What little things have you done
- Thread starter hash tag
- Start date
WouldBe
Dislicksick
PTK
Paul Kegan
If I burn a tree to heat my bath, rather than heat my bath with electricty produced by a windmill, then I am acting to increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.No.
Furhermore, being "carbon neutral" acts to maintain the current high proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The full effects of the current level of carbon dioxide has not yet worked its way through, so to be cabon neutral is to commit to more warming.
PTK
Paul Kegan
Burning trees adds at least as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as burnng gas, if not more.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
WouldBe
Dislicksick
How many of those cause atmospheric warning.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
The wood I use is waste from wood mills and factories. Well over 90% of the tree is sequestered in the building of houses or furniture. If this waste wasn't burnt it would probably go to landfill where it would rot and release methane into the atmosphere which is even worse.
As wood is required for building (far more eco friendly than using plastic or metal) what do you suggest is done with the waste.
UrbaneFox
They've doubled in price
Don't forget Rinse before Reverse.
PTK
Paul Kegan
Well, we can't all use waste wood. What should the rest of us do? (Assuming we have fireplaces)The wood I use is waste from wood mills and factories. Well over 90% of the tree is sequestered in the building of houses or furniture. If this waste wasn't burnt it would probably go to landfill where it would rot and release methane into the atmosphere which is even worse.
As wood is required for building (far more eco friendly than using plastic or metal) what do you suggest is done with the waste.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
5 Rs
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
PTK
Paul Kegan
A Discussion on Cutting Down Trees and Burning Them
“I want to heat some water for my bath. I know. I will burn some gas to heat the water. “
“No, no, if you do that, you will add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Burn this tree instead.”
“But won’t burning that tree add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?”
“Yes, but -”
“I want to heat some water for my bath. I know. I will burn some gas to heat the water. “
“No, no, if you do that, you will add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Burn this tree instead.”
“But won’t burning that tree add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?”
“Yes, but -”
“- but what?”
“While this tree was alive, it removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
“So?”
“So, by burning it, you are simply putting back into the atmosphere the carbon dioxide it removed years ago.”
“So burning it won’t increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?”
“Well, yes, but it’s what the tree did in the past that matters.”
“Does the atmosphere know or care where the carbon dioxide came from?”
“No”.
“Does the carbon dioxide from the burning of the tree have any different effect from the carbon dioxide from the burning of the gas?”
“No”.
“And, by cutting down the tree, are you not destroying something that was actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?”
“Err, yes”.
“But burning gas does not entail destroying something that was actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?”
“Um, no.”
“And is it not that the case that wood has a lower energy density than methane gas?”
“Yes.”
“And therefore, burning a tree to produce a given amount of heat produces more carbon dioxide than burning gas to produce a given amount of heat?”
“Well, er, yes.”
“So, overall, would it not be better to burn gas than to burn a tree to heat my bath water?”
“But the tree would not have been planted if it was not going to be harvested for firewood.”
“Do you want to reduce the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or maintain it?”
“Reduce it, of course!”
“Then why are you planting trees with a view to burning them? If you did not burn these trees, then they could absorb the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of the gas. Instead, you burn the trees, and need other trees to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of those trees. You could have, say, one hundred trees absorbing carbon dioxide, but instead you burn fifty, and release back into the atmosphere all that sequestered carbon dioxide. Furthermore, some of that carbon dioxide that was sequestered was produced by burning gas. So you are in effect allowing the carbon dioxide produced by burning gas to be released back into the atmosphere, instead of permanently sequestering it.”
“So?”
“So, by burning it, you are simply putting back into the atmosphere the carbon dioxide it removed years ago.”
“So burning it won’t increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?”
“Well, yes, but it’s what the tree did in the past that matters.”
“Does the atmosphere know or care where the carbon dioxide came from?”
“No”.
“Does the carbon dioxide from the burning of the tree have any different effect from the carbon dioxide from the burning of the gas?”
“No”.
“And, by cutting down the tree, are you not destroying something that was actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?”
“Err, yes”.
“But burning gas does not entail destroying something that was actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?”
“Um, no.”
“And is it not that the case that wood has a lower energy density than methane gas?”
“Yes.”
“And therefore, burning a tree to produce a given amount of heat produces more carbon dioxide than burning gas to produce a given amount of heat?”
“Well, er, yes.”
“So, overall, would it not be better to burn gas than to burn a tree to heat my bath water?”
“But the tree would not have been planted if it was not going to be harvested for firewood.”
“Do you want to reduce the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or maintain it?”
“Reduce it, of course!”
“Then why are you planting trees with a view to burning them? If you did not burn these trees, then they could absorb the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of the gas. Instead, you burn the trees, and need other trees to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of those trees. You could have, say, one hundred trees absorbing carbon dioxide, but instead you burn fifty, and release back into the atmosphere all that sequestered carbon dioxide. Furthermore, some of that carbon dioxide that was sequestered was produced by burning gas. So you are in effect allowing the carbon dioxide produced by burning gas to be released back into the atmosphere, instead of permanently sequestering it.”
PTK
Paul Kegan
It would be less damaging to burn gas than to burn trees.So your answer is to carry on burning gas then.
The answer is to produce heat and light using geothermal, wave, tidal, wind, solar, and hydro.
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
I'm on oil which is cheaper and seems to use almost none. EVen when they made the best possible result from a heat pump, it was 3x more. Which considering the efficiencys is impressively crap. Plus that would need £20k of other stuff to achieve, with a currently older boiler. Given new one instead the breakeven between them is way beyond my death and I'm barely 40.So your answer is to carry on burning gas then.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
A long time back a kilted soldier went into a pharmacy with a somewhat worn and tattered condom.
He asked the pharmacist how much to repair and how much for a new one. The pharmacist replied that it would be 3d to repair it and 5d for a new one. The soldier thanked him and went outside.
There was a great deal of noisy discussion, then a roar.
The soldier came back and said 'The regiment has voted, we'll have a new one'.
PTK
Paul Kegan
So you think that we should all use gas?Great in theory but who's going to pay the thousands of pounds to change heating systems over.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
Do you think we all had gas boilers in the 1950s? No we didn't. There have been previous transitions in heating technologies - so there is no reason why there cannot be such transitions in the future.Great in theory but who's going to pay the thousands of pounds to change heating systems over.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
When they banned coal round here we had a parkray fitted with a back boiler which wasn't that expensive unlike some of these new systems that can cost in excess of £10k. Not many can afford that particularly those on a pension or benefits like me. So who pays for it.
PTK
Paul Kegan
You asked me the same question when I pointed out that burning trees is worse than burning gas.Yes, that's why I use a wood burner.
Then, when I listed alternatives to gas, you rejected them.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
As I've already explained to you my new system is costing me around £2500 for a very average sized house. Yes that's still out of reach for many people, but isn't particularly different to the installation of a new gas boiler.When they banned coal round here we had a parkray fitted with a back boiler which wasn't that expensive unlike some of these new systems that can cost in excess of £10k. Not many can afford that particularly those on a pension or benefits like me. So who pays for it.
Yes I am also spending some money on new insulation. Some of that has been free but not all.
There will have to be significant government subsidies, long term cheap loans and far more invested in skills and training to make it work and things aren't there yet but I just can't fathom why you have this view that change can just never happen.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
My battery powered clocks, of which there are six in the house all seem to get about a year out of a battery.
My watch is a Seiko solar one, so hasn't needed a battery in the eight years I've had it.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Of course change can happen, I've never argued against change.
I've already put in solar thermal and PV and most of the house has been insulated. I've also put in a heat recovery ventilation system but it's not fully connected up yet. When / if I can afford it I'll be putting battery storage as well for the PV panels.
What I am sceptical about is the efficiency / cost effectiveness of heat pumps.
StoneRoad
heckling from the back!
Burning gas is using up a largely finite source - apart from the very limited supply from digestors / landfill collection of methane - But trees, in general, are a renewable source.
Kielder Forest, for example, are still planting more trees [albeit mostly conifers] than are felled, and working on a decades long cycle of plant / grow / harvest / replant on land that isn't really useful for anything else but farming trees [recently the species replanted have included more native / broadleaved on the margins of large swathes of naturalised conifers]. I know this from conversations with people working there.
In my wood pile are branches removed by pruning - leaving the rest of the tree growing - and fallen deadwood ie from natural thinning of the "wildwood" trees. Some smaller stuff ends up as brashings for wildlife habitat.
Visually there are more trees than stuff in my wood & log piles ...
Kielder Forest, for example, are still planting more trees [albeit mostly conifers] than are felled, and working on a decades long cycle of plant / grow / harvest / replant on land that isn't really useful for anything else but farming trees [recently the species replanted have included more native / broadleaved on the margins of large swathes of naturalised conifers]. I know this from conversations with people working there.
In my wood pile are branches removed by pruning - leaving the rest of the tree growing - and fallen deadwood ie from natural thinning of the "wildwood" trees. Some smaller stuff ends up as brashings for wildlife habitat.
Visually there are more trees than stuff in my wood & log piles ...
PTK
Paul Kegan
Carbon capture and storage is possible, and so far there has not been much success, but imagine that it becomes a viable thing.
Imagine that huge amounts of carbon dioxide were being sequestered in rocks underground. We would think that that was a worthy thing. However, what would be our reaction be if we were told that this sequestered carbon dioxide would be released back into the atmosphere in a few decades? We would say that the scheme was [insert rude word]. Planting forests in order to burn them seems to me to be not much different. It does not reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Imagine that huge amounts of carbon dioxide were being sequestered in rocks underground. We would think that that was a worthy thing. However, what would be our reaction be if we were told that this sequestered carbon dioxide would be released back into the atmosphere in a few decades? We would say that the scheme was [insert rude word]. Planting forests in order to burn them seems to me to be not much different. It does not reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Similar threads
