Do you think Gov. should ban wood stoves?

[Jordan Selsor]

Its getting hard to stay positive with all the shit like this that goes on.....its insane how much intrusion the gubbermint has on ordinary citizens lives. Sometimes i just want to retreat into the woods and be done with it all.

X2 Phil. Life really wasn't meant to be this complicated! the simple life sounds better all the time

 

[Jordan Selsor]

This sounds like Gov subsidized utility company playing dirty politics

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Foggy - Wood smoke carcinogens....... Looks like any of us that eat bacon, ham, jerky, some types of sausage, hot dogs, summer stick bologna, are EATING those wood smoke carcinogens !!!!! Me - I take every new report of something that causes cancer with a grain of salt. The only way to have zero risk of cancer is being dead. If given the choice between smelling car exhaust, cigarette smoke, cigar smoke, rotten-egg sulfurous coal emissions or wood smoke - I'll take the wood smoke every time. And I'm NOT being argumentative - just looking at the whole picture !!:)

NH Mtns. -
As a worker in the electrical industry for 34 yrs. and a dialed-in observer of politics, the nationwide push to de-regulate the electrical utilities started in the 90's. This will no doubt wrinkle some noses on here, but facts are facts. The push was led by Republican governors around the country with the promise that de-regulating the utilities would lead to more competition and lower rates. My own governor who signed the bill in Pa. to de-regulate was Tom Ridge ( R ). Rates have sky-rocketed since. Part of the regulations that were eliminated were rate caps that kept the avg. citizen paying reasonable rates. When Pa. was about to go de-regulated, there was an article printed in a number of Pa. newspapers from some Maryland or Va. people that said ( almost word-for-word ) " watch out Pa. rate-payers, look for your electric rates to go up by about 70%. It happened here when we de-regulated. " They were right. Rates continue to go up. ( guess who pushed & lobbied for rate caps to come off?? )

Do any of us REALLY think that a big nationwide industry like all the electric utilities doesn't strategize in " industry association " groups and meetings?? Do we really think they're looking out for US - or themselves?? If rate caps came off.... who benefits?? Where are all the lower rates that were PROMISED?? To finish the Pa. story, after he signed the bill which was pushed thru by Republicans in the state house, Gov. Ridge went to a town meeting / news conference of some sort in Lancaster County, Pa. - A strongly Republican county. The people there were fuming that their rates were going up by a good % and they asked him why he signed the bill into law ( they had supported him big-time ). His answer was this : " Pennsylvania has long had low electric rates and they should be raised. " He got booed and barked at. They realized they were HAD. I heard him say it with my own ears - I listened to the news conference and it was re-played many times on T.V. stations and radio as well. Guess what industry pumped a huge amount of $$$ into his campaign??? Look at your own state and see who signed your de-regulation into law. It's a matter of public record. States all over the country that de-regulated are now paying much higher rates. To show how people don't pay attention to politics, a member of my camp ( a hard-line Republican ) blamed the fiasco on the next governor in Pa. - Ed Rendell - a Democrat. ( not sinless either ) His accusation was done at a camp meeting and was done loudly. I quietly told him he ought to look into who actually promoted it and signed it into law. At the NEXT camp meeting, I asked him if he found out who signed the bill and he sheepishly said that it was Tom Ridge.

Personally - NH Mtns - I'm sick of both parties telling us they're looking out for us " Joe avg. citizens ". They both look out for the big money. They'll say ANYTHING to get our vote and then........ the legislation they write is geared to the BIG CONTIBUTORS. Not the avg. citizen. So it comes as no surprise to me that we got boned again when it comes to higher electrical rates.

 

[Jim Timber]

Electric companies are for-profit, just like the gas, and oil companies. No shocker that they want to charge what the market will bear. We have monopolies in our infrastructure which causes this issue. It's not republican/democrat, it's rich vs not rich enough to pose a threat to "rich" - the wealthy make up both sides of our two party political divide. They play the game to line their pockets the quickest, it's not about us little people.

Wood heat isn't taxable. You can't skim $x.xx a cord burned like you can with regulated utilities, because there's no way to know how much wood someone's collecting/using. That's why they want to ban this stuff. It has nothing to do with health or nuisance. Forest fires have burned more wood every year than people do, but yet we're still here and not everyone has cancer. It's a natural part of our environment and has been since the dawn of time.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I agree with you Jim. More forest fire smoke than peoples' stoves.

The political landscape is only getting worse with firebrands running their mouths to get everybody stirred up. I've lived long enough and am capable of critical / logical thinking so as to be able to conclude one thing..... the " little guy " - R, D, I, GP, L - always gets the short end of the stick. And the more that the loud-mouths can cause division among the avg. guys, the majority of us ( who are more similar regardless of pol. party than the firebrands will ever admit ) will continue to get shafted by those who CLAIM to represent us.

When you said ".... it's not about us little people " - that's exactly my point. I have no illusions as to their motives for shoveling money into political campaigns - they want to get EVEN MORE IN RETURN. The vast majority of citizens are NOT rich, yet the politicians - who are supposed to represent us ( a representative form of government ? ) write legislation that favor the rich - who comprise the smallest % of the population. Money may not be able to buy you love, but it can sure buy you a government that'll cater to you.

Whose interest is better served by paying higher & higher electric rates?? The avg. citizen ( the largest % of the population ) ...... or the BIG utilities ??? So what has deregulation done for YOU ????

 

[Jim Timber]

Deregulation should be more providers in the market which means more options for the consumer which means more value as the competition tends to make prices fall.

What we've got instead is deregulation on fixed pricing (limits on what you can charge for your service) which is just big government telling private industry what they can and cannot do (like socialism or fascism). They won't allow more power plants to be built either - so we're kinda effed.

 

[Jim Timber]

I'm a capitalist. I don't want anyone telling me what I can charge for my wares, and I don't think I should be able to tell anyone else what they can charge for theirs. If you don't want to pay the price, fine! Don't buy the product. But don't tell me I need to charge less because you having to pay more is somehow unfair enough as to be made illegal.

 

[foggy]

EVERYTHING is not a political conspiracy fellahs.

 

[Freeborn]

The electric utility industry is very much regulated. Every rate hike requires approval by a governing board. Electrical costs are going up because of the requirement of green energy. Each utility is required by law to purchase electrical energy from any provider who generates green energy no matter how small they are. Do you know how expensive the infrastructure is for handling this nonsense? The difficulty with green energy like wind is you can't count it in your base energy demand as it isn't always available that means you still have to have sufficient base production from typically coal or natural gas energy producers. Basically all those windmills you see can't be counted in base production so you are duplicating production and costs. Each one of those windmills is incremental costs.

The demand for green energy is coming from the people who unknowingly have no idea if it’s necessary or not. Most people only know what they here and they are bombarded by climate change so when surveyed they think they need green energy.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

NH - No, 50% is not normal.
Jim Timber - Once de-regulation hit here, we got bombarded with all kinds of offers from various utilities. So the " competition " made it's appearance. But the rates were only a few cents apart and the cumulative savings were negligible. Over all, the rates across the country have gone up to such a large degree so quickly ( while line / trouble crews have been eliminated - so storm outages are longer with less crews ) that the effects of competition have been negated. If rates go up 50 - 70% but " competition " saves us 1-2% , what is the net effect on rates? ( I have several relatives and a close friend that work on utility line crews, so I KNOW the story on line service to customers. ) 2 of the utilities that are in Pa. have cut the number of trucks / trouble crews in half. Higher rates, less storm / service crews, longer waits to get power back on ( all around the country )...........

The overwhelming majority of the science community around the world recognizes global warming as fact. Anyone with a college background with statistics knows you look for trends. When we have a winter like last year, folks poo-poo the global warming idea, but they neglect the longer term TREND - and the increased RATE of the upward trend of global temperatures. Windmills and solar arrays are GOOD things, but as pointed out above, are not the whole answer. Wind is certainly not guaranteed. But doesn't it make sense to cut sources of pollution wherever we can?? We only have one planet. Do we want to risk the futures of our kids, grandkids, etc. because we chose to stick our heads in the sand and ignore science?? If science is all B.S. - then we should also ignore any medical breakthroughs, cures, treatments, as " crank science ".

For some of you ......... I guess just smile and say " thank-you " when you get your higher & higher bills combined with poorer service.

 

[Freeborn]

The overwhelming majority of the science community around the world recognizes global warming as fact. Anyone with a college background with statistics knows you look for trends. When we have a winter like last year, folks poo-poo the global warming idea, but they neglect the longer term TREND - and the increased RATE of the upward trend of global temperatures. Windmills and solar arrays are GOOD things, but as pointed out above, are not the whole answer. Wind is certainly not guaranteed. But doesn't it make sense to cut sources of pollution wherever we can?? We only have one planet. Do we want to risk the futures of our kids, grandkids, etc. because we chose to stick our heads in the sand and ignore science?? If science is all B.S. - then we should also ignore any medical breakthroughs, cures, treatments, as " crank science ".QUOTE]

Agree Climate Change is occurring but I might disagree at the rate of change and the correct answers on how to resolve it.

I have a childhood friend who I see regularly that is CEO of a large regional Coop in Wisconsin. He goes to Washington and meets with representative regularly regarding energy costs. The representatives listen to him and how it is affecting the people and then vote the party line. The COOP model which most rural energy Cooperatives were developed are chartered for the purpose of bringing low cost energy to the people. Higher energy costs are in conflict with coop purpose and not accepted easily. We have had many discussions about his accounts receivable and how they have changed as energy costs and the economy has struggled. Grandparents are having to pay energy bills so power is not turned off for their children and grandchildren. Sad state of affairs and very hard on low income people. My friend is very close to electrical energy industry and he forecasted the increase in energy costs many years ago. He puts the blame on the environmental movement.

This is my friends words not mine, he calls the environmental movement the new religion, not totally based on science but people are so convinced of it they have blind faith in whatever the environmental leaders say.

Green energy, what do the linemen in your family say about the lost energy in transmitting green energy? Building windmills far from where the energy is consumed therefore transmitting it many miles to consumers and increasing rates to cover costs. Why not have green energy at the point of consumption (small windmill on every house and/or solar panels)? Think of the cost of the infrastructure to build all of those windmills and huge power lines which would not be needed if the green energy was at point of consumption. Probably won't happen as it would be very hard to get consumers to buy their own equipment as consumers would see the cost and instead is easier to bury the costs in rates.

Here is my opinion, higher rates, doubtful it is all going to energy companies bottom line as their rates of returned have not changed over the past 10 years. Linemen losing jobs so management can make more money, most definitely. Cost of energy going up over the nation, its green energy costs driven by the environmental movement.

 

[sandbur]

This week, MPR had some comments about a study of snow in North Dakota. It now has more black particles in it and they feel global warming might result from the snow melting faster with the black materials in the snow.

They hinted at this being more of a factor than the carbon dioxide in some areas.

I still don't think wood stoves should be banned in rural areas.

 

[foggy]

This week, MPR had some comments about a study of snow in North Dakota. It now has more black particles in it and they feel global warming might result from the snow melting faster with the black materials in the snow.

They hinted at this being more of a factor than the carbon dioxide in some areas.

I still don't think wood stoves should be banned in rural areas.

Yep......and as a kid, I learnt to not eat the yellow snow. ;)

 

[sandbur]

Yep......and as a kid, I learnt to not eat the yellow snow. ;)

How long did it take you to catch on?

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Green energy sourced near the point of consumption would be the ideal, I suppose. There is an older woman located near me that had a big 2-page article written about her and her " zero cost " farm. She has a windmill and some solar arrays and it takes care of her farm needs and she can also sell her surplus power back to the grid. She gets checks from the utility co. a good bit of the time. Hard to argue with that. Like you said, for most folks the up-front costs are going to be prohibitive for installing a windmill or solar arrays - at least on an individual basis.

As far as building long transmission lines to take power from source to consumers, there is a difference from roadside and neighborhood power lines. Long-distance transmission lines are basically one-time builds. They have no trees and other obstructions to fall on them as they are on WIDE R.O.W.s. They rarely need any work done to them once built. Local power lines need work done ALL the time. Snow, ice, wind storms bring down limbs on them , car accidents, construction accidents, squirrels and birds cause frequent problems at local pole-mounted transformers and capacitor banks. The line crews also build new lines into any new businesses or up-size for additional capacity. That's where the bulk of the line work is done. With reduced crews / trucks, longer waits for any of the above is inevitable.

One other thought - If windmills or solar arrays are on-line, they don't require " feeding " by some type of fuel. Besides reducing pollution, wouldn't the cost to the utility be cheap in comparison to fueling by coal or oil or gas? I think most sane people know you can't fully depend on wind or solar for total power supply. But isn't the move to " greener ", less costly, less polluting methods a good thing?? Once the cost of building those sources is paid for, shouldn't the savings be passed down to consumers with lower rates?? Oil, gas, coal costs are sure to rise, but does the wind or sun charge any more ??

 

[Freeborn]

For everyone, google how many windmills are required to replace one power plant and you will see the economics are not there. If you think your energy costs have gone up allot to date its nothing compared to what could happen in the future. I have seen some large wind farms but they produce little energy. Bottom line is wind mills only produce energy 25% of the time.

But isn't the move to " greener ", less costly, less polluting methods a good thing?? Once the cost of building those sources is paid for, shouldn't the savings be passed down to consumers with lower rates?? Oil, gas, coal costs are sure to rise, but does the wind or sun charge any more ??

In regards to costs, absolutely not. The amount of capital required to build enough green energy production would be cost preventative. Unfortunately we don't have the technology to produce the energy required by society with green energy. We need a technology breakthrough and I would think that would come from solar or bio and not wind. The energy I think they should promote now is ground water heat pumps as they are proven, very efficient and can greatly reduce our electricity demands.

By the way, sorry for taking this thread off target. I'm OK with wood stoves.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I answered NH Mtns. as to the rise in electric rates. So I guess I swerved off the topic.

For the record, the most efficient Bang-for-your-buck source is nuclear, if counting a power source that requires fuel. And it's the greenest as far as pollution. I worked on several of them.

 

[Jim Timber]

Global warming, uh, climate change is a horseschit attempt at making weather prediction "fact." There's no science behind it what so ever!

IF the world is 4.5 billion years old (a number someone pulled out of their ass at some point and then tried laying out how to make other wild assumptions fit to that timeline), and we've had recorded history for about 7,000 years - we have a statistical sample substantially under .001% of time. So even if you saw a 10 degree anual increase in global surface temps, the ocean, or whatever for the entirety of that 7,000 years - it's still not a statistical probability in the grand scheme of the history of the earth if you subscribe to the 4.5 billion year age number.

Since we've been recording temperature for the past 200 years or so, we have so small a data set as to not even bother computing any trends. Weather forecasts are computerized models of all the data we've been able to collect, and use extensive computations to guess what's likely to happen based on previous instances when the same conditions occurred in the past, and they're still only batting 500!

We're along for the ride guys - some people are too arrogant to acknowledge we can't have any impact on our weather. Stop trying and find something useful to worry about.

 

[Jim Timber]

The overwhelming majority of the science community around the world recognizes global warming as fact. Anyone with a college background with statistics knows you look for trends. When we have a winter like last year, folks poo-poo the global warming idea, but they neglect the longer term TREND - and the increased RATE of the upward trend of global temperatures. Windmills and solar arrays are GOOD things, but as pointed out above, are not the whole answer. Wind is certainly not guaranteed. But doesn't it make sense to cut sources of pollution wherever we can?? We only have one planet. Do we want to risk the futures of our kids, grandkids, etc. because we chose to stick our heads in the sand and ignore science?? If science is all B.S. - then we should also ignore any medical breakthroughs, cures, treatments, as " crank science ".

For some of you ......... I guess just smile and say " thank-you " when you get your higher & higher bills combined with poorer service.

Sounds like you lack critical thinking abilities. On the one hand you panic about something which cannot be proven, and then you claim we should throw out real science which has been repeatable and observed (the foundation of what must occur for a "law" or "fact" to stand apart from a "theory").

So, since you seem to subscribe to the evolution side of things - we as people (and every other critter on Earth) just need to evolve to the new climate which is changing. It would be amoral of you to try to prevent that, as evolution is how we got to where we are now, and certainly you must acknowledge the ice ages and any other global catastrophe as "due course" in our evolution journey. The dinosaurs couldn't hack it - they went extinct. If people can't hack it, we also should go extinct too. Right? That's evolution for ya.

Creationism isn't what I'm preaching here either. I'm telling you to take a critical look at the theory you've bet on. It's bunk and it violates several "laws" of our current known world. Since it's the only counter-offering to a faith based explanation of how we got here, it remains in our education systems, but the hard truth is that it's a terrible theory which can't sustain criticism and really should've died with Darwin.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Hey Jim, calm down buddy! I'm not panicking over ANYTHING! I'm not panicking about global warming at all. It just seems that taking some prudent steps to cut down fossil fuel use and finding some alternative sources of energy is a good thing. High-tech jobs can come along with those steps too - engineering and skilled trades type jobs. And manufacturing of the needed equipment. And I never suggested going to ALL windmills either. They're only an additional source of alternative power. Working as an electrician in a construction and industrial environment for 34 years, I certainly realize that one or two windmills won't replace a power plant - and I never suggested that.

Would you be in favor of removing all restrictions on any industry to allow pollution of air, water, soil so industries don't have to spend any money on keeping waste products and by-products to a safe level? Just asking. From your comments, it seems like the effects of various types of pollutants are hokey and overblown to you. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious how you see it. All's good on this end!

My train of thought on this didn't have evolution or creationism in it.