2011 Sept. 26: AK Fairbanks: Part 2 Comments on Proposition 2 Explained
« rationalcitizen wrote on Monday, Sep 26 at 09:08 AM »
So your solution to a problem is to ignore it….nice. Maybe we should turn Fairbanks into a toxic waste dump so we can all wear those styling white chemical suites.
« rationalcitizen wrote on Monday, Sep 26 at 09:03 AM »
“we’re a sub-human species that can’t be expected to achieve what other humans have been doing for years.”
They sound like that sometimes don’t they, all paranoid, and slothful.
« childofsol wrote on Monday, Sep 26 at 09:01 AM »
Good comments, FBX79. No doubt you have baffled a few here with real data and logic.
Operating a hydronic heater cleanly is an uphill akin to summiting Denali. As many here have said, and studies have demonstrated, the combustiont temperatures are very low. The wood smolders.
« childofsol wrote on Monday, Sep 26 at 08:25 AM »
“Washington and Anchorage both have CHEAP gas and don’t get 50 below so don’t compare us to them”
It was the opacity standards in Washington and Anchorage relative to Fairbanks that was discussed in the article, not energy prices or temperatures. I know that smoke opacity is not dependent on energy prices. If you have evidence that it is significantly dependent on temperature, please provide that data. Otherwise your comment makes no sense, except as another “we’re a sub-human species that can’t be expected to achieve what other humans have been doing for years.”
« FBX79 wrote on Monday, Sep 26 at 08:23 AM »
Pretty good article. One correction needed. Most owners of outdoor boilers do NOT have large water storage tanks, underground or anywhere else. Most of the boilers burn constantly, and once the fire is hot, the air is shut down and they sit there smoldering.
Regarding the comments below:
Mr. Roberts, you posted the wrong chart. Here is the right one:
This chart shows the pounds of PM2.5 put out every winter per house for each type of heating unit.
Bobby23, the Cold Climate Housing study did not use the figure of 1,500 outdoor boilers to calculate these numbers. That was only presented to show how many there were. This number was given to them by the borough, who got the number from the guys who sell the boilers. These are the same salesmen who claim the boilers are clean burning and don’t tell prospective buyers how much wood the boilers use. The borough made the same mistake the purchasers do: they believed the salesmen.
The real number of 90 to 150 was based on a 2010 survey by Sierra Research. The figure of 50% of the smoke coming from the highly polluting devices was based on 100 outdoor boilers.
When you consider that one outdoor boiler puts out the same PM2.5 as 27 certified wood stoves, it is clear that those boiers are putting out a huge amount of smoke. But forget the numbers. All you have to do is talk to a neighbor of one of the owners of these devices. They will confirm that they are huge smokers.
« childofsol wrote on Monday, Sep 26 at 08:13 AM »
Wood burners have had over three years to become educated. If it hasn’t happened during that time, what makes you think that a little more time will solve the problem? Nothing illustrates this point more than the three photos of Mr. Slicker’s wood pile. As far as I know, NOT ONE LEADER of the anti-prop 2 measure has spoken out against this pile of rotten logs, and the “drying” techniques that have produced it. Nor it is likely that any of them has requested that Mr. Slicker refrain from operating his boiler until he gets a supply of dry wood for it. It is apparent that relying on volunteerism has serious limitations, whether one is talking about keeping pets restrained, hunting responsibly, or using wood-burning devices properly. There really is no such thing as Utopia; regulations have always been and always will be necessary in any community.