Slashdot Mirror

Burning wood makes lots of particulate emissions, especially very small particles that cause asthma, heart disease, cancer. A modern diesel bus emits less particulate pollution than a fireplace.

NOx is irritating and can cause acid rain and ground level ozone, but particles in smoke are worse for human health.

We're only talking about a one-time $700 item,

No. We are not. They're trying to put in a catalytic element, same as they do with cars. These are expensive; Just like your car. It's not a "one time" $700 item, it's a $700 item every 2-6 years. At least. Catalytics decrease efficiency and mean you produce a lot less heat -- you have to burn more fuel to get an equivalent BTU output because it's having to shove all that exhaust through a maze of tiny little tubes.

They also require regular maintenance and cleaning to keep those tubes open... which means you have to let the whole stove cool down, and the cinders burn out. This can take days before such maintenance can be performed, which means removing the catalytic, which means partial disassembly of the stove. It is a significant fire hazard if done incorrectly. And it also completely disallows the possibility of using only wood heat for your home; It basically mandates a secondary heating source, like (wait for it) a propane or natural-gas powered furnace.

And all of this so that you can reduce your particulate output from "15-30 grams per hour" to "2-7 grams per hour". [Source. For comparative purposes, check this link out. The EPA's own study put a wood stove in 1998 at 8.2 grams per hour. This 15-30 grams per hour is less than burning the damn log in open air, which clocks in at 8 grams per hour. If you burned sawdust an oil mixed together, you'd get somewhere around the numbers their crack-smoking analysts came up with.

I hate to say it but citation needed.

Burning organic matter releases aromatic hyrdocarbons. They are carcinogens.

Remember, people have actually evolved being exposed to burning organic matter. IIRC Homo Erectus had fire.

You seem to believe that carcinogens are not found in nature. Wood smoke is particularly bad. There has been documented DNA damage done by exposure to wood smoke.

You need to get this bullshit out of your head that just because something's natural means that it's good for you.

LK

You claimed that burning wood was "banned in California" but it turns out that burning wood is restricted (not banned) in a certain part of California, for a few days per year.

Here are some more links then:

link, link and link.

Specifically note the "an end to the familiar, open-front hearth in new homes and remodels." If that is not a 100% ban then what is it? These are local regulations, but they are spreading fast.

Also note that the Central Valley is an agricultural region with farms miles away from each other, and only few cities.

I hope that clears the confusion as much as it is humanly possible. The executive summary is simple: for many locales it is illegal to install a wood-burning fireplace, and if you already have one it is illegal to use it on some days (in winter - just when you need it.)

Again, this is just an example of how deep the government control can go. We don't need to worry about their justifications. Today they may be valid - to keep the air clean. Tomorrow they may be bogus - to reduce the carbon footprint. Or maybe later they will tax you for your car mileage, separately from the gas tax that you already pay. Once governments take the power to regulate your life they seldom let it go.

Wolfowitz, the lead architect of Bush's Iraq policy, would disagree with you. ...

So, your premise is that a neoconservative cabinet official's opinions about the impact of foreign policy is supposed to be the "gold standard" in reliability?

One of the *lead architects of the war* said that the reason we went to war had to do with oil wealth, and you *still* don't believe that we did? What on Earth will convince you -- Bush showing up at your house and signing an affadavit in front of a notary?

Okay, bad example. The point is, once you get into the game of complaining about oil's unaccounted negative externalities, you MUST substract off its positive externalities

And the positive externalities of burning oil for fuel are...? Sulfur dioxide? Carbon monoxide? Nitrous oxide? VOCs? Oil spills? Refinery fires? Strip-mined bitumen? What positive externalities are you thinking of here?

1) General gain in economic activity from the fact that we have such an energy-dense means.

Our dependence on oil is a *brake* on the world economy. Oil costs many times more than coal per joule. It's more expensive than even silicon-based solar in most of the world these days.

2) My brother getting to the hospital so quickly.

Compared to...? Ethanol fuelled vehicles? Biodiesel-fuelled vehicles? Electric vehicles? What are you picturing that is a slower alternative? All of the alternatives are just as fast.

The opportunity of millions of people to drive (i.e. feelling of freedom and all that crap). (And be careful, it's the OPTION to do this that is the externality; the utility of driving itself is internalized.)

And this is compared to...? Ethanol doesn't let people drive? Biodiesel doesn't let people drive? Electricity doesn't let people drive?

2) Taxes are not a "loss". It's not like the government collects tax money and then just throws it away. Those taxes pay for your roads. Want to drive without roads?

Okay, sure, the proper comparison basis would be "existing fuel taxes" vs. "road costs plust NET negative externalites". Fair enough.

But fuel taxes are levied at several levels and are more than enough to cover the roads.

Exactly: the money *isn't wasted*. It's *spent on the roads*.

The process for deciding what roads get built and maintained involves disgusting political maneuvering -- remember the bridge to nowhere?

And your alternative to a democratic process would be...? Strongman dictator gets to make all of the decisions as to what road gets built where? You get to decide for everyone?

To put it simply: If I drive a vehicle, am I somehow getting a "free ride" if my fuel taxes don't cover the cost of that near-useless bridge? Or the six trillion others that exist purely to get a politician's name on something?

Moreover, road costs are not the same as fuel costs. A subsidy for roads is a subsidy for *whatever* people use to drive on the roads. Road use should be taxed to pay for roads (see first journal entry); fuel should not be taxed to pay for roads, which muddies your point even further.

And since people are driving gas and diesel cars, gas and diesel are taxed. And the problem is...? And you're addressing externalities how...?

Even given all of the above, that externality pales in comparison to that of, say, woodburning, which no one proposes taxing.

Lol. Wood burning is responsible for about 3 percent of the total suspended particulates, 6 percent of the total carbon monoxide, and 51 percent of the highly carcinogenic polycyclic organic matter produced by all US sources (EPA, 1986)" Apart from polycyclic organic matter, it's a pretty insiginificant amount of total US air pollution, especially when you consider all of the other pollutants. Yes, woodburning is dirty. It's also comparatively rare, and mostly in sparsely popula

But having done the "you have to get up and stick wood in the wood stove, but the glass of water next to your bed is cracked because it froze last night" ride, I think I can survive a 55 degree morning in a pinch.

You go boy.