| bbechtel16@gmail.com 2008-01-30, 9:25 am |
| On Jan 29, 10:56 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:[color=darkred]
> On Jan 29, 9:20 am, jim <rob...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ote:[color=darkred]
>
>
s water[color=darkred]
ouse to[color=darkred]
>
ar to[color=darkred]
>
it to[color=darkred]
>
so[color=darkred]
e house until[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
>
e. Our[color=darkred]
wood[color=darkred]
It's[color=darkred]
ets me[color=darkred]
oor I[color=darkred]
upply[color=darkred]
ed text -[color=darkred]
>
>
>
ry[color=darkred]
>
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
w[color=darkred]
>
[color=darkred]
>
[color=darkred]
>
>
> No, If you enjoy it and get other benefits from it, of course you
> should keep doing it. I stated that in my post. My point is some
> people don't enjoy cutting, splitting, and hauling wood. And in that
> case, I agree with hallerb, that if they looked at the labor spent
> doing it, it can be more effective to just work some extra hours
> somewhere at a paying job.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CO2 isn't the only issue or even the main one. The typical woodstove
> emits a lot more HC, CO, other noxious gases and particulates than a
> natural gas or oil fired furnace. And a lot of it depends on what
> kind of wood is burned, how well the fire is managed, which are not
> issues with gas or oil. There are towns with people living in close
> proximity that have had so much pollution from woodburning stoves that
> they have put restrictions on new ones.
>
> It can be swell it you enjoy doing it and if only a small percentage
> of people do it. But if any significant percentage of homes started
> doing it as their main source of heat, air quality would definitely
> suffer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
ime,[color=darkred]
>
[color=darkred]
ng[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
ch[color=darkred]
>
>
rn[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I love the smell of woodsmoke in the morning. I wish more people
burned wood. (I don't.)
|