Some people really seem to have it in for some of you guys :(

What does smoke that was carried aloft to the stratosphere have to do with trapped particulates under an inversion layer ?

If one of your grown up kids calls needing a ride to work do you bring them one of their old matchbook toys ?

 

We are all gonna have to quit 'Makin Bacon' pretty soon also.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...639/Chinese-smog-blamed-on-smoking-bacon.html

 

I don't know about this. I haven't really looked into all the arguments but I bet locally produced solar is pretty strongly environmentally healthy. It "cuts out the middle man" and allows you to get the heat/energy directly from the source (the sun) as it is produced instead of storing that energy in the form of wood that a tree produces over its lifespan.

 

I can say firsthand when they perform controlled burns up the mountain here - it's staggering how much smoke there is.
I wish I had the camera last spring, it looked like the cloud from an atomic bomb.

With the morning inversion it smells 10x stronger than anything my stove ever produces, that's at least until your senses are dulled to the odor.

 

Yeah, like I said I really haven't gotten into the nuts and bolts of it to determine which would be better. It's just a seat of the pants feeling I get, when it comes to energy it seems like the most direct route would be best.

I did get a local solar company to write up a proposal for me about 5 years ago. The result was over the life of the system it would break even, meaning it would produce enough energy to pay for itself, now how that translates into environmental impact when you consider all of the things you mention IDK. You have to remember though that wood has these "extra" factors that affect the bottom line also.

Sailing...NICE, now there is some free energy, after you pay for the boat of course

 

I'm with ya Dave on solar but, unfortunately it's prolly gonna be many years before it's potential can be truly seen. Super conductors will be in that equation somewhere too I'll bet. It'll just hafta wait for the real market forces to allow it and not guvmint forced compliance. "Incentive" is a wonderful thing... "penalty" is the exact opposite and tends to make a lot of people go out of their way to push back. I sure do wish solar was here today tho, with $$$ costs and overall results. I hear that huge solar plant out west, that has been the shining example of the power of solar, has been kind of a disappointment too. They didn't count on so many cloudy days... No easy answers I guess.

 

Smoke that gets launched to 60,000 feet in a wild fire has EVERYTHING to do with the particles trapped under an inversion layer. Big wildfires last days or weeks. During the day under low humidity, high temperature and wind conditions, those fires burn more “efficiently” , generate more heat and through convection launch the particles high and allow for dilution and dispersion. Conversely, those same fires tend to “lie down” overnight just smoldering under lower temps and higher humidity with increased fuel moistures. That same fire can cause horrible conditions locally under an inversion layer until the inversion “breaks”.

There are two issues at hand. The amount of smoke produced (which the individual can influence through clean burning practices) and the ability to dissipate smoke (which is a function of local weather phenomena). If more people made an effort to burn clean and produce less smoke, the times that the local weather would negatively impact people would be far less frequent.

No, but "they" sue those who do controlled or prescribed burns in an effort to reduce fire danger and ultimately the amount of particulate matter put into the atmosphere as outlined above. Its counter intuitive since the controlled burns are done within a prescription, part of which provides for good smoke dispersion (to minimize impact on people). Unfortunately, controlled burns can’t be done under the most ideal conditions (lowest humidity, highest temperature and wind) as then they wouldn’t be controllable.

Remember that a ton of what you see is water vapor that is produced by the fire that condenses as it rises.

 

This thread needs all the global warming and anti-global warming fallacies to up the entertainment value now.

 

Why? Whether the earth is warming or cooling, particulate matter from smoke still negatively impacts human health. More is worse. A judge will not make a decision on wood burning based on his/her opinion of global warming. You bring @Al Gore into this tread, and it's going to be shut down.

 

This thread blew up in different directions I did not think possible. (guilty here)
The bottom line is they are targeting wood stoves because of the PPM.
You can say "they" are out to get us but "they" are out to get everyone for the most part.
You will never get any where by talking about tires in China and forest fires.
The gas and coal companies have had a bunch of new regulations leveled on them and they are not happy.
Did you hear about the tax on cows they wanted, 175 dollars per cow due to the methane gas they produced, it did not pass by the way just the gas did.
I heard there was a run on popcorn due to this thread.

 

Great... Now Ethanol prices are going to go through the roof!!!

 

What dont you agree with Scotty, some of the material is from woodheat.org and as far as saving trees they just want replaced what is cut down I thought.

 

During our quick trip a few minutes ago, we drove thru a valley full of low lying smoke caused by some guy burning brush or sumthin' in this drizzle/rain we've got. Kinda smelled like wood... Prolly 40 homes were in the smogg it was makin'. Couldn't believe the timing after we'd just been talking about all of this kind of stuff. Whadda smudge. Wunt gooder.