Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Feb 6, 2015 13:26:55 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 13:26:55 GMT -5
I'll have to read the article when I have time, @jma23. My understanding of AGW theory is that carbon dioxide absorbs the infrared wavelengths of light predominantly scattered from the ground and doesn't typically re-radiate them, causing an increase in temperature. Water vapour does the same thing, but the atmospheric concentration of water is so great that it apparently isn't susceptible to long-term trends. The 'key' to AGW is the feedback amplification, increased CO2 ends up doing some warming but caused more water vapor that does the actual major warming. And it appears that the amplification has been grossly over estimated. The thing is, man made global warming is probably true, man has an impact on the climate, however, it actually doesn't really appear to be too bad, and certainly doesn't justify spending trillions of dollars, especially since there are other environmental problems that are real and fixable that have been moved to the bottom of the list. All of the models have a range of warming (actual warming has been below the bottom of a lot if not most of them) but alarmist only focus on the very high end taking the impact from the worst case and trying to use that as justification for spending money. They also over value negatives and under value positives of higher temperatures and increased CO2. Even the so called consensus (such that it is) really only says "yes, AGW is more likely than not", not it will be the end of mankind. The fact that water vapor overlaps the narrow band of the radiated energy spectrum that the already 100% energy saturated carbon can accept just adds more weight to your point. For those who understand global scale. the tiny amount of carbon we add to the atmosphere will be easily absorbed by the existing plantlife which is currently just above the minimum required for their survival. If anything we could be closer to transitioning into another ice age versus AGW. Not that any (slow by the human perspective) runaway changes will be happening any time soon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Mar 6, 2015 15:01:16 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 15:01:16 GMT -5
During the last 21 days of much below average temperatures in my area. The amount of wood being used to heat the average home in my area has skyrocketed. You see a blue haze of smoke blowing around every where you go. The people I've questioned said it's mostly because of the 20% increase in electricity rates that occurred last year due to renewable energy mandates required by the EPA. Electric heat pumps make up the majority of the heating systems in this area. Efficiency requirements has also driven up the price of the average heatpump to over five thousand dollars installed. Much cheaper to install a $500 woodstove. For those who don't know, wood delivers approximately twice the carbon to the atmosphere per BTU delivered as coal. The down side of a one size fits all energy policy designed for urban areas.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Mar 6, 2015 15:39:53 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2015 15:39:53 GMT -5
climittromney
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 16:26:39 GMT -5
You got me on this one. I don't have a clue what you mean. Except for the word blend of climate and Mitt Romney.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Climate
Mar 6, 2015 22:38:43 GMT -5
Post by EVT1 on Mar 6, 2015 22:38:43 GMT -5
During the last 21 days of much below average temperatures in my area. The amount of wood being used to heat the average home in my area has skyrocketed. You see a blue haze of smoke blowing around every where you go. The people I've questioned said it's mostly because of the 20% increase in electricity rates that occurred last year due to renewable energy mandates required by the EPA. Electric heat pumps make up the majority of the heating systems in this area. Efficiency requirements has also driven up the price of the average heatpump to over five thousand dollars installed. Much cheaper to install a $500 woodstove. For those who don't know, wood delivers approximately twice the carbon to the atmosphere per BTU delivered as coal. The down side of a one size fits all energy policy designed for urban areas. I question the argument- A $500 woodstove would have been cheaper before the increase would it not?
(BTW since when does a rate increase require the purchase of a new heat pump?)
What you claim is that a 20% increase in electric rates is making it so much cheaper to spend $500 on a wood stove and use it so many people are doing it that smoke is everywhere.
I think people are just firing up their stoves and fireplaces like they always do when it is cold. Have any stats on the recent explosion in wood stove purchases?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 8:26:40 GMT -5
During the last 21 days of much below average temperatures in my area. The amount of wood being used to heat the average home in my area has skyrocketed. You see a blue haze of smoke blowing around every where you go. The people I've questioned said it's mostly because of the 20% increase in electricity rates that occurred last year due to renewable energy mandates required by the EPA. Electric heat pumps make up the majority of the heating systems in this area. Efficiency requirements has also driven up the price of the average heat pump to over five thousand dollars installed. Much cheaper to install a $500 wood stove. For those who don't know, wood delivers approximately twice the carbon to the atmosphere per BTU delivered as coal. The down side of a one size fits all energy policy designed for urban areas. I question the argument- A $500 wood stove would have been cheaper before the increase would it not?
(BTW since when does a rate increase require the purchase of a new heat pump?)
What you claim is that a 20% increase in electric rates is making it so much cheaper to spend $500 on a wood stove and use it so many people are doing it that smoke is everywhere.
I think people are just firing up their stoves and fireplaces like they always do when it is cold. Have any stats on the recent explosion in wood stove purchases?
Answer to your questions in order of presentation, 1) The wood stoves were always cheaper than an electric heat pump. That's why I've never seen a house here that doesn't have some type of wood heating capability. 2) A rate increase does not necessitate the purchase of a new higher efficiency heat pump. 3) What I'm claiming is the average home in this area are now using a lot more wood for heating purposes versus the previous years and that it is very noticeable when driving around. 4) People are firing up their wood stoves more than they used to because they are unwilling or unable to absorb another electric cost increase. 5) I don't know of any recent explosion in wood stove purchases (see answer #1) so I won't be looking for any statistics for you. 6) Here's an answer to a question you forgot to ask. There's a lot of people who sell wood as a business in this area. The two closer to me that I'm acquainted with have seen more than a 400% increase in sales volume since last year. This also includes their wood pellet sales. We might of reached the point in this area where the cost of purchased wood is now cheaper than electric, and that's not counting those who cut and split their own wood. I was hearing a lot more chainsaws on those quiet summer evenings last year, everywhere.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,402
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Mar 7, 2015 9:18:38 GMT -5
Wood heating is cheaper around here than gas heat. Even though every house here can be connected to natural gas, some have opted to use a wood stove.
This last month our temps have averaged around 20 degrees below average, but because we've received less snow than usual, the weatherman says all of the snow on the ground will melt off by the end of this weekend, which is unusual for this part of the country.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Climate
Mar 9, 2015 15:13:59 GMT -5
Post by happyhoix on Mar 9, 2015 15:13:59 GMT -5
We tend to notice things more when we think they are proving our pet theories, and we don't notice things that go against what we chose to believe.
Two people selling wood is not a valid statistical pool. Maybe their sales are so high because they offer a rock bottom prices.
Maybe you're having a lot of temperature inversions keeping the smoke trapped at the surface. We have a lot of them around here.
It'd be nice if you had some actual data to back up your hypothesis.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Mar 10, 2015 9:49:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 9:49:41 GMT -5
We tend to notice things more when we think they are proving our pet theories, and we don't notice things that go against what we chose to believe. Two people selling wood is not a valid statistical pool. Maybe their sales are so high because they offer a rock bottom prices. Maybe you're having a lot of temperature inversions keeping the smoke trapped at the surface. We have a lot of them around here. It'd be nice if you had some actual data to back up your hypothesis. 1)I'm not advancing any theories. However when it comes to AGW, that is exactly what you do, tend to notice things that prove your pet theory. People tend to project their own thought patterns onto others when unable to prove their own point. 2) Temperature inversions cannot form in the winter time while an area is experiencing strong cold fronts. Look it up, that's high school level meteorology. 3) I was never offering any statistics on the wood sales other than local amounts being burned. Doesn't matter what it costs if it's still being burned. The only data you will get is what already was offered (400% increase). 4) If you want different parameters on area size or statistical data points, supply them yourself as a counter-argument. It still won't change what's happening here.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Climate
Mar 12, 2015 0:55:17 GMT -5
Post by b2r on Mar 12, 2015 0:55:17 GMT -5
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Climate
Mar 12, 2015 1:45:47 GMT -5
Post by EVT1 on Mar 12, 2015 1:45:47 GMT -5
What an idiot. Sure pal- the liberal agenda is to let people freeze to death
Kudos to Rush though- at least he was smart enough to move where global warming has been outlawed. Of course his fat ass will be dead before it matters- a selfish prick he is just like his cohorts.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Climate
Mar 12, 2015 11:57:37 GMT -5
Post by happyhoix on Mar 12, 2015 11:57:37 GMT -5
We tend to notice things more when we think they are proving our pet theories, and we don't notice things that go against what we chose to believe. Two people selling wood is not a valid statistical pool. Maybe their sales are so high because they offer a rock bottom prices. Maybe you're having a lot of temperature inversions keeping the smoke trapped at the surface. We have a lot of them around here. It'd be nice if you had some actual data to back up your hypothesis. 1)I'm not advancing any theories. However when it comes to AGW, that is exactly what you do, tend to notice things that prove your pet theory. People tend to project their own thought patterns onto others when unable to prove their own point. 2) Temperature inversions cannot form in the winter time while an area is experiencing strong cold fronts. Look it up, that's high school level meteorology. 3) I was never offering any statistics on the wood sales other than local amounts being burned. Doesn't matter what it costs if it's still being burned. The only data you will get is what already was offered (400% increase). 4) If you want different parameters on area size or statistical data points, supply them yourself as a counter-argument. It still won't change what's happening here. 1) I advance theories based on scientific studies, conducted by scientists. I don't formulate theories by driving around and looking at how much wood smoke I think I see in my little neck of the woods, compared to what I thought I saw in years past. 2) You live someplace where you constantly have strong cold fronts passing through? That must be hell. Where I live, we get a variety of weather all winter, sometimes very cold, sometimes unseasonably warm, and it's not out of the question to get a temperature inversion. I'm sorry you live in such horrible place that you experience constant strong cold fronts all winter long. 3) Again, you can't base a theory on just two data points from two wood sellers. Not statistically sound. 4) I'm not the one claiming where I live wood use for heating has skyrocketed, and that is directly due to energy requirements imposed by the EPA. You're the one posing this theory, you're the one that has to provide that data to back up your theory, or you have to admit that you're just guessing. Where I live there hasn't been a jump in the cost of electricity, but then again, where I live we also don't have continuous cold fronts blasting through from September to March, so we must live in very different areas.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 12, 2015 12:14:29 GMT -5
What an idiot. Sure pal- the liberal agenda is to let people freeze to death
Kudos to Rush though- at least he was smart enough to move where global warming has been outlawed. Of course his fat ass will be dead before it matters- a selfish prick he is just like his cohorts. Hook air vents from Limbaugh's studio to all the homes in North America. All that hot air coming out of that bloward's mouth will keep us warm all winter long.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Mar 13, 2015 10:48:46 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 10:48:46 GMT -5
1)I'm not advancing any theories. However when it comes to AGW, that is exactly what you do, tend to notice things that prove your pet theory. People tend to project their own thought patterns onto others when unable to prove their own point. 2) Temperature inversions cannot form in the winter time while an area is experiencing strong cold fronts. Look it up, that's high school level meteorology. 3) I was never offering any statistics on the wood sales other than local amounts being burned. Doesn't matter what it costs if it's still being burned. The only data you will get is what already was offered (400% increase). 4) If you want different parameters on area size or statistical data points, supply them yourself as a counter-argument. It still won't change what's happening here. 1) I advance theories based on scientific studies, conducted by scientists. I don't formulate theories by driving around and looking at how much wood smoke I think I see in my little neck of the woods, compared to what I thought I saw in years past. 2) You live someplace where you constantly have strong cold fronts passing through? That must be hell. Where I live, we get a variety of weather all winter, sometimes very cold, sometimes unseasonably warm, and it's not out of the question to get a temperature inversion. I'm sorry you live in such horrible place that you experience constant strong cold fronts all winter long. 3) Again, you can't base a theory on just two data points from two wood sellers. Not statistically sound. 4) I'm not the one claiming where I live wood use for heating has skyrocketed, and that is directly due to energy requirements imposed by the EPA. You're the one posing this theory, you're the one that has to provide that data to back up your theory, or you have to admit that you're just guessing. Where I live there hasn't been a jump in the cost of electricity, but then again, where I live we also don't have continuous cold fronts blasting through from September to March, so we must live in very different areas. 1) As previously stated, I'm not advancing any theories. Is it more understandable when I say it twice ? 2) I never claimed to live in an area that has constant cold fronts passing through, just the 21 days preceding my March 6th post, as stated in that post. 3) Again I'm not advancing any theories for the third time. Is it any easier to understand when it is stated thrice ? Since it was just a passing observation over a three week period (as posted) The data points aren't necessary or needed. 4) I never said you were claiming anything. I'm also not posing any theories. Is it any easier to understand now that I've said it four times ? I won't be providing any data for you other than was given in the original post on the subject. Here's a cut/paste of that post. Please read slowly as it can be confusing. <<<During the last 21 days of much below average temperatures in my area. The amount of wood being used to heat the average home in my area has skyrocketed. You see a blue haze of smoke blowing around every where you go. The people I've questioned said it's mostly because of the 20% increase in electricity rates that occurred last year due to renewable energy mandates required by the EPA.>>> I'll be ready to answer any questions about those statements, that aren't you claiming I said or advanced something else. Is it really that hard to comprehend the fact that people will move to an alternative heat source for a bigger percentage of their heating needs when it becomes cheaper than the federally controlled source of energy. With regards to what is considered a "sky is falling" carbon emission scare tactic.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Climate
Mar 13, 2015 11:35:49 GMT -5
Post by happyhoix on Mar 13, 2015 11:35:49 GMT -5
OK I think our problem lies in what each of us considers a 'theory.'
When I read what you wrote, to me, you are stating a theory. You are stating that the use of fire wood to heat homes in your area has skyrocketed this winter due to the 20% increase in electrical rates mandated by the EPA.
To support this theory, you provide two facts: 1) You believe you visually see more blue haze floating around your area. 2) You talked to two people who sell wood and they claim they can charge way more than they used to charge.
Therefore, you believe your theory "everyone is burning way more wood to heat their homes now" is correct based on these two statements.
I'm simply stating that your two statements are scientifically flawed, because 1) visual observation is notoriously poor, especially when attempting to compare what you see now to what you remember seeing 12 months ago, or 24 months ago, or 36 months ago, and 2) the verbal comments by only two wood sellers is not a statistically valid data set to extrapolate wood sales in your entire region.
Therefore I was wondering if you had any more substantial data to validate your belief. For instance, if your newspaper had written any articles about wood shortages due to much higher wood use, or if your local air bureau was sending out warning notices, or imposing 'no burn' dates due to the much higher emissions in your area from wood smoke - those would be two very good facts that would substantially support your statement.
Since you haven't provided any other sources for your belief (I'll call it 'belief' rather than 'theory' since that seems to make you mad) I have to assume your personal belief that the EPA is evil and is in fact causing more air pollution than it's preventing is just that - personal belief derived from a bias against the EPA.
Which is fine. I have my own personal biases through which I see the world. We all do. As long as we don't mistake that bias for fact we're good.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Mar 13, 2015 12:23:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 12:23:33 GMT -5
OK I think our problem lies in what each of us considers a 'theory.' When I read what you wrote, to me, you are stating a theory. You are stating that the use of fire wood to heat homes in your area has skyrocketed this winter due to the 20% increase in electrical rates mandated by the EPA. To support this theory, you provide two facts: 1) You believe you visually see more blue haze floating around your area. 2) You talked to two people who sell wood and they claim they can charge way more than they used to charge. Therefore, you believe your theory "everyone is burning way more wood to heat their homes now" is correct based on these two statements. I'm simply stating that your two statements are scientifically flawed, because 1) visual observation is notoriously poor, especially when attempting to compare what you see now to what you remember seeing 12 months ago, or 24 months ago, or 36 months ago, and 2) the verbal comments by only two wood sellers is not a statistically valid data set to extrapolate wood sales in your entire region. Therefore I was wondering if you had any more substantial data to validate your belief. For instance, if your newspaper had written any articles about wood shortages due to much higher wood use, or if your local air bureau was sending out warning notices, or imposing 'no burn' dates due to the much higher emissions in your area from wood smoke - those would be two very good facts that would substantially support your statement. Since you haven't provided any other sources for your belief (I'll call it 'belief' rather than 'theory' since that seems to make you mad) I have to assume your personal belief that the EPA is evil and is in fact causing more air pollution than it's preventing is just that - personal belief derived from a bias against the EPA. Which is fine. I have my own personal biases through which I see the world. We all do. As long as we don't mistake that bias for fact we're good. 2)The people who I talked to were approximately 20/30 homeowners in my area who are still working class, over the 3 week cold spell period. Even my closest neighbor who haven't used their wood stove except for special occasions for the last 15 years bought two cords of wood this year. It's all gone already. The two wood selling businesses who's owners I know, were referenced in a later post to EVT. The homeowners I talked to said they were all using wood at a much more higher rate when they didn't used to, to help offset the electricity price increase. The rest of your post seems to be more claims about my beliefs about the EPA or my emotional state. It also makes references that you believe we have Air Bureau's with no burn dates due to emissions etc. I would need a source on my EPA beliefs or state of mind. Basing those assumptions on non existent local media or government bureaus' (in this area) is an error often made by liberals who can't comprehend something not under government control. I don't consider carbon emission as a pollution. I believe the EPA is very useful, but should stick to carcinogenic control as was it's original intent. Not a end run around Congress to assuage are Potus's ideals.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Climate
Mar 13, 2015 13:26:25 GMT -5
Post by happyhoix on Mar 13, 2015 13:26:25 GMT -5
If you live in the US you have air regulations, the fact that you don't know they exist doesn't mean they don't exist. You may not have a local air bureau, but there are federal and state regulations that apply to your area. I know this because my job requires me to keep our operating facilities in compliance with all the state, federal and local environmental laws, it's not some liberal wet dream I had.
If you don't believe me and have time to kill, call around and see what it would take to get a permit to operate a coal fired power plant on your property. Or better yet, a hazardous waste incinerator.
Not why the EPA was established, but don't let truth get in the way of a good story.
This was something you didn't really need to say.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Mar 13, 2015 13:58:44 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 13:58:44 GMT -5
If you live in the US you have air regulations, the fact that you don't know they exist doesn't mean they don't exist. You may not have a local air bureau, but there are federal and state regulations that apply to your area. I know this because my job requires me to keep our operating facilities in compliance with all the state, federal and local environmental laws, it's not some liberal wet dream I had. If you don't believe me and have time to kill, call around and see what it would take to get a permit to operate a coal fired power plant on your property. Or better yet, a hazardous waste incinerator. Not why the EPA was established, but don't let truth get in the way of a good story. This was something you didn't really need to say. 1) Nationwide air standards does not a Bureau create. You did say local air bureau which you requested as a data source. Unlike you, I will not claim to know what you think or feel, or what government bureau's are present in your area. But don't let that get in the way of a good story, or liberal wet dream. 2) I don't consider carbon emission as pollution.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Climate
Mar 17, 2015 7:44:39 GMT -5
Post by happyhoix on Mar 17, 2015 7:44:39 GMT -5
If you live in the US you have air regulations, the fact that you don't know they exist doesn't mean they don't exist. You may not have a local air bureau, but there are federal and state regulations that apply to your area. I know this because my job requires me to keep our operating facilities in compliance with all the state, federal and local environmental laws, it's not some liberal wet dream I had. If you don't believe me and have time to kill, call around and see what it would take to get a permit to operate a coal fired power plant on your property. Or better yet, a hazardous waste incinerator. Not why the EPA was established, but don't let truth get in the way of a good story. This was something you didn't really need to say. Unlike you, I will not claim to know what you think or feel Of course you do, you just said this: You assume I'm a liberal excited about government controlling all our actions - so you're very guilty of assuming you know how I feel, too. You said that once already, and as I said before, that wasn't something you even needed to say once - I knew that already from your other climate comments.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Mar 17, 2015 9:44:25 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 9:44:25 GMT -5
Unlike you, I will not claim to know what you think or feel Of course you do, you just said this: You assume I'm a liberal excited about government controlling all our actions - so you're very guilty of assuming you know how I feel, too. You said that once already, and as I said before, that wasn't something you even needed to say once - I knew that already from your other climate comments. 1) I didn't assume you were anything. I also didn't use the word "excited" in that statement. So how could I be saying anything on how you feel ? You are erroneously claiming what I'm doing again. You should really read the text before jumping to a "very guilty" conclusion. 2) Carbon moves through a closed loop in our biosphere. We are carbon based lifeforms. Emitting carbon is what we do. I don't consider it "pollution".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Mar 19, 2015 11:08:39 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 11:08:39 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Mar 19, 2015 11:48:53 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 19, 2015 11:48:53 GMT -5
you see what he did here? he literally does this all the time. this is not about CRITICIZING your use of wood fuel, people. this is about whether or not your burning wood fuel is harmful to the environment. now, we can have a nice pleasant discussion about that, or we can pretend that this is all about "criticizing" you for doing things that might be harmful to others. but in fact, it is just that. if you take Rush's argument to a hedonistic extreme, it should be perfectly legal to burn toxic waste in your back yard, if you ENJOY it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Mar 19, 2015 12:28:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 12:28:08 GMT -5
you see what he did here? he literally does this all the time. this is not about CRITICIZING your use of wood fuel, people. this is about whether or not your burning wood fuel is harmful to the environment. now, we can have a nice pleasant discussion about that, or we can pretend that this is all about "criticizing" you for doing things that might be harmful to others. but in fact, it is just that. if you take Rush's argument to a hedonistic extreme, it should be perfectly legal to burn toxic waste in your back yard, if you ENJOY it. And taken to the opposite extreme, you can't even breathe or move without a license to do so from the State/Federal regulating authorities.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Climate
Mar 19, 2015 13:39:38 GMT -5
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 19, 2015 13:39:38 GMT -5
During the last 21 days of much below average temperatures in my area. The amount of wood being used to heat the average home in my area has skyrocketed. You see a blue haze of smoke blowing around every where you go. The people I've questioned said it's mostly because of the 20% increase in electricity rates that occurred last year due to renewable energy mandates required by the EPA. Electric heat pumps make up the majority of the heating systems in this area. Efficiency requirements has also driven up the price of the average heatpump to over five thousand dollars installed. Much cheaper to install a $500 woodstove. For those who don't know, wood delivers approximately twice the carbon to the atmosphere per BTU delivered as coal. The down side of a one size fits all energy policy designed for urban areas. I question the argument- A $500 woodstove would have been cheaper before the increase would it not?
(BTW since when does a rate increase require the purchase of a new heat pump?)
What you claim is that a 20% increase in electric rates is making it so much cheaper to spend $500 on a wood stove and use it so many people are doing it that smoke is everywhere.
I think people are just firing up their stoves and fireplaces like they always do when it is cold. Have any stats on the recent explosion in wood stove purchases?
Woodstoves/heaters are considered green too; Because they use a renewable.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Mar 19, 2015 13:47:15 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 19, 2015 13:47:15 GMT -5
you see what he did here? he literally does this all the time. this is not about CRITICIZING your use of wood fuel, people. this is about whether or not your burning wood fuel is harmful to the environment. now, we can have a nice pleasant discussion about that, or we can pretend that this is all about "criticizing" you for doing things that might be harmful to others. but in fact, it is just that. if you take Rush's argument to a hedonistic extreme, it should be perfectly legal to burn toxic waste in your back yard, if you ENJOY it. And taken to the opposite extreme, you can't even breathe or move without a license to do so from the State/Federal regulating authorities. that would be extreme indeed. a prohibition on breathing would be rather antithetical to the goals i suggested.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:46:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Mar 20, 2015 9:35:32 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 9:35:32 GMT -5
And taken to the opposite extreme, you can't even breathe or move without a license to do so from the State/Federal regulating authorities. that would be extreme indeed. a prohibition on breathing would be rather antithetical to the goals i suggested. Not prohibition, regulation.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Mar 20, 2015 16:47:11 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2015 16:47:11 GMT -5
that would be extreme indeed. a prohibition on breathing would be rather antithetical to the goals i suggested. Not prohibition, regulation. breathing is not only regulated, it is completely automated.
|
|