Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[crabcake]

An aside to the wood stove discussion. They suck all the moisture out the the room or house, which dries the sinuses out terribly. That's why it's mandatory to keep a large pot of water on them to replenish the moisture in the room so the humidity stays at a reasonable level.

Otherwise, you get sinus and ear infections~! Ask me how I know.

[boatman61]

Wood burning IS a major problem..
From my dumb ass point of view the unrelenting deforestation is contributing more to climate change than the use of fossil fuel like oil and gas..
Removes natural wind brakes, minimises attraction of moisture laden clouds, accelerates soil erroding.. and worst of all decreases the efficiency of natures filtration system that depends on carbon to produce oxygen.. hell.. this is knowledge I gained over 50yrs ago but the destruction continues.. droughts increase and start in new areas and deserts expand..
Did the creating the midwest dustbowl teach people nothing.. seems not.
Maybe now that people have become more environmentally aware hydro-electric dams are the way to go.. no more moving populations from fertile valleys to semi arid areas for dam construction as has happened in India in the past.. modern materials and technology can construct dams up in the mountains/foothills near the sources and once built can minimise seasonal flooding and canal systems such as the British built in the Punjab can be created for irrigation.. re-forestation of the Himalaya's, Hindu Kush and other ranges would also go a long way to restoring a semblance of balance..
But hell.. WTF do I know.. my only knowledge comes from listening to US and Brit engineers involved in the construction of the Mangla Dam up the road from where we lived who used to our social club (pool, tennis/squash courts the 9 hole golf course) and liked to come duck and wild boar hunting with Dad..

(Quote)Environmental benefits
Considering the electric industry that exists today, hydropower has a distinct advantage over fossil fueled generator plants: it is clean, green and renewable. Hydropower does not contribute to local air pollution. Other energy generators are an important source of air, water, and soil pollution and greenhouse gases, and provide fewer opportunities for economic spin-offs.
Hydro developments are subject to extremely demanding environmental standards. Before a project can be developed, it must go through a rigorous process that examines the impact the project would have on the environment and on local communities. Water flow, water quality, water shed, management, fish passage, habitat protection, as well as the welfare and lifestyle of the local communities are taken into consideration.
Cost effectiveness
In comparing hydropower to other energy generators, the other generators take less time to design, obtain approval, build and recover investment. However, they have higher operating costs and typically shorter operating lives (about 25 years).
A hydropower plant has a high capital cost but maintenance costs are only minimal when looking at some other sources of energy production. The plant life can be extended economically by relatively cheap maintenance and the periodic replacement of equipment (replacement of turbine runners, rewinding generators, etc). Typically a hydro plant in service for 40 - 50 years can have its operating life doubled.
Comparing the cost of electricity with the initial investment of a hydropower system, the pay back period is short. Theoretically, a hydro plant should be able to produce electricity for a fixed amount during the life span of the unit. The operating costs should not change because there is no associated price to the water. Unlike in fossil fuel plants, the price of natural gas, coal, etc. fluctuates depending on what the market is doing.
What are Some Problems with Hydropower?
There are few problems with hydropower. The first hydropower plants installed did not take into consideration environmental effects. Now, much effort is made to insure that there are minimal environmental and social effects on the surrounding areas. The biggest draw back to hydropower is the high initial cost but this cost can be recovered quickly due to low operating and maintenance costs.
In the past hydro sites were easier to develop because environmental requests were less stringent and there was less public opposition. New locations for hydro sites are more difficult to develop because of environmental concerns. Micro hydro is generally easier to develop because these can be implemented with minimal change to the water flow or surrounding areas. (Quote)

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by crabcake

An aside to the wood stove discussion. They suck all the moisture out the the room or house, which dries the sinuses out terribly. That's why it's mandatory to keep a large pot of water on them to replenish the moisture in the room so the humidity stays at a reasonable level.

Otherwise, you get sinus and ear infections~! Ask me how I know.

Used to keep a small bowl of water under the flued radiant gas fire in my lounge when I lived in the UK for the same reason.

[crabcake]

U.S. Utility companies are trying to avoid buy back for home generated power in various states. This could put a bad hurtin' on those who invested in generating their own power and selling the unused remainder.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I got this from a left leaning political website...

"In some communities, wood smoke accounts for as much as 82 percent of particulate matter—tiny particles that can cause serious respiratory problems—emitted during the winter. Moreover, because that smoke is being produced right in (or outside) your house, the probability of exposure is greater—and that can have significant health effects. Existing research suggests that young children living in homes heated by wood-burning stoves "had a greater occurrence of moderate and severe chronic respiratory symptoms" than children in homes without those stoves. And it's not just that these particulates might be hard on your lungs: Wood smoke has high concentrations of toxic chemicals like benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, all of which are considered possible carcinogens by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The good news is that the most modern stoves—which must be manufactured under EPA requirements—are a good deal cleaner than the old models. But while the new versions cut down on emissions by more than two-thirds, they can still produce particulate matter concentrations about 100 times greater than oil or gas furnaces. And outdoor wood boilers—which have become more popular in recent years—are typically even bigger emitters than stoves."

It seems to me that if you're so eager to mandate cuts to others, that maybe you should first take that particulate spewing wood stove to the dump and replace it with something that generates less pollution. It poses a MUCH bigger threat to your neighbors than burning fossil fuels to generate that heat would.

It is true that small particles are a risk. Large coal power plants have new technology and their acid and particle emissions have gone down. One could do the same also in smaller units (clean the exhaust gases). In sparsely populated areas small particles are not as big of a problem as in towns. And you can burn wood quite cleanly also in small units (without special exhaust gas cleaning systems). It's all about finding the best balance between all the problems (fossil CO2, small particles, nuclear risks, distance to neighbours, overuse of natural resources, destruction of nature and landscape). I'm not a good enough expert to tell where the ideal balance is. I'm however quite convinced that our CO2 emissions are too large, and we must reduce them. There are no harmless sources of energy, so lets save some energy and pick appropriate means to produce the rest. Firewood is not out of question, but we should improve also in that sector. What would your favourite heating method be in remote areas? Maybe the mentioned heat pumps? Maybe using nuclear energy?

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Juho

It is true that small particles are a risk. Large coal power plants have new technology and their acid and particle emissions have gone down. One could do the same also in smaller units (clean the exhaust gases). In sparsely populated areas small particles are not as big of a problem as in towns. And you can burn wood quite cleanly also in small units (without special exhaust gas cleaning systems). It's all about finding the best balance between all the problems (fossil CO2, small particles, nuclear risks, distance to neighbours, overuse of natural resources, destruction of nature and landscape). I'm not a good enough expert to tell where the ideal balance is. I'm however quite convinced that our CO2 emissions are too large, and we must reduce them. There are no harmless sources of energy, so lets save some energy and pick appropriate means to produce the rest. Firewood is not out of question, but we should improve also in that sector. What would your favourite heating method be in remote areas? Maybe the mentioned heat pumps? Maybe using nuclear energy?

I think it's open to debate which energy source is "best" and largely depends on which type of energy generation you think poses the greatest risk. They all have their pro's and cons. I happen to like nuclear and think heat pumps are also great in areas where they work well. But in the earlier post that I quoted, you seem to have singled out fossil fuels that produce CO2 as the ones to have pretty severe cuts mandated. If you want to see someone severely limit how much fossil fuels other people can burn because of what YOU think is the biggest threat, then why shouldn't your burning of firewood also be limited by someone else who happens to be more concerned about particulates in the air than they are about CO2?

[Juho]

Originally Posted by crabcake

An aside to the wood stove discussion. They suck all the moisture out the the room or house, which dries the sinuses out terribly. That's why it's mandatory to keep a large pot of water on them to replenish the moisture in the room so the humidity stays at a reasonable level.

Otherwise, you get sinus and ear infections~! Ask me how I know.

I have had some (minor) problems with dry air. But that has been in a centrally heated apartment in a block of flats in a city, not in a wooden house when heated with wood. A stove sends exhaust out to the chimney and sucks new air to the house. In wintertime or in a desert the outside air can be dry. In some buildings and circumstances extra moisture is needed. But so far I have felt the need only in the first case. Your example is certainly as valid as mine.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I think it's open to debate which energy source is "best" and largely depends on which type of energy generation you think poses the greatest risk. They all have their pro's and cons. I happen to like nuclear and think heat pumps are also great in areas where they work well. But in the earlier post that I quoted, you seem to have singled out fossil fuels that produce CO2 as the ones to have pretty severe cuts mandated. If you want to see someone severely limit how much fossil fuels other people can burn because of what YOU think is the biggest threat, then why shouldn't your burning of firewood also be limited by someone else who happens to be more concerned about particulates in the air than they are about CO2?

All risks should be limited when possible. Some risks are more threatening than others. According to scientists the climate risk and CO2 emissions have high priority since they can change the whole atmosphere and ecosystem of the planet. Some other risks are related to premature deaths and illnesses. Some examples are small particles, cars, tobacco, carcinogenic chemicals, guns, wars. I propose to cover all these problems in appropriate order and with appropriate intensity. Atmospheric changes and other threats to the nature can be seen as a separate class of problems that is different from the human health related problems. Both should be handled. You can cover multiple problems at the same time. Let's decide the priorities based on statistics and scientific consensus. I know that small particles are a hot research topic today, but so far I have not seen evidence that in Finnish countryside air pollution and bad wood burning practices would be a major killer (certainly smaller than in many other places, but possibly significant, there are also many saunas here, so lets get the statistics out).

[chala]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Wood burning IS a major problem..

Yes it is but burning wood pellet is less of a problem.

Originally Posted by boatman61

From my dumb ass point of view the unrelenting deforestation is contributing more to climate change than the use of fossil fuel like oil and gas..

The problem is that due to warming, alpine forest grow is now 10% higher than few decades ago, the tree line is higher so the forest are also larger and the risk of fire is increased and serious.
It is why forest need to be harvested with care to reduce the fuel content of the forest. Tops, branches and unwanted new timber that used to be collected by the poor 100 years ago is left behind at the mercy of any source of ignition.
Putting value to these left-over by transforming them into wood pellet provide fund for better management of the forest and help prevent forest fire

“Pellet heating is a cost effective alternative to gas, electricity and firewood with minimal CO2 emissions and a high calorific burn.”
AUSTRALIAN NEW ENERGY

Originally Posted by boatman61

hydro-electric dams are the way to go

Yes, so long there is still some water flowing in rivers. South America recently saw electricity shortage with many dams empty and no adequate alternative source of electricity.
Also I doubt that there is any room left for more dams in the Swiss Alps and it is why now, pumping stations are getting build to replenish dams from lower reservoir.
Expensive to the environment if taking advantage of different electricity tariffs. Cheaper if using wind, solar and essential if water become scarce.

Originally Posted by boatman61

US and Brit engineers involved in the construction of the Mangla Dam

Bearing in mind that at that time, 1967, the transmission line went only few miles from the dam because there was no load to connect to.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Juho

All risks should be limited when possible. Some risks are more threatening than others. According to scientists the climate risk and CO2 emissions have high priority since they can change the whole atmosphere and ecosystem of the planet. Some other risks are related to premature deaths and illnesses. Some examples are small particles, cars, tobacco, carcinogenic chemicals, guns, wars. I propose to cover all these problems in appropriate order and with appropriate intensity. Atmospheric changes and other threats to the nature can be seen as a separate class of problems that is different from the human health related problems. Both should be handled. You can cover multiple problems at the same time. Let's decide the priorities based on statistics and scientific consensus. I know that small particles are a hot research topic today, but so far I have not seen evidence that in Finnish countryside air pollution and bad wood burning practices would be a major killer (certainly smaller than in many other places, but possibly significant, there are also many saunas here, so lets get the statistics out).

I think it makes a lot more sense to decide the priorities for mandating cutbacks by eliminating the most immediate threat first. There is already ample scientific research (as well as what we can see for ourselves) telling us that cutting particulates being spewed into the atmosphere by your woodstove can noticeably improve yours and your neighbors (and probably nearby animals) health TODAY, but any CO2 cuts that you personally make won't make any detectable difference ever, and even most of the direst forecasts for the results of increasing CO2 aren't anything worse than damaged lungs or the other dangers of inhaling woodsmoke particulates and chemicals. It's a scientific theory that CO2 causes damage to our environment, but we KNOW and can SEE that woodsmoke particulates irritate our lungs among other things it does to us. Why not fix an obvious problem first and then move on to things like CO2 that are less obvious? How can you justify advocating that cuts to CO2 output be mandated but choose to heat your house with a device that you don't need a scientific concensus to tell you very clearly impacts the health of those who are forced to breath in your pollution? YOU have the power to clean up your little corner of the world in a noticeable way. Are you going to hide behind waiting for scientists and politicians to tell you to do it are you going to do it just because you can see both the actual pollution AND its effects for yourself and you know it's the right thing to do?

I live in a climate pretty similar to yours (Maine) and I've seen winter days in valleys near ski areas where most chalets were heated by woodstoves, and there's a clearly visible yellowish gray smog layer that looks like Los Angeles did in the sixties and there were noticeable health effects. All that from what appears to be an extremely sparsely populated area with lots of trees and supposedly fresh air. Burning wood to get energy that you want is "natural" but it's very unhealthy for any humans in the area.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I think it makes a lot more sense to decide the priorities for mandating cutbacks by eliminating the most immediate threat first. There is already ample scientific research (as well as what we can see for ourselves) telling us that cutting particulates being spewed into the atmosphere by your woodstove can noticeably improve yours and your neighbors (and probably nearby animals) health TODAY, but any CO2 cuts that you personally make won't make any detectable difference ever, and even most of the direst forecasts for the results of increasing CO2 aren't anything worse than damaged lungs or the other dangers of inhaling woodsmoke particulates and chemicals. It's a scientific theory that CO2 causes damage to our environment, but we KNOW and can SEE that woodsmoke particulates irritate our lungs among other things it does to us. Why not fix an obvious problem first and then move on to things like CO2 that are less obvious? How can you justify advocating that cuts to CO2 output be mandated but choose to heat your house with a device that you don't need a scientific concensus to tell you very clearly impacts the health of those who are forced to breath in your pollution? YOU have the power to clean up your little corner of the world in a noticeable way. Are you going to hide behind waiting for scientists and politicians to tell you to do it are you going to do it just because you can see both the actual pollution AND its effects for yourself and you know it's the right thing to do?

I live in a climate pretty similar to yours (Maine) and I've seen winter days in valleys near ski areas where most chalets were heated by woodstoves, and there's a clearly visible yellowish gray smog layer that looks like Los Angeles did in the sixties and there were noticeable health effects. All that from what appears to be an extremely sparsely populated area with lots of trees and supposedly fresh air. Burning wood to get energy that you want is "natural" but it's very unhealthy for any humans in the area.

If your valley has obvious smoke problems, you should solve that problem. But if I understood you correctly, you said something in the direction that we all should forget the problems of the atmosphere until those problems that are closer to you (as one individual) are solved first. I can't agree with that. All problems should be solved, and especially the worst ones. That doesn't stop us paying attention also to the local problems where they exist. Right?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by chala

Bearing in mind that at that time, 1967, the transmission line went only few miles from the dam because there was no load to connect to.

Seeing as the first 4 turbines were not installed till 1969 I'm not surprised really..

[Lake-Effect]

Wood stoves and fireplaces? The EPA is raising the bar.

Juho, what standards do Finnish fireplaces and wood stoves have to meet?

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wood stoves and fireplaces? The EPA is raising the bar.

Juho, what standards do Finnish fireplaces and wood stoves have to meet?

Those rules that I know of are fire safety related. I'm not aware of any pollution related rules (that would cover the whole country, not just some hot spots like city centres).

There is however lots of information on how one should build the fireplace and use it, to make burning as efficient and pollution free as possible. Those two criteria usually agree, and they agree also with making heating cheaper, and sweeping the chimney easier (no burning residue in the chimney). There is thus general interest to use the fireplaces properly.

Nowadays most fireplaces seem to have a glass door. That makes it easy to control the flow of air, which helps keeping the flame hot, which means that all visible smoke and small particles will burn before they enter the chimney. The fireplace will be also safer. Usually the exhaust gases take a circle through some massive brick layers, to catch as much heat as possible before it escapes to the chimney.

There is also a rule that all new (small?) houses shall have a fireplace. The reason is safety (of individuals, and the whole country in the case emergency) if there are problems with heating in winter when temperatures might drop to -30°C.

[Prairie Chicken]

Speaking of Al Gore, he was spotted at the Trump Tower today.