Gulf of Mexico oil spill - Page 47 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest > General Discussion (sailing related)
 Not a Member? 


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #461  
Old 06-04-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: On The Hurricane Bowl
Posts: 407
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 9
Insails is on a distinguished road
we dont need to worry about the grill....
I am sure the benzine in the vapors from this oil spill will kill way more here on the coast than BBQ....

Confirmed...oil on the Gulf Beaches at Gulf Shoars ,Al..


story:
Now confirmed: Oil's washing ashore at Baldwin County beaches (photos) | al.com

Last edited by Insails; 06-04-2010 at 03:26 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #462  
Old 06-04-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,192
Thanks: 50
Thanked 37 Times in 36 Posts
Rep Power: 14
knothead has a spectacular aura about knothead has a spectacular aura about knothead has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeelHaulin View Post
You just made my point. You can't apply THIRD WORLD SCENARIOS to our first world way of life. Just because it's cleaner than burning wood in a standard fire does not mean it's cleaner than burning natural gas or use of electricity. These TLUD stoves (etc) are being developed to reduce emissions in 3'rd world nations where they don't have power/gas infrastructure and appliances are cost prohibitive. In comparison to a standard cooking fire a TLUD stove is carbon negative; but ONLY in comparison to cooking over a campfire. This is where so many "greenies" get it in their head that they are doing something good for the environment; when really they are going backwards with respect to the developed world.

The burning of wood relative to natural gas or coal is not carbon neutral or negative. You still have utilized a carbon based fuel source to produce thermal energy and BTU for BTU the energy consumed is the same. The difference is that a TLUD stove or similar device has combustion products that are worse for you than the CO2 and H2O that comes off of a gas stove. The combustion products are Tars (creosotes); H2, and methane or formaldehyde (if oxygen is restricted too much). Tars are very bad for your health over the long term; and if your TLUD stove it not burning the methane (reducing it to CO2) it is 25x worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2 (atom for atom).

If you burn your TLUD stove; you can measure how much carbon you emitted by weighing the wood before burning and the charcoal after. The difference in weight is roughly the amount of CO2/tars/methanes you produced or emitted. Remember, the earth has vast quantities of methane trapped in the crust; and if we don't use it for fuel it will vent into the atmosphere at some point anyway; and methane molecules are 25x worse than CO2 (which is why environmentalists are also against livestock consumption).

Why can't I apply THIRD WORLD SCENARIOS to our first world way of life? I don't know about you, but I like fires. I enjoy barbecuing. I like campfires and cookouts on the beach. If I weren't using the highly efficient tlud stove, I would still be burning stuff. Only with a lot more smoke.
And I learned very early in life not to stand directly downwind from a fire anyway.

I never claimed that the tlud is as clean as natural gas or propane just that they are very efficient and if the biochar is returned to the soil, it is a carbon negative way to cook and enjoy a fire.
I never buy fuel to burn in the stove as it will cleanly burn any dry bio mass that's available. Even newspaper. I don't expect to ever run out of fuel. Stuff grows faster than I can burn it.
BTW, from what I understand, even composting produces greenhouse gases. Burning biomass instead of composting it is less harmful to the environment than composting it as long as the bio char is returned to the soil.

Seriously, if you haven't tried it or at least researched it a little, don't knock it.
But don't worry, I still use electricity too. Just a bit less than I used to. Which is good for the wallet.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #463  
Old 06-04-2010
KeelHaulin's Avatar
STARBOARD!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,662
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 10
KeelHaulin will become famous soon enough KeelHaulin will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by knothead View Post
Why can't I apply THIRD WORLD SCENARIOS to our first world way of life? I don't know about you, but I like fires. I enjoy barbecuing. I like campfires and cookouts on the beach. If I weren't using the highly efficient tlud stove, I would still be burning stuff. Only with a lot more smoke. And I learned very early in life not to stand directly downwind from a fire anyway.
I enjoy a fire now and then too; but I don't use it for my sole source of heat and cooking. I don't mind people burning wood. I'm not afraid of a whiff of smoke. I don't agree with the regulations that exist where I live to prohibit burning firewood due to a predicted "poor air quality index". That's a form of environmental extremism and people imposing their environmental beliefs on the freedoms of others. If I could afford a highly efficient and clean burning pellet stove I would buy one; but they are very expensive and the pellets are costly by comparison to firewood in the wood stove I already have.


Quote:
I never claimed that the tlud is as clean as natural gas or propane just that they are very efficient and if the biochar is returned to the soil, it is a carbon negative way to cook and enjoy a fire.
In the context of TLUD vs an open wood fire; it is more efficient. But your statement was regarding use of a TLUD vs. your in-home stove and that is where I would say that your stove is cleaner and more efficient; regardless of if you return bio-char to the soil. I can see where one would say that burying the bio-char is carbon-negative; but the reality is that you still utilize a carbon based fuel source for heat and the thermal energy you utilize is the same as if you had used methane. A landfill composed of vegetation (shredded wood and clippings) is more carbon negative; and has the added benefit of providing clean burning methane if captured. The chinese have utilized pig dung for thousands of years for methane burning stoves. Which of these three processes is more environmentally friendly? I'd say that TLUD is the least of the three; but of course it is much better than burning an open fire, and more socially acceptable than keeping pigs and shoveling dung into a fermentation tank.

My comments were to point out the flaw in the belief that wood burning cook-stoves (pyrolytic) are more efficient or clean than natural gas. There is nothing wrong with using one; I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong. I'm pointing out some of the drawbacks and that you only recycle about 1/3 of the carbon in what you burn; and there are emissions that are not "clean".

The only truly carbon negative device is something which does not utilize any form of carbon combustion to generate heat. That brings us back to solar, wind, hydro-electric, or nuclear. Of these the one you could use as a low-technology based replacement would be a solar oven.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #464  
Old 06-04-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,876
Thanks: 7
Thanked 24 Times in 22 Posts
Rep Power: 10
nolatom will become famous soon enough
It's a stove thread now?
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #465  
Old 06-04-2010
KeelHaulin's Avatar
STARBOARD!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,662
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 10
KeelHaulin will become famous soon enough KeelHaulin will become famous soon enough
Sorry; I was trying to point out that there is a "lesser of two evils".

The lesser of two evils on the oil spill was to burn the oil off but BP was told specifically not to do it (over concerns related to "global warming").

What I don't understand about the latest attempt is why the heck don't they just bolt a valve onto that flange that is just below the cut? Seems like it would be a simple operation to remove the existing flange; bolt a small riser onto the BOP, and then install a gate valve.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #466  
Old 06-04-2010
kd3pc's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Callao, VA
Posts: 1,340
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Rep Power: 8
kd3pc is on a distinguished road
burn was a good idea, but the powers that be, ignorant of the facts...said no. How burning this fuel now or in the future, once refined affects climate change is beyond me, but we won't go there. Hindsight, would prove that it would be the lesser evil to burn off as much as practical.

I would forward the same thought about dispersant. I think they will find/have found that the cure was/is worse than the disease..they are likely far more toxic to a wider area than the crude being released.

Were this well head on the surface, it would be easy to attach, cut or cap...at 5K feet and with the pressures and chemistry involved, it is not an option...but we can't agree on the pressure, flow, etc so there is no point in going there.

Robots are good, but not that good that they can equally loosen the appropriate bolts/nuts the appropriate amount all at the same time, without the flange/hub exploding and making things worse.

Sadly the reality is that this has likely moved from a short term fix to the long term accidental disaster that no one was prepared for. And the even longer cleanup, if it will be done at all.

Good news - Mother Nature is a bitch and may take this in stride, but that should not stop us from weaning off this, as we should have done in the 70's.

As I am in my mid 50's, it is high time that this Gov't allows and encourages the development of alternate fuel, and I don't mean turning our food in to fuel...or subsidizing fossil fuels...we still need to eat worse than we need to drive and we need clean water worse than both of those.. It Will not happen in my life time (we have done effectively nothing so far, so I am not optimistic that we will in the short term) but I hope our college kids demand that alternatives be created, and that the development not be hampered by cap and trade, politics, eco terrorism, partisanship, etc, etc that so often hampers creativity and exploration today.

This is serious, this president should move his entourage to the Gulf and get over the photo ops/politicing and it should be mission number one UNTIL it is capped, cleaned up and future drilling managed appropriately..again not likely to happen as he does not understand the serious affect this is having and will have on the southern states. Not another dime spent on anything until this is resolved.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #467  
Old 06-04-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,192
Thanks: 50
Thanked 37 Times in 36 Posts
Rep Power: 14
knothead has a spectacular aura about knothead has a spectacular aura about knothead has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolatom View Post
It's a stove thread now?

Not at all, I instigated the digression in the process of speaking to the issue of why we are still dependent on oil. The subject of the thread.
I was simply pointing out that the only real power we have to change things is in our own lives.

Sure, there are going to be lots of lawsuits, recriminations and regulations resulting from this tragedy. There will be hearings and hand wringing and fines.
And then everything will continue as usual.

The only real way of changing big things is by doing little things. Trying out some new ideas and thinking outside the box a little. Things like using a TLUD instead of the Weber once in a while. Or setting up a rain catchment system. Using dry toilets and composting. Or any of a million little things.

I didn't see the harm in talking about it as there is only so much news about the oil spill that we can talk about. I thought it might nudge the conversation in a more positive direction.

Keel, Did you look at any of the links I provided in my previous post?
I make all my stoves out of old cans. I am using a couple feet of mast section for one of my chimneys and an old piece of cast iron pipe for another, but I haven't paid a dime for anything.
Fuel is as abundant as one's imagination.

I never stated that I was trying to replace my indoor stove with my backyard TLUD. However in the case of an emergency, I'm probably going to be pretty well prepared for living without electricity or water.

I never stated that the TLUD was cleaner than gas. However it's probably a lot closer than you think and it's much more efficient than a normal wood burning stove or fireplace.

I agree that a landfill composed of vegetation, basicly a big compost pile, is more carbon negative, but only if the methane is captured. Most people don't have the means to do that in their backyard. And if you don't capture the methane, it's more carbon negative to burn the stuff in your TLUD. Everything has it's place.
Which brings us back to the whole 'living in balance' thing.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #468  
Old 06-04-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,174
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 14
k1vsk will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd3pc View Post
burn was a good idea, but the powers that be, ignorant of the facts...said no. How burning this fuel now or in the future, once refined affects climate change is beyond me, but we won't go there. Hindsight, would prove that it would be the lesser evil to burn off as much as practical.
Burning of oil spills has been tried throughout the world numerous times always with the same result - that being the circumstances and type oil limit it's efficacy. Too much burn agent is required to overcome the enormous heat sink of the ocean to sustain the burn resulting in excessive use of burn agents with little benefit. It is also not effective on light or crude oil spills because the slick thins out so quickly so as to exacerbate the heat sink effect which extinguishes the fire.

The only conditions in which burning has been effective is with fresh #4 or #6 oil after it collects, usually on shore. As that is also where people tend to live, the objectionable cloud of smoke makes it impractical there as well.

Add that to the pretty pictures of billowing smoke inevitably plastered all over the news make burning agent use unacceptable.

Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #469  
Old 06-04-2010
KeelHaulin's Avatar
STARBOARD!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,662
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 10
KeelHaulin will become famous soon enough KeelHaulin will become famous soon enough
Yes; I looked at the links. All several of them refer to LPG or NG stoves as ideally efficient at 60-70% efficiency. The TLUD is used as a replacement for an inefficient cookstove in countries like India where bio-waste is the primary fuel source for cooking. Americans may be forced back to using campfires with philosophies like this:

5 Gallon (22-liter) TLUD Stove for Biochar | BioEnergy Lists: BioChar (or Terra Preta)
Quote:
(the 5-gallon TLUD stove could) ..."potentially provide a source of income through carbon credits."
So we will start paying India and China and the rest of the 3'rd world to use these devices? Trillions of exported dollars because they use a less efficient device that "sequesters carbon"??

The most efficient; highly engineered unit shown in the current science article was showing 50-60% thermal efficiency. It does not matter if you sequester carbon as char or if you send your green clippings to a landfill. While you will cut down fuel costs by using a TLUD; I still don't buy in to the "sequestering carbon" claim. You burn the same amount of fuel (actually more than LPG); you are just utilizing a different source/form. If you had buried the wood you would have sequestered more carbon than if you had burned it and made charcoal. Breakdown of vegetation by decay is a natural process. The capture of released methane from landfill is utilization of the natural release of methane. How much methane is coming out of the earth's rainforests?

The concerns over climate change are being proven wrong and the "hockey stick" graph showing exponential warming was a hoax. What creates global cooling? Mainly catastrophic impacts of comets, asteroids, and massive volcano eruptions. There is also evidence that there is a self-correction point where once the earth reaches a certain mean temperature there is a cooling effect due to increased cloud cover as more water evaporates. There was a time in the history of the planet where there was too much plant life (no land animals yet) and oxygen levels got too high due to the plants creating oxygen. What happened? The entire planet burned. In the long term, planet will be fine. It has flourished despite these "attacks" on it.

Here's a good take on it (we need some comic relief):





Last edited by KeelHaulin; 06-04-2010 at 10:42 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #470  
Old 06-05-2010
Ruachsspirit's Avatar
jr. sailor
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: OK
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
Ruachsspirit is on a distinguished road
I have changed from anger to praying, that the well-head cap works perfect until they get a permanent fix.
BP needs to stay in business for a generation in order to keep paying ALL those effected by this catastrophe. Exxon Valdez still has court problems.
__________________
Alone... alone... all all alone, alone on a wandering sea.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oil Change experience - Lessons Learned kmeeks Gear & Maintenance 33 04-16-2010 08:55 AM
Teen drowns in Gulf of Mexico near Bradenton - Bradenton Herald NewsReader News Feeds 0 10-03-2006 01:19 PM
Changing Engine Oil Tom Wood Gear and Maintenance Articles 0 10-02-2002 08:00 PM
An Island in the Stream John Kretschmer Seamanship Articles 0 02-22-2001 07:00 PM
An Island in the Stream John Kretschmer Cruising Articles 0 02-22-2001 07:00 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:00 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.