So if I want a wood stove of my liking, I'll have me a wood stove of my liking.
Enjoy your jail-time... Getting an ass-raping of your liking.
If you had any balls, you'd be defying the laws you don't like, out in public for law enforcement to see. Instead you're just crying about how bad-ass you are, as you cowardly sit at home, afraid of the law.
I suppose now you're going to tell me how your city has unlimited wood, and unlimited clean air, and it always will, no matter what.
it's wrong to classify this as an environmental issue; It's a by-product of urbanization
Even in rural areas, you're still polluting just as much. Urban/rural doesn't have a thing to do with it.
You could say it's a POPULATION problem if you like. Then you have to admit you're an insane population control advocate, who thinks we should kill 90% of people off, just so you can continue to live a few miles outside of a city and pretend you're a pioneer on the old frontier.
Of course that's the better option, because you'd never consider being a decent neighbor and paying a few dollars to upgrade your trashcan stove to 200 year-old technology, that also allows you to burn 1/3rd as much wood. That's UNAMERICAN!
The busybodies in our government have no problem throwing the poor under the bus to achieve some feel-good goal so they can go home to their mansions at night and feel good about themselves. They're hurting real people.
Those with the inefficient wood stoves are the ones "hurting real people". Those "rural South Carolina" homes can continue to use their old crappy stoves. Any new homes just need to get more efficient-burning models that run about $700. Not a big added expense, and will burn 1/3rd less wood for the same amount of heat, SAVING money in the long-term.
On the other hand, many of the people in Fairbanks that burn wood do so because it's the cheapest method they can use to heat their houses, and they can't afford other methods
Wood stoves are still legal, of course. Any NEW stoves sold need to be much more efficient gasifer-style. The kind that have been around since the 19th century.
We're only talking about a one-time $700 item, rather than whatever ancient piece of junk they would have purchased otherwise. And over time, should save people lots of money thanks to burning 1/3rd less wood for the same amount of heat.
The only thing infinite in this situation is the stupidity required to believe that any resource is infinite.
If you believe solar radiation is NOT effectively infinite, you're the fool in this case. There is astronomically more of it than we could hope to harness for our needs, for many, many centuries to come.
You're the one who's spouting platitudes and silly nonsense here, not me.
so that you could have things like fridges and freezers run their compressors during supply spikes and leave washing machines and so on programmed to run whenever there is surplus power.
Except I don't WANT items in my refrigerator to freeze, and items in my freezer to thaw and melt, when grid power supply is fluctuating. Ditto for waiting hours or days to wash/dry clothes less expensively.
Those aren't big enough power draws in homes for the the economics to make sense, unless power was being given away absolutely FREE, which won't happen. There might be minimal acceptance of such a system for large, industrial customers, but what percentage of demand that makes up in an area varies greatly. And similarly, they aren't interested in letting power prices completely disrupt their operations, and so will only "move the needle" a tiny bit, even for large changes in prices.
And electricity is NOT the most efficient form of heating. Natural gas is VASTLY less expensive in the US, and most parts of the world have some fossil fuel that's cheaper to burn for heat than electricity is. After all, conversion of any fossil fuel to electricity is only maybe 60% efficient, while condensing boilers can get 97% thermal efficiency.
Of course, even better is just having homeowners install solar home heating systems, as they can thermally store solar energy, and release it into the home at a later time. Such systems are vastly more efficient, and vastly cheaper, than PV panels, anyhow.
And as for your "you can waste all you want from wind and solar" premise, that's just sheer lunacy. No resource is infinite.
Solar is pretty close to infinite, and wind in specific locales also is practically unlimited. The only question is whether or not the amount of energy you're extracting from your solar or wind installation makes up for the up-front cost. If so, not utilizing ALL the output is only a very minor loss. And dumping a lot more money into the system up-front, in order to "use" that power (but at a financial loss) makes NO SENSE at all.
It should be possible to freeze stuff during the day using solar energy and then use that stuff to absorb heat at night.
WAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Central commercial-building air conditioners that store energy as chilled water / ice are being installed all over the place in order to use the cheap NIGHT-time electricity to provide DAY-time (peak-demand) cooling.
The idea of doing a complete 180, turning that on its head is quite amusing. The reality is far more likely that the above systems will just no-longer be needed, as peak rates simply fall, and even-out electrical prices.
There are also less-expensive methods to reduce peak demand, that just involve over-cool buildings early in the morning, and slowly letting the temperature rise slightly throughout the day. This kind of system could easily meet the needs of building cooling *slightly* after sundown, as you are talking about.
Perhaps this would be a use case for nickel-iron batteries? They have an extremely long life;
They are so expensive for their projected life-spans, that you'll most likely save money buying and periodically replacing lead-acid batteries.
Being over a century old, I doubt R&D is going to improve on the technology much. But if increased production can decrease prices, they might become economical.
It uses 100% renewable, carbon-cycle, eco-friendly biofuel (wood)
Most fuels are "100% renewable" on a small scale. It's when we use more of it than can practically be produced in the same amount of time, that it becomes non-renewable. Wood is no exception. If a non-trivial number of people did the same as you, the price of wood would spike, and there'd be no way to grow it quickly enough.
Methane (natural gas), biodiesel, and others follow the same pattern. If we don't use much of it, it's cheap and can be produced entirely by closed-loop "green" systems. When demand goes up, though, the production becomes unsustainable.
I'm talking about something simple and inherently non-toxic, stored kinetic energy and rotation of heavy balanced cylinders in a near-vacuum.
Doesn't matter whether you have them in a vacuum or not, because there still need to be bearings in there somewhere, which will sap more energy than the air in the enclosure. That's why flywheels ONLY work for extremely short-term power storage.
The promise of flywheels was that, someday, somebody will be able to figure out a nearly frictionless bearing that'll work in a vacuum. But they've never been able get magnetic bearings to work, due to eddy currents and such. So no matter how much you may "like the idea", it's completely unworkable until we get some major technological breakthrough.
So first you claim that it'll probably be worse, then you admit we have absolutely no way of knowing... Nice logic there.
We do have plenty of reliability data on Li-Ion batteries, though, and there's zero reason to believe they will get more dangerous over time. Ditto for electric motors. Ditto for circuit boards.
Contrast this to plastic fuel tanks, fuel lines, gaskets, and similar, which we know will get more dangerous over time.
I would just like to take the time to point out that we have a 3-digit User ID here... So by default he knows what he is talking about.
IIRC, it only took about a year to go from single-digit to 6-digit UIDs, so it's largely a matter of timing (or luck), and all the lower-numbered UIDs were created about the same age, and only means we were on the internet, reading about Linux circa '98.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Because it's the "conservatives" that want to take away their food stamps and health care.
Enjoy your jail-time... Getting an ass-raping of your liking.
If you had any balls, you'd be defying the laws you don't like, out in public for law enforcement to see. Instead you're just crying about how bad-ass you are, as you cowardly sit at home, afraid of the law.
I suppose now you're going to tell me how your city has unlimited wood, and unlimited clean air, and it always will, no matter what.
Even in rural areas, you're still polluting just as much. Urban/rural doesn't have a thing to do with it.
You could say it's a POPULATION problem if you like. Then you have to admit you're an insane population control advocate, who thinks we should kill 90% of people off, just so you can continue to live a few miles outside of a city and pretend you're a pioneer on the old frontier.
Of course that's the better option, because you'd never consider being a decent neighbor and paying a few dollars to upgrade your trashcan stove to 200 year-old technology, that also allows you to burn 1/3rd as much wood. That's UNAMERICAN!
Probably should have stopped using the wood stove after the first couple times...
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
"The two general approaches to meeting the EPA smoke emission limits are non-catalytic and catalytic combustion."
http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/woodstoves.html
Your inability to READ casts a very different light on all your insane rantings on this story.
Those with the inefficient wood stoves are the ones "hurting real people". Those "rural South Carolina" homes can continue to use their old crappy stoves. Any new homes just need to get more efficient-burning models that run about $700. Not a big added expense, and will burn 1/3rd less wood for the same amount of heat, SAVING money in the long-term.
My money's on the American Lung Association.
Wood stoves are still legal, of course. Any NEW stoves sold need to be much more efficient gasifer-style. The kind that have been around since the 19th century.
We're only talking about a one-time $700 item, rather than whatever ancient piece of junk they would have purchased otherwise. And over time, should save people lots of money thanks to burning 1/3rd less wood for the same amount of heat.
http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/woodstoves.html
Fwiw, I've also got a lower-UID account than this (not 3-digit, though), that I prefer not to use.
The question is silly and pointless. See my first response again.
If you believe solar radiation is NOT effectively infinite, you're the fool in this case. There is astronomically more of it than we could hope to harness for our needs, for many, many centuries to come.
You're the one who's spouting platitudes and silly nonsense here, not me.
And it's BS to claim it's all (or mostly) from patents on FAT32. Microsoft has LOTS of patents.
Really? Than how does your Android device show up as a USB mass storage device when connected to your Windows computer?
Except I don't WANT items in my refrigerator to freeze, and items in my freezer to thaw and melt, when grid power supply is fluctuating. Ditto for waiting hours or days to wash/dry clothes less expensively.
Those aren't big enough power draws in homes for the the economics to make sense, unless power was being given away absolutely FREE, which won't happen. There might be minimal acceptance of such a system for large, industrial customers, but what percentage of demand that makes up in an area varies greatly. And similarly, they aren't interested in letting power prices completely disrupt their operations, and so will only "move the needle" a tiny bit, even for large changes in prices.
And electricity is NOT the most efficient form of heating. Natural gas is VASTLY less expensive in the US, and most parts of the world have some fossil fuel that's cheaper to burn for heat than electricity is. After all, conversion of any fossil fuel to electricity is only maybe 60% efficient, while condensing boilers can get 97% thermal efficiency.
Of course, even better is just having homeowners install solar home heating systems, as they can thermally store solar energy, and release it into the home at a later time. Such systems are vastly more efficient, and vastly cheaper, than PV panels, anyhow.
Solar is pretty close to infinite, and wind in specific locales also is practically unlimited. The only question is whether or not the amount of energy you're extracting from your solar or wind installation makes up for the up-front cost. If so, not utilizing ALL the output is only a very minor loss. And dumping a lot more money into the system up-front, in order to "use" that power (but at a financial loss) makes NO SENSE at all.
WAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Central commercial-building air conditioners that store energy as chilled water / ice are being installed all over the place in order to use the cheap NIGHT-time electricity to provide DAY-time (peak-demand) cooling.
The idea of doing a complete 180, turning that on its head is quite amusing. The reality is far more likely that the above systems will just no-longer be needed, as peak rates simply fall, and even-out electrical prices.
There are also less-expensive methods to reduce peak demand, that just involve over-cool buildings early in the morning, and slowly letting the temperature rise slightly throughout the day. This kind of system could easily meet the needs of building cooling *slightly* after sundown, as you are talking about.
They are so expensive for their projected life-spans, that you'll most likely save money buying and periodically replacing lead-acid batteries.
Being over a century old, I doubt R&D is going to improve on the technology much. But if increased production can decrease prices, they might become economical.
Most fuels are "100% renewable" on a small scale. It's when we use more of it than can practically be produced in the same amount of time, that it becomes non-renewable. Wood is no exception. If a non-trivial number of people did the same as you, the price of wood would spike, and there'd be no way to grow it quickly enough.
Methane (natural gas), biodiesel, and others follow the same pattern. If we don't use much of it, it's cheap and can be produced entirely by closed-loop "green" systems. When demand goes up, though, the production becomes unsustainable.
Doesn't matter whether you have them in a vacuum or not, because there still need to be bearings in there somewhere, which will sap more energy than the air in the enclosure. That's why flywheels ONLY work for extremely short-term power storage.
The promise of flywheels was that, someday, somebody will be able to figure out a nearly frictionless bearing that'll work in a vacuum. But they've never been able get magnetic bearings to work, due to eddy currents and such. So no matter how much you may "like the idea", it's completely unworkable until we get some major technological breakthrough.
So first you claim that it'll probably be worse, then you admit we have absolutely no way of knowing... Nice logic there.
We do have plenty of reliability data on Li-Ion batteries, though, and there's zero reason to believe they will get more dangerous over time. Ditto for electric motors. Ditto for circuit boards.
Contrast this to plastic fuel tanks, fuel lines, gaskets, and similar, which we know will get more dangerous over time.
And Teslas don't have fuel lines, so there's no comparison...
But since Teslas don't have fuel lines that can crack, there's no reason to assume they'll follow the same pattern as conventional vehicles.
IIRC, it only took about a year to go from single-digit to 6-digit UIDs, so it's largely a matter of timing (or luck), and all the lower-numbered UIDs were created about the same age, and only means we were on the internet, reading about Linux circa '98.
Harrison Ford is on his way over, to shoot you in the head.
Freshmeat is just a directory and search engine. They don't host the projects...
A couple minutes on WP or their website would give you the answer. It isn't 2-years overdue to close, for sure.