber you take one form of sequestered carbon (oil product) and turn it into another form of sequestered carbon (fiber). But along the way you need to process that oil to make the fiber via manufacturing and that generates a carbon footprint.
Exactly.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
Wood pellets are also a form of sequestered carbon (trees) but when you burn them you release that carbon into the atmosphere (CO2). That CO2 will eventually be sequestered again by plants via photosynthesis but you can't say using a wood stove is carbon neutral. Everytime you use it you are creating a (small) carbon footprint.
Well you got the first half right but you fell flat at the end there. If you really split hairs, burning biomass that is only a few months to a few years old has an infinitesimal carbon footprint but that carbon is being rapidly exchanged though (almost) natural processes. There needs to be some carbon exchange between plants and animals as well as natural processes (mostly fire). If there isn't, the carbon would all be sucked up into the lignin of trees which is buried and taken out of the carbon cycle.

If too much carbon is removed from the cycle...either through burying the carbon or through the formation of calcium carbonate...it can be just a detrimental as having too much carbon. The planet cools and plant growth slows which reduces the carbon in the atmosphere which leads to more cooling, etc. The Little Ice Age that occurred from 1300 to about 1600 may actually have been caused by the increase in plant growth caused by the Black death in the early part and the death of native peoples in the Americas in the latter part. No one was clearing fields and plant growth was rampant, sucking up too much carbon and causing cooling on a global scale.

Originally Posted by willibrord View Post
Depends where the energy to do that comes from. If it comes from a renewable source that carbon footprint is negligible.
It's not likely that the energy comes from renewable sources for making the acrylonitrile precursor for making the fiber. The acrylonitrile is made from propylene (which is made catalytically from petroleum) and ammonia passing over catalysts at 400° to 500°C (800° to 900°F). It's difficult to get that kind of heat from biomass.

The carbon fiber is made by polymerizing the the acrylonitrile at elevated temperatures and then carbonizing the polymer at 1000°C (1800°F) which is, again, too high a temperature for energy from renewable sources.

Originally Posted by willibrord View Post
There is some carbon exchange between the wood and the atmosphere and then back into plant material again. It is not like you are taking million year old oil and suddenly releasing that stored carbon into the atmosphere.
Just to be fair: Exactly.

Originally Posted by willibrord View Post
Okay I was wondering if Carbon fiber would burn. I found this video



It burns, sort of. Maybe it is just the resin burning off. I would not recommend it for your portable wood stove.
Even if it is carbon neutral.
Carbon fiber and the resins used to hold it together are heavily cross-linked and will burn as long as a heat source is applied. But they are self-extinguishing. It's hard for the flame front to propagate into the matrix so that oxidation of the carbon is slowed significantly. Basically, the material is just too tightly bound to release carbon easily.

And, from personal experience, I can tell you that the smell from burning that part in the video was horrible. I worked on trying to recycle carbon fiber briefly and it was one of the worst jobs I've ever worked on.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
I agree it's a matter of degrees but that is how the process works and how footprints are measured. It's the release of greenhouse gasses (primarily CO2) during the manufacturing phase, whether it's manufacturing a product (CF) or heat to cook food (wood pellets). Carbon neutral would be to use a solar oven, for example. No release of CO2.

As someone said: bicycle riders are already pretty low on the polluting scale to be worried about CF or wood pellet stoves in that way.
I would say that is how carbon footprints are improperly measured. Carbon has a bad name...and for some good reason...but it is a very necessary element for live on the planet. You can't get rid of all of it. A "carbon footprint" measurement shouldn't include the natural processes or utilizing natural products. Those are "gimmes" in renewable energy calculations that I've seen. It's what utilizing biomass is based on, i.e. biomass is (mostly) carbon neutral.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 09:06 AM
  #62  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,902
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1081 Post(s)
You are arguing matters of degrees again. And, I have said the degrees are small. Burn enough wood though and you would create a carbon footprint worth considering. We don't (consider it) because fossil fuels drive most of our infrastructure instead. Start clear cutting major biomass to heat, power industry, all vehicles etc... and burning it faster than it can be re sequestered and it would be a problem. Somewhere around the late Victorian era we got off that track and heavily dependent on fossil fuels (though coal was always around).

In the 70's we had a chance to change with the oil embargo when alternative energy began to be explored and smaller import cars exploded on the N.A. scene. However, we collectively failed and reverted back once oil became available and cheap once more.

But, again, I don't think twigs in a wood stove are a concern.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-26-17 at 09:10 AM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 09:33 AM
  #63  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,027

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 83 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2256 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
You are arguing matters of degrees again. And, I have said the degrees are small. Burn enough wood though and you would create a carbon footprint worth considering. We don't (consider it) because fossil fuels drive most of our infrastructure instead. Start clear cutting major biomass to heat, power industry, all vehicles etc... and burning it faster than it can be re sequestered and it would be a problem. Somewhere around the late Victorian era we got off that track and heavily dependent on fossil fuels (though coal was always around).
It would depend on the biomass being utilized. I have never seen a study suggesting that we clear cut forests as a major source of fuel for modern societies. However there are a number of herbaceous plants and trees that grow rapidly enough to be used for energy crops. Switch grass, elephant grass, kenaf, bamboo, flax, hemp, etc all grow very rapidly and can be harvested easily. Trees like poplar and willow grow fast enough to be an energy crop as well. Algae is another energy crop that grows well in areas where other crops may not be able to grow.

Some even grow fast enough...bamboo, kenaf and switchgrass, for example...that they sequester a fair amount of the excess from fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
In the 70's we had a chance to change with the oil embargo when alternative energy began to be explored and smaller import cars exploded on the N.A. scene. However, we collectively failed and reverted back once oil became available and cheap once more.
Woulda. Shoulda. Coulda. Some of us did and have. But people are lazy and North America is vast. Anyone who is posting here probably already has a lower carbon footprint than most 'Mericans. We don't need extra flogging just to prove our purity.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
But, again, I don't think twigs in a wood stove are a concern.
I certainly agree. Even a butane canister or two isn't much of a concern in the grand scheme of things. It's a literal drop in an ocean of air.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 09:45 AM
  #64  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,902
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1081 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
Woulda. Shoulda. Coulda. Some of us did and have. But people are lazy and North America is vast. Anyone who is posting here probably already has a lower carbon footprint than most 'Mericans. We don't need extra flogging just to prove our purity.
Why does every conversation have to turn negative? I'm just pointing out that these ideas have been around for a while. We were at this point 40 years ago, saw solutions, didn't take them and here we are again. I'm sure someone will bring up our current malaise 40 years from now too.


I agree that probably most regular bicycle riders already have made an adjustment that most other people haven't.

As far as carbon footprint goes. It's a term that describes greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) released into the atmosphere. Doesn't relate to the source. To close the loop and be carbon neutral, a wood burning stove user would have to plant as many trees to trap CO2 as they create by burning. Otherwise, it's not neutral.

That's just the way it is. That's why businesses can buy "carbon offsets" to reduce their footprint without reducing their output.
Happy Feet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 10:39 AM
  #65  
Erick L
Lentement mais sûrement
 
Erick L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,238
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
I have a stove just like the OP. I bought it as a curiosity, and maybe winter camping (melting snow). It works well enough and the flame looks cool. I've only tried it twice. It does need constant feeding and I had a a little trouble keeping air flow at first but was doing better on the second try. Vargo makes a cool ti stove with a door. It shows up on Massdrop once in a while.
Erick L is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 10:49 AM
  #66  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 21,034
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7718 Post(s)
I have a friend who lives in anthracite country in PA. She heats her house with coal.
indyfabz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 11:11 AM
  #67  
tombc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
is bicycling not better for the environment than basically everything else you could be doing other than maybe reading library books?
tombc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 01:03 PM
  #68  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Posts: 36,480

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1973 Raleigh Twenty, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 387 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5033 Post(s)
Originally Posted by indyfabz View Post
I have a friend who lives in anthracite country in PA. She heats her house with coal.
Four years ago, we bought a house in upstate New York that had been built in 1863. It had an electric furnace, and a friend of ours said there was probably a coal burning furnace at some point. He poked around in our barn and -- AHA -- found two buckets of anthracite. The house is right near the Delaware and Hudson Canal, built to cope with the coal embargo from England. The canal brought coal from Pennsylvania to New York.

Originally Posted by tombc View Post
is bicycling not better for the environment than basically everything else you could be doing other than maybe reading library books?

Probably. I don't know if it's true, but I have read that a human on a bicycle is more efficient than any form of locomotion, including anything in the animal kingdom. Too bad fuel (edible food) costs so much more per calorie than fossil fuel, but fossil fuel is underpriced since by using it, we are borrowing from our ancestors and our descendants. We should jack up the price so we reduce our consumption.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 01:14 PM
  #69  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 21,034
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7718 Post(s)
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
The house is right near the Delaware and Hudson Canal, built to cope with the coal embargo from England. The canal brought coal from Pennsylvania to New York.
the D&H Canal Co. later went on to the become the Delaware & Hudson Railway Company.


Was camping near Cuddebackville, NY, which is on U.S. 209 east of Port Jervis, NY, last September during a bike tour. On a back road off 209 you can still see part of the former D&H Canal. No water in it, and it's all grown over, but it's there.
indyfabz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 01:18 PM
  #70  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Posts: 36,480

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1973 Raleigh Twenty, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 387 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5033 Post(s)
Originally Posted by indyfabz View Post
the D&H Canal Co. later went on to the become the Delaware & Hudson Railway Company.


Was camping near Cuddebackville, NY, which is on U.S. 209 east of Port Jervis, NY, last September during a bike tour. On a back road off 209 you can still see part of the former D&H Canal. No water in it, and it's all grown over, but it's there.
I haven't visited that area yet, but that's what the canal looks like near our place in High Falls, too. There are still some parts that hold water. High Falls has the museum devoted to the canal. It was the largest public works project in history at that point, a million dollars. And it was done on time. There were 10,000 people in High Falls because of the work boom. The population is now about 627.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 01:52 PM
  #71  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 21,034
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7718 Post(s)
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
I haven't visited that area yet, but that's what the canal looks like near our place in High Falls, too.
Heh. During my trip I camped at Mills Norrie S.P. in Staatsburg then crossed the bike/ped bridge and headed through New Paltz and SW. That stretch paralleling the Wallkill is gorgeous.
indyfabz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-17, 02:43 PM
  #72  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Posts: 36,480

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1973 Raleigh Twenty, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 387 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5033 Post(s)
@indyfabz, let me know if you'd like to visit again. As you know, it's spectacular for riding and other activities.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-17, 03:09 PM
  #73  
KD5NRH
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,731

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Originally Posted by bikemig View Post
Solo stove is also a pretty clever wood burning stove and they sell an accessory alcohol stove as a back up.
The price on the alcohol burner is ridiculous, though. Take a good look at it, the search eBay for "alcohol stove" sort by price lowest first and you'll find plenty of the same concept under $15.

I just ordered pretty much he same Solo knockoff made by Lixada for about the same price, and IIRC, it comes with the alcohol burner. If not, I have a few different designs of soda can stoves I've made, which should also fit. The benefit overall is that you can carry ~3oz of alcohol and be well supplied to cook a few meals without wood, and can restock cheaply anywhere that carries yellow-bottle HEET fuel treatment, unlike butane canister stoves.

You can also use solid fuel like Esbit, trioxane, or even some firestarter blocks without the alcohol burner, but IMO, they're not as cheap, portable or easily replenished in rural areas as methanol.

Another tip; if you use the Stanley stainless 24oz cook kit, take advantage of the space inside the cups for a mini butane lighter and as many sugar packets as will fit. If you run across some wild edibles that make good tea, you'll be glad to not have to dig around for sugar. I was also able to fit a mini stove made from Red Bull cans and couple of e-cig juice bottles refilled with methanol in there, so I had fuel for at least one boil. Everything for wild bergamot or chamomile tea in one spot, so no need to unpack anything else.

Last edited by KD5NRH; 05-28-17 at 03:18 PM.
KD5NRH is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-17, 03:15 PM
  #74  
KD5NRH
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,731

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
However there are a number of herbaceous plants and trees that grow rapidly enough to be used for energy crops. Switch grass, elephant grass, kenaf, bamboo, flax, hemp, etc all grow very rapidly and can be harvested easily. Trees like poplar and willow grow fast enough to be an energy crop as well.
Cottonwood is also a fast grower, and for the Solo and knockoffs, a single mature cottonwood is about a 50 year supply of fuel...assuming you need to keep water boiling 24x7.
KD5NRH is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-17, 07:28 PM
  #75  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,027

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 83 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2256 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
Why does every conversation have to turn negative? I'm just pointing out that these ideas have been around for a while. We were at this point 40 years ago, saw solutions, didn't take them and here we are again. I'm sure someone will bring up our current malaise 40 years from now too.
Well, we weren't "at this point" 40 years in the past. We aren't currently looking at an energy production problem. We are looking at a energy usage problem.

But the past is past. There's no need to cry over spilt milk. Some of us saw a problem 40 years ago...that production problem...and did something about it. Some became more dedicated to using less energy like riding bikes and some people became more dedicated to using energy more efficiently. It's not been a bed of roses but it's not a briar patch either. Solar farms, wind farms, less reliance on coal, better energy efficiency in home power uses, etc. all come from those people who did something about the problem of energy production. It's not perfect but we are further down the road than we were 40 years ago. I know because I've been at the front lines of that fight for most of those 40 years.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
I agree that probably most regular bicycle riders already have made an adjustment that most other people haven't.
So why complain that we haven't done enough? Or why suggest that using a little bit of hydrocarbon energy while doing self-propelled touring is somehow too much carbon usage? It's not a big deal.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
As far as carbon footprint goes. It's a term that describes greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) released into the atmosphere. Doesn't relate to the source. To close the loop and be carbon neutral, a wood burning stove user would have to plant as many trees to trap CO2 as they create by burning. Otherwise, it's not neutral.
Some people may say that but the whole idea of renewable energy is to relate the carbon to the source. Carbon offsets are predicated on the idea of doing something to reduce the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels by either switching to other sources of energy or by increasing the trapping of fossil carbon.

A wood stove burner doesn't have to plant as many trees as they use because the trees are already growing. Removal of trees can actually promote more tree growth. As long as the forest isn't completely removed, burning a few trees isn't that devastating. Fire is, after all, part of the life cycle of forests and, without it, the forests can't grow that well.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
That's just the way it is. That's why businesses can buy "carbon offsets" to reduce their footprint without reducing their output.
Not that there is currently a carbon market where carbon offsets are bought and sold, but they are reducing their petroleum and/or fossil carbon output.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service