Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumSimple measures -- Cutting emissions of methane and soot would save lives, scientists say
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx***snip
The climate-change debate has centered on carbon dioxide, a gas that wafts in the atmosphere for decades, trapping heat. But in recent years, scientists have pointed to two other, shorterterm pollutants methane and soot, also known as black carbon that drive climate change.
Slashing emissions of these twin threats would be a winwin-win for climate, human health and agriculture, said NASA climate scientist Drew Shindell, who led the study appearing in the journal Science. Even if you dont believe climate change is a problem, these things are worth doing.
Previous studies have noted the benefits of reducing methane and soot. But the new study looked at the specific effect of about 400 actions policymakers could take. Of those, just 14 interventions such as eliminating wood-burning stoves, dampening emissions from diesel vehicles and capturing methane released from coal mines would offer big benefits.
Theyre all things we know how to do and have done; we just havent done them worldwide, said Shindell, who works at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 850 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Simple measures -- Cutting emissions of methane and soot would save lives, scientists say (Original Post)
xchrom
Jan 2012
OP
There are a number of efforts to improve wood and other biomass stoves ...
eppur_se_muova
Jan 2012
#3
madokie
(51,076 posts)1. I build wood heating stoves and have for years
I use a gasifier with a secondary combustion chamber and it is efficient enough for me to maybe have a two gallon can of ashes after the winter is over where I've burned a couple 4X8 stacks of wood. Anyways my point is I was helping this cause long before it was popular
complete burn results in very little ashes, no soot and no particulates expelled in the air. Just a warm stove with a clean exhaust stream.
AlecBGreen
(3,874 posts)4. Do you do a form of pyrolysis?
i.e. burning wood anaerobically?
"I use a gasifier with a secondary combustion chamber..."
If you could point me to a link or diagram, anything, etc I would be much obliged. I am fascinated with pyrolysis and think it has a real future. Thanks!
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)2. See also…
eppur_se_muova
(36,227 posts)3. There are a number of efforts to improve wood and other biomass stoves ...
http://www.appropedia.org/Improved_cook_stoves
http://www.rocketstove.org/
The Rocket Stove has been discussed on DU a bit ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=rocket+stove&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en
These all seem to be low-key, more or less grassroots efforts, without the kind of publicity that big gov't programs get. Maybe that's a good thing in some ways, but it would help if people could get the word out about these sooner rather than later.
NB: The main advantage advertised is the enormous savings in fuel, which helps combat deforestation, and saves time otherwise spent foraging for wood. But they also produce very little soot, an advantage whose importance was recognized only after the fact -- in terms of both respiratory health and climate impact.
http://www.rocketstove.org/
The Rocket Stove has been discussed on DU a bit ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=rocket+stove&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en
These all seem to be low-key, more or less grassroots efforts, without the kind of publicity that big gov't programs get. Maybe that's a good thing in some ways, but it would help if people could get the word out about these sooner rather than later.
NB: The main advantage advertised is the enormous savings in fuel, which helps combat deforestation, and saves time otherwise spent foraging for wood. But they also produce very little soot, an advantage whose importance was recognized only after the fact -- in terms of both respiratory health and climate impact.