Limb burner, greenhouse heater?

I think it's too bad that the environmentalism has been completely co-opted by "global warming". Which is abstract and debatable. The fact that we are trashing the planet and making it less hospitable for us to live is not debatable. Desertification, water contamination, mass extinctions, air.... Putting everything under"climate change" is a little lazy. But that rocket stove is sweet!
 
Boreality:
In the video you are looking at a mass rocket stove. Very efficient and produces almost no smoke or creosote because it reignites the smoke in the burn chamber. Many people are now making smaller versions for in home use as well. I have seen some with copper pipes inside the stone to create water heaters. Uses half if not 3/4 of the wood you would normally burn in a conventional wood stove. The only problem is homeowners insurance or anyone else will allow them inside the home. I can't make sense of it other than again money hungry energy companies own and run most of the world. If we cut our electric bills in half by a clean running efficient rocket stove then they lose big money!
 
jmckee,

I don't think there's a conspiracy between insurance and utility companies about wood burners.

The issue is based on actuarial formulas just like any risk management issue. Using a factory built furnace with an approved installation reduces their risk. Having a backyard builder make up a woodburner has too many variables.

Of course, this doesn't make sense. I've talked with, and read comments, by HVAC pros who have found dangerous furnaces that they couldn't condemn and force the homeowner to replace. Rusted out plenums, cracks in the fire chambers...all deadly. But...no way to shut them down.

This is a lot like the situation arbos find themselves when looking at hazard trees.

The rocket stove configuration sure is a good one!

I've seen them made using mini beer kegs all the way up to 24" fireboxes. If I were going to use the design I'd look hard at an outdoor burner using a low pressure water jacket/heat exchanger.

here's a site that I found yesterday:

Permies

Many years ago Mother Earth News had an article about all of the energy sources used for home heating. They did a cradle to grave comparison of the energy put in to create energy and the pollution created along the way. Wood burning was dirty at the end, when it was burned, but pretty clean all along the way. Nuclear was clean if you only considered the electricity created. But, from mining to waste disposal made it the worst.

In the end...conservation...is the answer. Turn down the heat a little and insulate.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I can't make sense of it other than again money hungry energy companies own and run most of the world. If we cut our electric bills in half by a clean running efficient rocket stove then they lose big money!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all about the money.

Did you know that Al Gore is worth $300 million?!

tongue.gif


Then again, I guess it's ok to be a go-zillionaire, all in the name of global warming. Even if it does mean selling out your tv network to a fossil fuel villain.
 
The absolutely unquestionably MOST dangerous environmental issue is NUCLEAR.. Fukisahima is still dumping 20,000+ gallons of rasiocative water into the sea daily.. If building 4 collapses, its game over in the northern hemisphere. As it is, its possible that all marine mamals are going to go extinct...

ANd that was just from one little tsunami... hwat happens when the next super volcano blows or major asteroid hits, or even the kind of economic collapse that would preclude upkeep at nuclear facilities...

Humanity will survive climate change... could get ugly, and some of our children will make it. NOT SO with Nuclear...

We're putting our entire species and many others "ALL IN" for what???? so some industrialists can rake in the profits???
 
I haven't see a decent greenhouse design in the couple of dozen rocket stove videos I've looked at. In one they were burying metal stove pipe underneath a raised bed for growing in the greenhouse. One, the soil temp would have been to high for the root systems. Two, the stove pipe is going to last about a year under wet soil especially considering the salts from either organic or chemical fertilizers. Three, I didn't see any clean outs.

The claims of using a lot less wood are unconfirmed. There are woodstoves that are pushing 80% efficiencies. No way a rocket stove is going to cut wood use much in that case.

I still like the idea though but would like to see a few installs in houses that didn't have dirt floors.
 
It looks like they usually build a clay bed. Could have a vapour barrier for the pipe and it can have cleanouts. They probably never could meet a fire inspection so they're cheap heat for outbuildings.
 
What I want is a wood chip pyrolyzer. Heat the chips to about 900f and extract all the volatiles which can be used for heat or electricity and leave up to 80% of the carbon sequestered as char which can then be added to soil for greatly increased fertility. Google "Biochar". Seems like the way to go to me, just got to figure out how to do it at a home level.
 
burning wood is not the best idea, but hear me out, this is kinda my business. when you burn wood you end up loosing lots of energy and creating emissions that are worse than they could be. there are better ways to get more usable energy out, with less emissions, and byproducts that are more valuable. Burning wood works now because emissions are not that big of a deal here and we all have way too much wood laying around, so we are not really worried about efficiency. imagine if everyone started burning wood, the air quality would be terrible. it would take us back to a really bad time in history but there would be way more people burning so it would be way worse.

biochar is ok, but you have to add nutrients back into it. as PCtree (sorry I have no idea who's handles match who) stated you end up with two things syn Gas, basically everything that is volital and can be cooked off, and a matrix of carbon and anything that cannot be cooked off. the syn gas will happily run a gasoline engine with very little to no modifications. problem is it is mostly hydrogen, CO and CO2. so what could have been taken as methane was left in place as a carbon matrix. now this is really cool because what you did was take off the Hydrogen, which you "burn" and end up with water. the co2 flies though the system unscathed and the CO gets oxidized to CO2 and helps with the energy side. this can be a really good thing, if done properly. now what you can do is take the char which is a matrix of carbon, wrong bond angles to be a diamond or graphite, but more like a very porous sponge. and adding nutrient, it will suck it right up. this can then be used as a time release substrate under lawns and around trees.
it breaks down really slow and can easily be "recharged" . if does not break down easily because there are very few things that can eat pure carbon…

done right biochar is a really good thing for us, done wrong it can give off some nasty stuff. most back yard operations are usually the latter. they claim to be environmentally friendly but truth is, they are making a mess.

but anytime a bond is broken energy is released, leaving huge blocks of carbon bound is leaving lots of energy.

so if your goal is only energy, this is not what you want. but if you can market the char and see syn gas as a side bonus, you may be able to make something of it. but you will be disappointed with the amount of heat you are actually able to take from the system. many people use the syn gas to fire the thing, and the only product they end up with at the end is char.

cool systems though. its need to see a car run on wood, and its pretty easy to do.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you all know al gore is worth 300 million? Just heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Walmart is a person and the NFL is a non profit. Welcome to our "Corporacracy"

[/ QUOTE ]


That was clever.
Not really, though.
 
So Treehive, what would you do on a one home system with wood chips?? I was kind of excited about the char in itself but the added benefit of energy is the selling point. Im not political in any way and any of my opinions are just "gut feelings" so ignore at will. I feel that in the US in the forceable future things are going to get "tight" having a source of energy and the ability to amend soil to grow food might be very attractive soon.
 
It's my understanding trees are carbon neutral. Wether they are burned or decay they give off roughly what they have stored. If a hot burn can be stored in thermal mass and assisted by passive solar (walipini) it creates lots of options least of which is winter gardening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom