[KaiserJeep]

Another case where the actual power plant engineers know more about what is going on than do the "greenies". I know from reading comments in my IEEE pubs that wood and biomass were dirtier than coal, I was able to easily confirm this.

The advantages of wood:

1) Although both coal and wood are renewable, wood renews in a much faster cycle (decades) while coal takes millions of years to fossilize. Still, the peat being deposited in our wetlands will one day become coal, unless it is dug up and dried and burned as biomass.

The disadvantages of wood:

1) Wood is much dirtier than coal. http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PFPI-Biomass-is-the-New-Coal-April-2-2014.pdf

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')omparison of permits from modern coal, biomass, and gas plants shows that a even the “cleanest” biomass plants can emit > 150% the nitrogen oxides, > 600% the volatile organic compounds, > 190% the particulate matter, and > 125% the carbon monoxide of a coal plant per megawatt-hour, although coal produces more sulfur dioxide (SO2). Emissions from a biomass plant exceed those from a natural gas plant by more than 800% for every major pollutant.

[DesuMaiden]

I would still prefer a wood-based economy than a coal-based economy. Wood is renewable. Coal is not.

[KaiserJeep]

I understand that. But what you are saying is that you prefer the absolute dirtiest alternative.

I lived and worked on my Grandfather's farm as a kid. His cooking and heating fuel was wood and his light was kerosene up until the early 1960's.

Wood is labor intensive to cut, carry, split, season, carry, and burn. Then the wood ashes are toxic waste, water running through wood ash produces lye, which my grandmother used to make a harsh soap that would take your skin off. Meanwhile burning wood produces soot, smoke, and the ever present danger of a chimney fire, which is increased by using a more efficient stove that cools the effluents. They had a Summer kitchen under a seperate roof, because you don't want to burn wood to cook in 90+ degree weather and Summer humidity.

You cannot have a "wood-based economy" either. It was possible in the 1700's and earlier, but you cannot have metals, plastics, electronics, medicine, or mechanized agriculture with wood. You can't have an Amish lifestyle either - even simple blacksmithing with charcoal can only shape iron made by coal and coke.

With wood, you can have a stone age economy, and a hunter-gatherer existence.

I sense that you are thinking of the post-oil World. The problem is that those 7.3 Billion humans are already here. In their struggle to survive, they complete the destruction of the eco-system, and humanity dies. The youngest, fittest, healthiest, and meanest survive - by eating everybody else. It happened throughout Europe in the Dark Ages, and it happens every time the glaciers cover the globe. During the last Glacial Age, your species the Cro-Magnons ate the Neanderthals into extinction.

There is no human survival on Earth, is my belief. Once those roving bands of cannibals from the cities discover your little doomstead, they eat you, your family, your pets, your supplies, and your Permaculture plot, then burn the remains - leaving scorched earth and ashes.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')
There is no human survival on Earth, is my belief. Once those roving bands of cannibals from the cities discover your little doomstead, they eat you, your family, your pets, your supplies, and your Permaculture plot, then burn the remains - leaving scorched earth and ashes.

[basil_hayden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesuMaiden', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('basil_hayden', 'N')ate Hagens pointed out (on the oil drum I believe) that our forests would last about 6 months if the population began burning wood for heat to replace fossil fuels including coal.

My state was almost completely clear cut until about 100 years ago, it's grown back quite a bit since, along with all the prey and predators.
That's the main advantage of coal - it lets most of your ecology live on. If you like trees, then you're a fan of fossil fuels, because without it there'd be none these days.

Desu - why do you keep dancing around the heart of the matter? There's too many people, not enough resources, and the resources we have are being used less and less diversely, leading to an anticipated bottleneck or at a minimum some severe upward pricing pressure. It's easy to see the train coming down the tracks, but we're not sure when it arrives.

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '-')snip-
I don't see it that way. In any conflict other then nuclear war one side has survivors. Your roving band will come from the city where they have had no real practice with guns and will come up against doomers that are waiting for them with the guns they have practiced with extensively. They will become compost in the pile while any useful thing they brought with them will now belong to the doomer that shot them.

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesuMaiden', 'I') would still prefer a wood-based economy than a coal-based economy. Wood is renewable. Coal is not.

[Smurfs1976]

I tried burning coal (brown coal briquettes) in the wood heater once.

I will never, ever do that again. Truly horrible stuff in every way. A ridiculous amount of ash produced when compared to wood and it absolutely stinks outside.

I know that it's possible to burn coal cleanly. But personally I'll stick to wood since I clearly don't have the right equipment to make good use of coal.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Smurfs1976', 'I') tried burning coal (brown coal briquettes) in the wood heater once.

I will never, ever do that again. Truly horrible stuff in every way. A ridiculous amount of ash produced when compared to wood and it absolutely stinks outside.

I know that it's possible to burn coal cleanly. But personally I'll stick to wood since I clearly don't have the right equipment to make good use of coal.