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

Interesting little wood burning stove.

Notices
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.

Old 05-28-17, 07:30 PM
  #76  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

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

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,091 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by KD5NRH
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.
Cottonwood belongs to the poplar family. While it grows fairly rapidly, it's somewhat slow for energy crops. Aspen and other hybrid poplars grow faster.

But I get your point.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
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!



cyccommute is offline  
Old 05-28-17, 08:47 PM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Man you really sound mad at something but I'm not taking on your drama. Go make a mountain out of a molehill with someone else. Never complained about anything or said a twig burning stove was bad. A poster said using one was carbon neutral and I said (while the impact may be minimal) one can't say it's neutral. From there the discussion took some twists and turns but at each one I think I was pretty clear that I did not think a twig stove was bad nor did I complain about one. Just discussing terminology.

Btw, we have large scale cottonwood woodlots all over the place here. Cottonwoods are a viable biomass crop both commercially and used on almost every farm homestead from here to Ontario as a fast growing wind break to reduce soil erosion. Too bad they didn't know they were doing it wrong.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-28-17 at 11:43 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 03:47 AM
  #78  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,771
Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1454 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times in 40 Posts
[QUOTE=Happy Feet;19616853]Man you really sound mad at something but I'm not taking on your drama. Go make a mountain out of a molehill with someone else. Never complained about anything or said a twig burning stove was bad. A poster said using one was carbon neutral and I said (while the impact may be minimal) one can't say it's neutral. From there the discussion took some twists and turns but at each one I think I was pretty clear that I did not think a twig stove was bad nor did I complain about one. Just discussing terminology.

Btw, we have large scale cottonwood woodlots all over the place here. Cottonwoods are a viable biomass crop both commercially and used on almost every farm homestead from here to Ontario as a fast growing wind break to reduce soil erosion. Too bad they didn't know they were doing it wrong.[/QUOTE]
An observation made more than several times about various subjects on which we have been lectured.
Rowan is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 07:48 AM
  #79  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

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

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,091 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Man you really sound mad at something but I'm not taking on your drama. Go make a mountain out of a molehill with someone else. Never complained about anything or said a twig burning stove was bad. A poster said using one was carbon neutral and I said (while the impact may be minimal) one can't say it's neutral. From there the discussion took some twists and turns but at each one I think I was pretty clear that I did not think a twig stove was bad nor did I complain about one. Just discussing terminology.
Perhaps you need to read your own posts. We are having a discussion here and you have some misconceptions. I happen to have a very long history in alternative energy. It's what has paid the bills for the last 35 years. And, as such, I have a bit more insight into the issues at hand. Yes, some people think that any carbon usage is bad but they are wrong and incorrect. Saying that all carbon usage is bad and we should stop using it is akin to saying that all food is bad and we should quit eating it. If we do, we die.

As to the poster saying that a twig stove is carbon neutral, he is close enough to being correct to make it a nonissue. It's a matter of degrees. A pound of wood puts out 2 lbs of carbon. As we are already riding bikes for long distances, we are putting out far less carbon dioxide on our trips than we would if we were driving a car. A gallon of gas releases 20 lb of carbon dioxide. And we use a gallon per about every 30 miles. As I said above, it's a drop in an ocean.

I'll also admit that wood puts out just a bit more carbon than propane when it burns because the propane is more efficient but again, it's a matter of degree. It certainly doesn't necessitate a call for bicycle tourist to pass a purity test for carbon neutrality.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Btw, we have large scale cottonwood woodlots all over the place here. Cottonwoods are a viable biomass crop both commercially and used on almost every farm homestead from here to Ontario as a fast growing wind break to reduce soil erosion. Too bad they didn't know they were doing it wrong.
Again, those tree plantations probably aren't "cottonwoods". "Cottonwoods" are a group of species and subspecies of poplars. Calling them "cottonwoods" is a bit like calling dromedaries, horses, bactrains and rhinoceros "horses". They are all related but they are distinctly different.

I didn't say they were doing it "wrong" only that calling the tree used for energy crops a "cottonwood" is incorrect. We looked at growing varieties of "cottonwood" for energy crops long ago and they simply didn't work. Clever botanists bred various poplars species together to get desirable traits like faster growth and less branching. The result is "hybrid poplar" which is what are used for energy crops.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
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!



cyccommute is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 08:38 AM
  #80  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by Rowan
An observation made more than several times about various subjects on which we have been lectured.
I know, that's why I'm done. When someone starts telling me the trees I see aren't what I see or that I don't understand basic greenhouse gas terminology it's a little too much. I'll have to relate this to my Instructors at the Horticulture College I attended to get my Diploma in Greenhouse Management.

Again, never said a twig stove was bad. Just clarifying terms. Stuart seems to be confused between carbon footprint and carbon neutral. A twig stove has a very small carbon foot print, to the point of being insignificant, but it isn't carbon neutral. That's all.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-29-17 at 08:52 AM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 09:18 AM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute
Cottonwood belongs to the poplar family. While it grows fairly rapidly, it's somewhat slow for energy crops. Aspen and other hybrid poplars grow faster.
However, I'm not carrying any sort of tree on a tour, nor preplanting my routes with a specific crop, so it comes down to what's available on site. Most places I could ride to within 3-5 days, cottonwoods are often a nuisance, planted generations ago by someone who wanted a fast growing shade tree and didn't consider their tendency to drop several hundred pound limbs or just plain die and fall over on whatever they were shading. They do, however, tend to fall more or less intact, so lots of branches are kept off the ground for years. Essentially, even though the trunk is down and rotting, you can get a lot of "standing" dead wood off of them for campfires.

One thing I am curious about; has anyone tried really hot burning woods in these stoves? Mesquite, bois d'arc and pecan are also common around here, and of course, 98+% of mesquite trees are unwanted anyway, so nobody objects to harvesting them for firewood. Not really an issue if you just want a handful of wood for breakfast anyway, but in a longer term situation it might be worth splitting some larger chunks down for the stove.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 09:35 AM
  #82  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
I just talked to a farmer recently about Cottonwood trees and falling limbs.

While out for a ride on Sumas Prairie I came across the largest diameter trunk on a Cottonwood tree I had ever seen. I even put my bike against it and took a pic. The farmer was there and I marveled at it's size and he said "yeah, but I'm gonna cut it down". He said "see all those branches there (there were a lot on the ground). Every year it drops more and I'm sick of picking them up."

I later took my wife for a ride to look at the tree before it is gone.

I'll try to post that pic when I get home from work.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 10:57 AM
  #83  
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
While out for a ride on Sumas Prairie I came across the largest diameter trunk on a Cottonwood tree I had ever seen. I even put my bike against it and took a pic. The farmer was there and I marveled at it's size and he said "yeah, but I'm gonna cut it down". He said "see all those branches there (there were a lot on the ground). Every year it drops more and I'm sick of picking them up."
Mom has a few near a vernal pool, and a couple of 4+ foot diameter ones have died off and fallen down. No doubt in my mind those would have completely destroyed a house. The remaining ones aren't looking too healthy, but they're not endangering anything but some live oaks, a disused section of cross fence and maybe a few cranes that like to nest in them because of the height.

Not sure what the diameter is on the one off my porch, but if it ever starts looking unhealthy, I'm moving before it falls. It's too big and too close to the house to remove without a serious crane.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 12:02 PM
  #84  
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,049
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18318 Post(s)
Liked 15,261 Times in 7,219 Posts
It took a while, but this thread ended up where I thought it would.
indyfabz is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 12:04 PM
  #85  
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by indyfabz
It took a while, but this thread ended up where I thought it would.
We haven't gotten to how well old tires will burn in this sort of stove yet.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 01:29 PM
  #86  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
They will probably burn well and be carbon neutral because somewhere, a rubber tree is growing.

I looked back to see where the disconnect was and believe this may be it:

Originally Posted by cyccommute
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.
Confusing two issues; renewable resources and carbon footprints. The atmosphere does not discriminate between varying sources of CO2 gas, whether it comes from fossil fuels or wood. CO2 is CO2. Arguing one form is good and one is bad is kooky.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-29-17 at 01:45 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 02:15 PM
  #87  
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,049
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18318 Post(s)
Liked 15,261 Times in 7,219 Posts
I am 52. I bought the second motor vehicle of my life last July. It has fewer than 2,500 miles on it. Does that mean I can burn whatever I want for a few weeks while touring?
indyfabz is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 04:46 PM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by indyfabz
...Does that mean I can burn whatever I want for a few weeks while touring?
Said the newcomer to the nudist colony

All kidding aside. This whole sidebar discussion has little to do with anyone actually using a little stove from my POV.
One poster made a comment, I know he is interested in this sort of thing, so I replied that the process didn't fit the description. Back and forth back and forth, as these things go.

Just don't want anyone thinking I'm suggesting someone not use a twig stove because of it.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 05-29-17, 06:26 PM
  #89  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Here's the Cottonwood tree I mentioned earlier. I don't think the picture does it justice:




...and some cottonwood seed on my front walk from the trees that don't exist around here:

Happy Feet is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 09:51 AM
  #90  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

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

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,091 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
I know, that's why I'm done. When someone starts telling me the trees I see aren't what I see or that I don't understand basic greenhouse gas terminology it's a little too much. I'll have to relate this to my Instructors at the Horticulture College I attended to get my Diploma in Greenhouse Management.
I'm not saying that you aren't seeing trees only that you are calling them by a wrong name. There is a large difference between a Populus deltodides and a Populus tremuloides and a Populus balsamifera as well as the other 25 to 30 different poplar tree species. There's even a large difference those and hybrid poplars which combine various traits of poplar species to create a tree that grows fast enough to harvest for energy.

But, since you seem to have some horticulture experience, you should know that.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Again, never said a twig stove was bad. Just clarifying terms. Stuart seems to be confused between carbon footprint and carbon neutral. A twig stove has a very small carbon foot print, to the point of being insignificant, but it isn't carbon neutral. That's all.
No, you don't seem to understand the difference between what a carbon footprint is and what carbon neutral is. Yes, burning a twig...or a tree...has a carbon footprint but it is carbon neutral because the carbon was stored from the carbon cycle and when burned is quickly absorbed in the carbon cycle. That's why companies plant trees to offset their carbon footprint. Most industrial processes don't depend on wood for power. They use fossil carbon. To offset their fossil carbon footprint, they plant trees or other plants to absorb the excess fossil carbon.

Even if we go by your definition, the amount of carbon emitted is so small as to be not enough to make a mountain out of the molehill. That's what I object to most about your argument. You really don't need to make people feel bad about burning a tiny amount of carbon to cook a meal. Do you not cook on tour? Not eat? Not wear clothes? Not bathe or wash clothes? Or ride a bike made by energy intensive processes? Unless you avoid all those processes, you have a much larger carbon footprint...and not a neutral one at that...than someone who burns a few twigs to cook dinner. You don't need to carbon shame someone unless you are prepared to be carbon shamed yourself.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
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!



cyccommute is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 10:01 AM
  #91  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

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

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,091 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Confusing two issues; renewable resources and carbon footprints. The atmosphere does not discriminate between varying sources of CO2 gas, whether it comes from fossil fuels or wood. CO2 is CO2. Arguing one form is good and one is bad is kooky.
Arguing that all carbon dioxide is bad is much more kooky. The planet needs carbon dioxide just as it needs oxygen. Without it, plants can't grow.

I'm not confusing two issues. I've been working in renewable energy sources for 35 years. The whole point of utilizing them is to reduce fossil fuel usage and the attendant excess carbon dioxide they release by using crops that use short rotation carbon dioxide stored in the plant. People have decided that all carbon dioxide is bad because they don't understand this concept.

No, I can't tell you where a carbon dioxide molecule came from but I can tell you that there is excess in the atmosphere. The excess needs to be removed but only the excess. Remove more than than and you set off a whole cascade of other problems that may be more severe than the excess.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
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!



cyccommute is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 11:28 AM
  #92  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Coimbra, Portugal
Posts: 969

Bikes: More bicycles than I can ride at one time: 2 custom made tourers, a Brompton 6-speed, and an Indian-made roadster.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 12 Posts
Awww, folks. Can't we co-exist in a less pedantic BF way?
We all have belly-buttons and, we all have opinions. But being less pedantic would be nice IMHO.
tmac100 is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 11:28 AM
  #93  
Senior Member
 
willibrord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 489

Bikes: carbon bamboo composite is the best

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked 50 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute
Arguing that all carbon dioxide is bad is much more kooky. The planet needs carbon dioxide just as it needs oxygen. Without it, plants can't grow.

I'm not confusing two issues. I've been working in renewable energy sources for 35 years. The whole point of utilizing them is to reduce fossil fuel usage and the attendant excess carbon dioxide they release by using crops that use short rotation carbon dioxide stored in the plant. People have decided that all carbon dioxide is bad because they don't understand this concept.

No, I can't tell you where a carbon dioxide molecule came from but I can tell you that there is excess in the atmosphere. The excess needs to be removed but only the excess. Remove more than than and you set off a whole cascade of other problems that may be more severe than the excess.
When there is too much carbon in the atmosphere, every molecule added is bad. We are in absolutely no danger of having too little C02 in the atmosphere of our planet. If we keep on adding it from every conceivable source, and remove only miniscule amounts, the planet is doomed. Look at Venus. 95% CO2 temperatures of 470 degrees.
willibrord is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 11:38 AM
  #94  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Coimbra, Portugal
Posts: 969

Bikes: More bicycles than I can ride at one time: 2 custom made tourers, a Brompton 6-speed, and an Indian-made roadster.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by willibrord
When there is too much carbon in the atmosphere, every molecule added is bad. We are in absolutely no danger of having too little C02 in the atmosphere of our planet. If we keep on adding it from every conceivable source, and remove only miniscule amounts, the planet is doomed. Look at Venus. 95% CO2 temperatures of 470 degrees.
The complicating aspect of your illustration about Venus, is that it is much closer to the Sun than Earth is. We all know what happens to the soles of our feet when they are much closer to any campfire than our head (and brain??).

OTOH, it would be interesting to measure Venus and Earth surface temps if they were the same distance from the sun....
tmac100 is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 12:11 PM
  #95  
40 yrs bike touring
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Santa Barbara,CA.
Posts: 1,021

Bikes: Bruce Gordon Ti Rock N Road [1989], Fat Chance Mountain Tandem [1988], Velo Orange Neutrino (2020)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
I confess without embarrassment to a long history of using wood burning and alcohol stoves under safe/legal and appropriate conditions on bike, ski and kayak tours over the last fifty plus years. The Sierra Zip Stove and the Emberlit stoves mentioned and Trangia alcohol stoves have proven useful for my needs on tour. Small twigs gathered at home and on site have powered these wood stoves handily. Just one of many tools to choose from for touring.
arctos is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 12:39 PM
  #96  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by tmac100
Awww, folks. Can't we co-exist in a less pedantic BF way?
We all have belly-buttons and, we all have opinions. But being less pedantic would be nice IMHO.
Indeed. And wouldn't it be great if "someone" a couple of thousand miles away could refrain from trying to tell another person the belly button they are looking at isn't actually the belly button they are looking at. Or that they could be intellectually honest enough to actually read posts before responding rhetorically.

Stuart tries to say there is no need to "shame" or "make people feel bad" about using a stove. All things I have repeatedly said myself. But by saying that he is not so cleverly trying an ad hominem attack because his appeal to authority strategy is so stridently blatant.

It's the same when he wants to sound like the expert on Al by first suggesting everyone buys steel thinking it can be repaired by the village smitty. Just a negative premise to launch rhetoric from. Argument fallacies 101.

To test the veracity one needs only think a little bit.

If one kind of carbon is "good" and the other is "bad" in should stand to reason that burning a rainforest would be ok but a lump of coal harmful. Of course no one thinks that as the atmosphere does not discriminate as to the source of CO2, just the volume. Fossil fuel is currently the focus because it creates the most volume. If everything ran on wood fuel there would be the same problem.

Nor does the earth discriminate as to which CO2 gas source it sequesters - fossil or wood - it is all the same and gets stored equally. To imagine you can burn wood and consider it carbon neutral because wood sequesters CO2 is a premise based on a basic misunderstanding of science.

Companies plant biomass simply because it is one way to sequester CO2 and by doing so they can balance their output and create a smaller carbon footprint. If they do enough they become carbon neutral. You don't need to use big words to understand that simple concept.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-31-17 at 12:59 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 01:07 PM
  #97  
Senior Member
 
boomhauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 780
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked 45 Times in 32 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Nor does the earth discriminate as to which CO2 gas source it sequesters - fossil or wood - it is all the same and gets stored equally. To imagine you can burn wood and consider it carbon neutral because wood sequesters CO2 is a premise based on a basic misunderstanding of science.

Companies plant biomass simply because it is one way to sequester CO2 and by doing so they can balance their output and create a smaller carbon footprint. If they do enough they become carbon neutral. You don't need to use big words to understand that simple concept.
When wood bio-degrades doesn't it release CO2 anyway? Why not burn it? Isn't this the definition of carbon neutral?
boomhauer is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 01:24 PM
  #98  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Not really.

Those terms always relate to a specific activity. What something else does, somewhere else, doesn't make what you or I do any better or worse. If that were the case, every corp would claim some natural process as a cancelling justification for their action. The only way that works is if a corp pays to facilitate an action which is the premise behind carbon offsets.

It's not that hard to understand. If your process releases CO2 gas it creates a footprint. If you run a cleaner process you reduce that footprint. If you cause CO2 gas to be resequestered you offset that footprint. Sequester enough CO2 equal to that which you produce and you are CO2 neutral and, if you use a process that does not emit CO2 you are also carbon neutral. Fit any fuel into that concept and it's the same.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 04:20 PM
  #99  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

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

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,091 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Here's the Cottonwood tree I mentioned earlier. I don't think the picture does it justice:



...and some cottonwood seed on my front walk from the trees that don't exist around here:
As magnificent...and frankly ugly...that tree is, it illustrates part of the problem of using "cottonwoods" as energy crops. As with most "crops" we tend to want things that are uniform in shape and size because they are easier to handle in an industrial setting. The multitude of arms in that picture would make harvesting and processing of a tree like that too difficult. Additionally, the extra branches increase the lignin content of the tree which is mostly useless utilizing current methods of biomass conversion. Processors want to make either fiber (paper) or ethanol out of trees. A high lignin content caused by the various branches and reaction wood decreases both.

For energy crops, and/or for paper, straight tall trees are desired. Take a look at your tree plantations again. I've been by some in Oregon along the Columbia River. Yes, they are "poplars" and they are related to cottonwoods because cottonwood is a member of the Poplus family. But the trees in the plantations have tall straight stems with very little branching until the tops of the trees. This occurs mostly through self-pruning where the bark squeezed out the excess branches.

"Cottonwoods", whether the eastern or western variety branch everywhere and have multiple branches and often split stems like the one in your picture.

I have not said that "you don't see cottonwoods" in your area. I said that the trees you see in plantations aren't "cottonwoods". Your seed picture illustrates another aspect of plantation trees that is undesirable...that is seeds. Hybrid poplars are bred to not to produce seeds because you'd have to deal with seedlings in the plantation which means extra labor and effort to keep the trees at the optimal distance for maximum biomass production and making seeds robs the tree of energy that could be used to put on growth. Sterile organisms tend to grow more and faster because little energy is put into making offspring.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
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!



cyccommute is offline  
Old 05-31-17, 04:53 PM
  #100  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

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

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,091 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by willibrord
When there is too much carbon in the atmosphere, every molecule added is bad. We are in absolutely no danger of having too little C02 in the atmosphere of our planet. If we keep on adding it from every conceivable source, and remove only miniscule amounts, the planet is doomed. Look at Venus. 95% CO2 temperatures of 470 degrees.
If we sequester too much carbon dioxide, there is indeed a danger of having too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide levels were much higher in the past and the planet was much warmer. About 65 million years ago, the planet was 8°C warmer than it is now. This period was followed by a period of rapid cooling and ice formation.

But then, as now, the problem is with adding carbon dioxide. The carbon that exists in living organisms (or short term dead organisms) and is released due to natural processes is not "added". It is merely recycled.

Originally Posted by boomhauer
When wood bio-degrades doesn't it release CO2 anyway? Why not burn it? Isn't this the definition of carbon neutral?
Exactly. That's the point of biomass as a form of renewable energy. Rather then dig it up out of the ground, we should utilize the plants growing now...0 to 100 years ago being "now"... rather than plants that grew 100 million years ago.

On a side note, only a portion of that wood degrades into carbon dioxide naturally. There is about 20 percent of all wood that won't degrade. It's a structural member of the plant and there is no organism that utilizes it for energy. If you've ever seen "punky" wood, i.e. brown and kind of rotten, that's the lignin part. It will burn, of course, but it won't be consumed by organisms. Natural processes bury this part and eventually turn it into coal.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Not really.

Those terms always relate to a specific activity. What something else does, somewhere else, doesn't make what you or I do any better or worse. If that were the case, every corp would claim some natural process as a cancelling justification for their action. The only way that works is if a corp pays to facilitate an action which is the premise behind carbon offsets.

It's not that hard to understand. If your process releases CO2 gas it creates a footprint. If you run a cleaner process you reduce that footprint. If you cause CO2 gas to be resequestered you offset that footprint. Sequester enough CO2 equal to that which you produce and you are CO2 neutral and, if you use a process that does not emit CO2 you are also carbon neutral. Fit any fuel into that concept and it's the same.
You seem to be missing the whole point of "carbon neutral". The only way that a company can be "carbon neutral" is to not use energy derived from carbon...which isn't possible with most industrial processes...or do something to offset those processes. Currently about the only way to be "carbon neutral" is to plant crops to absorb carbon. But, unless those crops are being utilized to make energy to offset the use of fossil energy, even they aren't "carbon neutral".

On the other hand, if a cyclist on tour uses a twig to cook a meal, they have already offset the use of that twig by not utilizing fossil carbon based fuels for their travel. They are carbon neutral both in the use of a renewable energy source for cooking and for travel. They aren't putting fossil carbon into the biosphere.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
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!



cyccommute is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.