Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SkiingAway t1_iuix3ob wrote

Reply to comment by ClarkFable in New England Utility Urges Biden to Declare Emergency to Avoid Fuel Shortage by Nobiting

It's not something the public can do a great deal to conserve, especially at this point where heating demand is currently low.

It's not a gasoline issue, it's a diesel/heating oil issue.

New England has little natural gas storage, so conserving natural gas/electricity right now will accomplish little, the resource can't be stockpiled here.

The complicated answer is that it would probably be helpful to:

  • Set your heat low if you use heating oil.

  • If you don't use heating oil, the only time you can do anything significantly useful is during the deepest cold snaps in the winter. That's when natural gas demand exceeds pipeline capacity and we start needing LNG imports or burning oil to meet electrical demand. Then it would be helpful to cut your electricity demand + set back your heat if you use natural gas or electric for it.

If you figure that requests to conserve are more impactful the first few times around rather than when you've been hearing it for months, it probably makes sense to wait to ask that of the public until we're closer to the moments where that could actually help.

21

TituspulloXIII t1_iuj0w3q wrote

It's pretty much too late now, but anyone in New England that is more of the rural/suburban end of housing could have installed a wood stove/pellet stove.

Given, I think a lot of people are doing that as stove installers are definitely having a problem keeping up with demand.

And anecdotally I'm having a hard time finding free wood compared to what I've been able to get in recent years

2

ChudGuitar t1_iuj5oke wrote

From a pollution perspective, burning wood and wood pellets is pretty horrific. We're better off burning clean coal as at least we get more bang for our buck when it comes to air pollution. Building a more logical energy grid and pushing for better insulation etc. are better options.

10

50calPeephole t1_iujeo3p wrote

I've heard MA is eyeballing a carbon tax for pellet stoves to discourage this sort of thing too.

4

TituspulloXIII t1_iuj79ef wrote

It's not going to work out for Boston, but for people in Western Mass/ Norther CT/New Hampshire/Vermont/Maine to say it's horrific and clean coal would be better seems a bit ridiculous.

If you get a modern EPA certified stove the air pollution is not that bad. The pollution is less than 2 grams an hour.

2

ChudGuitar t1_iujeoss wrote

"Burning wood pellets releases as much or even more carbon dioxide per unit of energy as burning coal"

https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

"Among the many challenges of burning wood, there are three primary issues of concern. First, burning trees results in more carbon dioxide emission for a unit of energy output (e.g., BTUs). In fact, some smokestack emission tests show burning wood results in carbon emissions 2.5 times higher than natural gas and 30 percent higher than coal. Second, harvesting trees for fuel leads to more carbon release than if they remained in the forests to grow or, if they are dead, recycle carbon into the soil. Thirdly, there is a question of delay relating to the time-lag as new trees take time to establish and grow large enough to capture the capacity lost through harvesting. If you invest some time reading and learning more about burning wood, this is only the beginning of concerns; others relate to the reflective capacity of black carbon and other harmful gases released in biomass combustion."

https://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/centers/private-forests/news/burning-wood-caring-for-the-earth

It's not ridiculous, it's just how it is. Using wood as a large-scale, long term replacement for heating energy across the New England region would just be worse for the environment in the long-term when compared to existing alternatives including natural gas, coal, and nuclear power.

3

TituspulloXIII t1_iuji43t wrote

Wow, I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you were talking about particulates, not CO2.

Wood, and I was originally speaking of wood stoves, (although pellets are still better than coal) is CO2 neutral. Trees grow, die, decompose, new trees grow.

Where fossil fuels are carbon emitters, so sure if you only measure the burn, and ignore everything in the supply chain, wood is worse, but you have to ignore everything prior it getting to your house.

It won't be large scale, as people in dense suburbs and cities won't be burning wood, but rural people and less dense suburbs can be part of the solution.

Anybody that lives "in the woods" on about 1.5 acres or more will likely have enough dead trees to heat thier house for years.

That and power companies and other home owners take down dead/dying trees and either leave it to rot or someone can go grab it for free.

5