ClarkFable t1_iuiljew wrote
How about some demand solutions too? e.g., I haven't seen a single ad out there asking the public to conserve (locally or nationally). This seems absolutely insane to me, especially since we are effectively at war with a country who is almost completely reliant on high energy prices.
SkiingAway t1_iuix3ob wrote
It's not something the public can do a great deal to conserve, especially at this point where heating demand is currently low.
It's not a gasoline issue, it's a diesel/heating oil issue.
New England has little natural gas storage, so conserving natural gas/electricity right now will accomplish little, the resource can't be stockpiled here.
The complicated answer is that it would probably be helpful to:
-
Set your heat low if you use heating oil.
-
If you don't use heating oil, the only time you can do anything significantly useful is during the deepest cold snaps in the winter. That's when natural gas demand exceeds pipeline capacity and we start needing LNG imports or burning oil to meet electrical demand. Then it would be helpful to cut your electricity demand + set back your heat if you use natural gas or electric for it.
If you figure that requests to conserve are more impactful the first few times around rather than when you've been hearing it for months, it probably makes sense to wait to ask that of the public until we're closer to the moments where that could actually help.
TituspulloXIII t1_iuj0w3q wrote
It's pretty much too late now, but anyone in New England that is more of the rural/suburban end of housing could have installed a wood stove/pellet stove.
Given, I think a lot of people are doing that as stove installers are definitely having a problem keeping up with demand.
And anecdotally I'm having a hard time finding free wood compared to what I've been able to get in recent years
ChudGuitar t1_iuj5oke wrote
From a pollution perspective, burning wood and wood pellets is pretty horrific. We're better off burning clean coal as at least we get more bang for our buck when it comes to air pollution. Building a more logical energy grid and pushing for better insulation etc. are better options.
50calPeephole t1_iujeo3p wrote
I've heard MA is eyeballing a carbon tax for pellet stoves to discourage this sort of thing too.
TituspulloXIII t1_iuj79ef wrote
It's not going to work out for Boston, but for people in Western Mass/ Norther CT/New Hampshire/Vermont/Maine to say it's horrific and clean coal would be better seems a bit ridiculous.
If you get a modern EPA certified stove the air pollution is not that bad. The pollution is less than 2 grams an hour.
ChudGuitar t1_iujeoss wrote
"Burning wood pellets releases as much or even more carbon dioxide per unit of energy as burning coal"
https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions
"Among the many challenges of burning wood, there are three primary issues of concern. First, burning trees results in more carbon dioxide emission for a unit of energy output (e.g., BTUs). In fact, some smokestack emission tests show burning wood results in carbon emissions 2.5 times higher than natural gas and 30 percent higher than coal. Second, harvesting trees for fuel leads to more carbon release than if they remained in the forests to grow or, if they are dead, recycle carbon into the soil. Thirdly, there is a question of delay relating to the time-lag as new trees take time to establish and grow large enough to capture the capacity lost through harvesting. If you invest some time reading and learning more about burning wood, this is only the beginning of concerns; others relate to the reflective capacity of black carbon and other harmful gases released in biomass combustion."
https://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/centers/private-forests/news/burning-wood-caring-for-the-earth
It's not ridiculous, it's just how it is. Using wood as a large-scale, long term replacement for heating energy across the New England region would just be worse for the environment in the long-term when compared to existing alternatives including natural gas, coal, and nuclear power.
TituspulloXIII t1_iuji43t wrote
Wow, I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you were talking about particulates, not CO2.
Wood, and I was originally speaking of wood stoves, (although pellets are still better than coal) is CO2 neutral. Trees grow, die, decompose, new trees grow.
Where fossil fuels are carbon emitters, so sure if you only measure the burn, and ignore everything in the supply chain, wood is worse, but you have to ignore everything prior it getting to your house.
It won't be large scale, as people in dense suburbs and cities won't be burning wood, but rural people and less dense suburbs can be part of the solution.
Anybody that lives "in the woods" on about 1.5 acres or more will likely have enough dead trees to heat thier house for years.
That and power companies and other home owners take down dead/dying trees and either leave it to rot or someone can go grab it for free.
jojenns t1_iuiu3g1 wrote
We contributed 46 billion to the war, now im supposed to freeze my ass off too?
[deleted] t1_iuj311s wrote
[removed]
rygo796 t1_iuj0lgk wrote
Jimmy Carter killed his reputation by wearing a sweater on TV and asking people to turn down the thermostat a few degrees.
Using less is the only real, honest solution, but we'll run out of fuel long before anyone is willing to suggest it. The idea that American's should be slightly uncomfortable is heresy.
​
ThisOneForMee t1_iujd6pg wrote
Part of the problem is that the message is coming from wealthy people that aren't sacrificing anything
ClarkFable t1_iujdhxl wrote
>Jimmy Carter killed his reputation by wearing a sweater on TV
Yah, but if we bundled the concept together with the whole "help us defeat Russia", I think it almost becomes way less prone to attack. The real issue is politicians are just cowards when it comes to risking their own future for the benefit of society.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments