Owner of Everwarm to Speak at Chamber of Commerce Luncheon
Terry McCartney, owner of Everwarm Hearth & Home, will be the guest at tomorrow's Port Angeles Regional Chamber of Commerce luncheon. He will be discussing proposed legislation which might restrict the use of wood-burning stoves.
posted by Tom Harper at 5:10 PM
14 Comments:
I heard that the legislation is secretly being pushed by Nippon USA and Port Townsend Paper Company so that they can make sure that the only wood on the Peninsula will be burned cleanly in their own incinerators.
I use electric heat but Helen heats her little home with her old wood burning kitchen stove, and has since 1946. It's her only heat so I don't see where they can stop her from using it, she was here before they were anyway.
But she turns 90 next month so won't be doing that for many more years anyway.
Everyone should have backup wood heat, in case the grid goes down for whatever reason.
Nippon USA.
That struck me as amusing.
They don't need any special legislation, or backroom deals with Nippon to make relying on wood for heat unaffordable; have you priced out any services from "Everwarm"?
I tried to buy 10 feet of flue for my woodstove from them two years ago, and they wanted almost $2,000 for stainless Wonderflue! No other options offered.
I just could not afford that, no matter how wonderful and perfect.
Found a much more affordable option for under $100 that has kept me "everwarm" ever since up in the hills where even as of last night, the frost was there in the morning.
If you can afford their prices, you don't need to be burning wood!
The more you burn, the cooler the earth gets. Unless we stop burning, then global warming could spiral out of control. It's complicated. I say let's ask the tea party. I'm sure they will make sense of it and this will lead to a concensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Just wait till those new auto emmision controls kick in in China. Most of the US will be doomed by the sudden increase in temperature and decrease in rain. We should be ok here if you stock up on wood. I know I'll be at this highly informative gathering. I'll be the one with the bag of marshmallows burning one in the back.
Let's face it, Nippon biomass or no Nippon biomass, burning wood for heat is going to go the way of the horse and buggy in the near future. It's not an efficient use of resources, or an efficient way to heat a home. It's not truly sustainable. And it's also going to be something that is, yes, subject to more regulations, due to (reasonable and good) concerns about air quality and related issues.
The usual suspects will rail against environmentalists and the U.N. and all that, but the fact remains that our energy economy is on the cusp of major, permanent changes. This will have implications for all aspects of our culture and economy, as well as for our foreign relations.
Anon 8:24 says : ".. but the fact remains that our energy economy is on the cusp of major, permanent changes."
I would be interested in hearing what you think is going to happen. Seriously.
As you likely know, the oil and gas industries have been so busy drilling and pumping, that now there is a glut of oil and natural gas on the market, and fuel is now the number one US export. The price of natural gas is so low that Chesepeake Energy lost $1billion last week because of over supply.
In both the US and Canada, the oil industries are pushing for pipelines that will more than double current capacities.
So, with these realities in mind, I will be interested to read your comments.
Ooops, instead of "Unless we stop burning, then global warming could spiral out of control", I meant to type "IF we stop burning, then global warming could spiral out of control."
See, it's complicated, even for a dim wit like me!
It all comes down to two factors, over population and greed.
And hey, how about that big oil find in the Rockies? Think that will bring down the price of gas? Think again.
Don't ya love it?! Gas is the biggest thing the USA sells to people outside of the USA, while requiring it's own citizens to pay the highest prices they ever have. Or close to it.
The oil companies sell more oil outside the country than they bring into the country.
It isn't about shortages, or refinery capacity, or environmental regulations. It is about profit.
You probably heard about the recent $2 billion losses at JP Morgan because of ongoing gambling on derivitives, much like what happened in 2008, that caused the current economic collapse we all are living through. You might have heard that JPMorgan spent $21 million lobbying to prevent legislation to curtial such "risky" business practices.
$21 million. Just to try to change a politicians' vote. You got that kind of change?
Ain't democracy great?!
Anon 10:39 AM, May 14, 2012:
First of all, let me begin by saying that I believe we are past Peak Oil, so, even though we may "drill, baby, drill" or "pump, baby, pump," we are still just going to a well that is starting to run dry.
Additionally, many of the sources of oil that we are now exploiting are much, much more energy intensive than sources in the past. We are having to drill deeper. We are having to process oil out of tar sands. All these things require a LOT more energy (read: already existing oil) to find and access. To grossly oversimplfy: If it used to take, say, one hundred gallons of oil to allow us to access ten thousand gallons of oil, now that cost has probably grown to something like one hundred gallons of oil to access six thousand gallons of oil. We are burning more fuel to find more fuel, and that both depletes the (global) supply faster, and costs more money.
The next fact that leads me to believe we're on the cusp of change - either by choice, or because it's forced upon us - is that global energy consumption is expected to double in the next 30 to 40 years. Think about that for a minute. All the power we're using now, DOUBLED. Even if Peak Oil were still ahead of us, at a growth rate like that, it wouldn't take long to rocket past it.
Finally, think about this for a minute: The energy in the photons (from the sun) that strike the Earth every hour is roughly equal to the total energy, from all sources, that humanity uses in a YEAR. In other words, there is free energy out there every day, that we are not currently taking advantage of. But we increasingly will - both because changes in our oil economy will demand it, and because our science is finally starting to get to the point of allowing us to capture more and more of it.
If you're inclined, there's a fascinating article in the current New Yorker (May 14th issue) about a professor/researcher at MIT who has developed an "artificial leaf" that can mimic a real leaf's photosynthesis, and can be dropped into a glass of water, placed in the sun, and produce energy.
From everything I've read and learned, I personally think we're way more than halfway there in terms of having the technology to capture renewable resources. The area that is still a challenge is energy storage. But I think we will likely see some big advances there in the next decade as well.
So that's my response to your response. I tried to keep it fairly brief, but I think you get the idea of where I'm coming from. Feel free to respond again yourself.
Interesting article on the Artificial Leaf. I skipped the NY Times article and went to MIT's own news site. The mainstream media tends to aim for the lowest common denominator with science articles. The leaf isn't that efficient yet, but sounds like they're working on that. At the very least it's made of common materials, so economics of scale should be reached fairly quickly.
That said, I'm pretty skeptical this will ever come to market. Too big of a change and we as a country don't like change much right now. We're too busy pointing fingers to find solutions.
Here's another thing... Most of the commenters on MIT have Indian names. And the company that's building the first practical model is the Tata Group, another Indian company. Are you listening America? Stop dumbing down schools, stop reaching for the lowest common denominator and stop being stuck in finger pointing. I'm looking at both republicans and democrats here.
Thanks for the reply. I fundamentally agree, but also see how Exxon has succeeded with its' multi-million dollar campaign to get Americans to doubt Climate Change science, for its' own economic benefit.
In Canada, the government has succeeded in removing CO2 as an issue to be discussed, while evaluating the impacts of the tar sands projects.
Yes, eventually, you are right; change will happen. But what will happen as a result of the continued self interest of the energy companies, until then?
FYI, here's the link to SB 5432:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5432
Post a Comment
<< Home