Post #1610: For every idiot-proof system, …

 

… there’s always a bigger idiot.

The idiot-proof system in this instance is the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) in my wife’s car.  And the bigger idiot was, of course, me.

To cut to the chase:  Happy ending.  No lasting damage.  Just a cheap and timely tire repair.

But only after a couple of days of pondering why the idiot light on the dashboard had malfunctioned.  And whether or not I should just fix it 70s-style (by taping over it), or take it to the dealer.

Not for one moment did it occur to me that this car idiot light might actually be flagging a problem that needed to be fixed.

In this post, for benefit of younger readers, I’m going to explain why old people routinely ignore idiot lights.  (Hint:  It’s how we were brought up.)  Because unless you live through the nadir of U.S. auto engineering — the 1970s — you have no idea just how good modern cars are.  And just how much of a joke dashboard warning lights were, to my generation.


1970s auto engineering and the advent of idiot lights.

Source:  Vega, left:  Motor Trend Magazine.  Pinto, right:  Ford Division Public Relations, Dearborn, Mich.. Ford Pinto Runabout – 1977. [Photographic Prints]. Retrieved from https://libwww.freelibrary.org/digital/item/53235;

Look at any list of the worst cars ever sold in America, and you will find a whole lot of mainstream 1970s vehicles.   The Chevrolet Vega, where the only question was whether body rust or astoundingly excess oil consumption would kill the car first.  The Ford Pinto, under-powered and famous for exploding if rear-ended.  The Chevy Shove-It, a.k.a., Chevette, with back seats that required you to be a contortionist to access.  The AMC Gremlin, arguably the ugliest car ever sold in America.

I could go on.

The decade of the 1970s was a perfect storm of problems for the U.S. auto industry.  The first was the Arab Oil Embargo, and the resulting energy crises and shortages of gasoline.  This left car makers scrambling to produce smaller, higher-MPG vehicles.  The second was the introduction of the catalytic converter, which forced manufacturers to more-or-less completely re-engineer their engines to deal with unleaded gas and with the added complexity of the catalytic converter itself.  The third was the string of recessions (or economic malaise) that was the direct result of the oil embargoes and energy crises of the 1970s.  Which meant that in order to be sold, cars had to be built as cheaply as possible.

The result was a string of small, cheap, poorly-built cars for which every possible expense had been spared.

And one of the expenses that was cut was the cost of dashboard gauges.

Historically, in addition to a speedometer and gas gauge, cars had gauges for oil pressure, engine water temperature, battery charge or ammeter, and so on.  You had gauges for items that were critical to the operation of the engine.  You could look at the gauges and check the health of the engine.  And if (e.g.) the coolant temperature was climbing, you had advance warning before the engine actually overheated.

The 1970s was the generation of cars in which those expensive gauges were replaced wholesale with cheap warning lights.  So now, instead of getting information on (say) engine coolant temperature, when the engine overheated, a red light would come up on the dash.  And tell you that your engine had overheated.

These were universally termed “idiot lights”, but there is some controversy over the exact derivation of that term.

The story I learned is that the idiot in question was the typical driver.  People were incapable of (or unwilling to) pay attention to standard gauges.  And so, warning lights were introduced because, unlike gauges, they were harder to ignore.  In effect, the data provided by an oil pressure gauge was replaced with a much simpler message, “hey, idiot, you’re out of oil”.  In other words, the lights were introduced because people were too stupid to pay attention to gauges.

In theory, idiot lights would illuminate when there was a serious problem.

In practice, idiot lights would come on for no reason at all.  And they were impossible for the average driver to turn off.  In all the years that I and my friends drove those cars, I never heard of an idiot light actually coming on at the right time and preventing damage to the vehicle.

Instead, it was common knowledge that when your idiot light came up, that signaled that the idiot light was broken.  (Or, on rare occasions, it actually functioned correctly and told you that you had just damaged your engine beyond repair.)

And literally the only fix for a broken idiot light, available to the average U.S. driver, was to block the idiot light so that you couldn’t see it.  Black electrician’s tape being the product of choice for that purpose.  But Magic Marker or Sharpie would do for an ultra-low-effort fix.

You had an entire generation of Americans, driving crappy little cars, with little pieces of tape covering the universally-useless dashboard idiot lights.   I couldn’t make stuff like that up.

And for that generation, the absolute and immediate gut reaction to any idiot light on the dash is, oh, the idiot light must be broken.  Because that’s literally all we ever saw in our youth.  Only after considerable reflection might it occur to one of us that maybe the idiot light is signalling a problem.


Fast-forward to the modern check engine light.

Unless you lived through that era, you just can’t appreciate how much better cars are now.  Materials, rustproofing, engine life, gas mileage, safety, convenience, reliability.  All of that is vastly better now than in the 1970s.

In particular, the US EPA-mandated On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) system really changed the game for car maintenance, including idiot lights.  That was introduced in the late 1980s in California, and the modern (OBD-II) system was mandated for all U.S. vehicles starting in 1996.

That’s had two implications.

First, if you want old-style gauges, instead of simple idiot lights, you can easily add them via devices that plug into your car’s OBD-II port.  For years, I drove with a ScanGauge plugged in, so that I could see things like engine temperature, engine load, and instantaneous gas mileage.

Second, in general, idiot lights are mostly reliable now.  If your check engine light comes on, that pretty much guarantees that something is actually wrong with your engine.  And not with your idiot light.  Sure, sensors can fail, and so on.  But I’d say that on the typical modern car, when an idiot light comes on, the odds are overwhelming that it’s flagging a true problem with the car.

But the tire pressure monitoring system light is an exception.  In some (but not all, see below) cars, those monitoring devices are battery powered, and sit inside the tires.  As cars age, the batteries die, turning on the TPMS warning light.  Replacing them required dismounting the tire from the rim.  So a lot of people end up simply ignoring the TPMS light, and instead check their tire pressure manually from time to time.

As a result, the TPMS indicator is the last of a proud tradition in U.S. auto engineering.  It’s an idiot light that typically tells you that the idiot light is broken.  That’s going to be true mostly on older cars, where it’s just not worth the expense of replacing the worn-out tire pressure sensors.

But on a new car, you can’t blithely dismiss the TPMS idiot light.  Eventually, this dawned on me, I checked the tire pressures, and sure enough, I had picked up a nail in one tire, leading to a slow leak.  And then to a quick and cheap repair at my local tire shop.


TPMS:  You still have to check your tire pressure. 

Just to up the intellectual content here, note that TPMSs work in various ways.

One system is an “indirect” TPMS.  It uses the car’s wheel speed sensors to estimate the diameter of each tire.  An under-inflated tire will have smaller diameter and so will spin slightly faster.  If the wheel speeds differ enough, that will eventually trigger the TPMS warning light.   These indirect systems have no hardware that requires periodic replacement. but they may require (e.g.) re-calibration each time you rotate, change, or inflate your tires.

The other approach is a “direct” TPMS.  These literally include battery-powered air pressure sensors in each tire.  Our car (Toyota Prius) uses direct sensors.  As with the indirect system, if the car senses low air pressure in a tire, it turns on the warning light.  For direct TPMS, you have to replace the battery-powered sensors when the batteries die.

But in either case, your tires can get pretty low before that TPMS light will turn on. 

With a direct TPMS, any tire that is more than 25% under-inflated will trigger the light.  For a typical 35 PSI passenger tire, that means you have to be under-inflated by 9 PSI or more to trigger the light.  That degree of under-inflation will cut your gas mileage and induce excess tire heating and wear.

Worse, many indirect TPMSs will not notice a problem, at all, if all the tires gradually go flat at the same rate.  If you never check your tire pressure, you can end up with four grossly under-inflated tires.  As long as they are all under-inflated by about the same amount, your TPMS light can remain dark.

The moral of the story is that the TPMS does not fully relieve you of the burden of checking the air in your tires.  Every so often, you still need to pull out a gauge and check them the old-fashioned way.


The icon-challenged generation and the snowflake trapezoid of doom.

Today, the proliferation of idiot lights, coupled with manufacturers’ unwillingness to use text labels, results in what I can only describe as icon overload.  Instead of idiot lights for a handful of key functions, with text labels like “oil”, you now have a dashboard populated with dozens of itty-bitty unlabeled icons.

As the driver, a) you have to notice when one of those little lights comes on, and b) you have to be able to interpret what the icon means.  Preferably without having to pull out the owner’s manual.

And sometimes, I have a hard time figuring out what the little icon is supposed to represent.

I am not alone in this.

One of my brothers drives a Prius.  The first year he owned it, he thought it was periodically malfunctioning.  A yellow warning light would appear on the dashboard.  The icon was an elongated trapezoid, with some sort of star-shaped symbol at one end.

But the car seemed to run fine.  So, as is typical for persons of my generation, he dealt with it by ignoring the idiot light.  He dubbed it the snowflake trapezoid of doom, and kept on driving.

Turns out, that was the Prius frost warning indicator.  It’s supposed to represent snow on a roadway, and comes on any time the outside temperatures are below 37 F.  To hear him tell it, my brother owned that car for several months before he finally figured out what that icon was supposed to represent.

And, really, I can’t blame him.  Even now, I look at the array of icons apparently standard on modern Toyotas, and some of them still leave me shaking my head.

Source:  Brent Toyota.

I’m sure those are all completely obvious to some of you, but I have a hard time even guessing what the (e.g.) car-on-a-lift one is for, or the P ! icon.  What’s the gear with an exclamation point for?  And so on.  All of these must have made sense to some Toyota engineer somewhere.  But I’d still need to consult the user’s manual to know what some of them are supposed to be telling me.

Post #1605, candles versus batteries.

 

I continued the process of Getting Rid of Stuff.

Today I started in on my lifetime accumulation of camping equipment.  I was an avid backpacker as a teenager, and continued hiking and camping well into adulthood.  The resulting equipment runs the gamut from ancient to merely old.

I stopped when I ran across a couple of packages of nine-hour candles.  These are made to be burned in a backpacker’s candle lantern.  That’s a cheesy,  lightweight, spring-loaded contraption that pushes the candle up as it burns, keeping the flame in the same place as the candle is consumed.

I couldn’t put my hands on my old candle lantern, so I looked on-line to see what was available now.  To my surprise, candle lanterns have all but disappeared from the camping/hiking market, even in stores catering to backpackers (e.g., REI, Campmor).  The sole option is one high-end candle lantern from one manufacturer — the same one who made my candles.

After about a minute of thought, it finally dawned on my why nobody uses candle lanterns any more.

Once upon a time, this was a reasonable way to have a bit of light when you were backpacking.  If your only electrical alternative was a flashlight with carbon-zinc batteries and an incandescent bulb, candles arguably provided more light per unit of weight than a standard flashlight could.

But as technology changed –– first with alkaline batteries, then with LEDs — candles became obsolete as a lightweight source of light.  A quick internet query shows that the inefficiency of candles as a light source is common knowledge in the backpacking community.

But just how obsolete are they, really?  That is, what’s the illumination-to-weight ratio for candles, compared to AA batteries running an LED flashlight?  Does electricity now have a slight edge, or is it more the case that you’d have to be an idiot to take a candle lantern backpacking these days?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Candles:  Not so great, as a source of light.

The first hurdle is getting an estimate of the light output of a nine-hour candle.  Virtually everyone assumes that, well, it’s a candle, so it must produce one candlepower.  But candles vary widely in terms of combustible material, wick size, and the resulting light output.

The original definition of one candlepower was based on a candle that burned at a rate of 7.8 grams of combustible material per hour.  (Reference).  The actual material used to define candlepower was wax from a sperm whale.  That said, it’s likely that the energy density of that animal-based hydrocarbon is similar to the energy density of modern petroleum-based hydrocarbons, including paraffin wax.

Effectively, then, one candlepower is what you’d see from a candle that burns 7.8 grams of wax per hour.  The definition changed somewhat over time, but not enough to matter for this rough calculation.

Unsurprisingly, these candles — meant to burn as slowly as possible — produce less than one candlepower.  These nine-hour candles weigh almost exactly 50 grams, meaning that they burn at a rate of just 5.6 grams per hour.   Based on the standard definition above, we’d expect these slow-burning nine-hour candles to produce (5.6  / 7.8 =) about 0.7 candlepower.

But how does that compare to the light output of a flashlight?  When applied to candles, candlepower really is a measure of total light output.  By contrast, when that term is applied to flashlights, by convention, candlepower is used to describe only the brightest part of the beam.  If you want total light output, for a flashlight, you need to get it in lumens.

And, just as a matter of faith, I see several internet sources that all derive the same conversion factor.  One candlepower = 12.57 lumens (reference).

And so, 50 gram nine-hour candles will produce a total of (0.7 candlepower x 12.57 lumens per candlepower x 9 hours) about 80 lumen-hours of light.

Coincidentally, two alkaline AA batteries or four AAA batteries weigh just about exactly the same as one nine-hour candle.  Two AAs weigh just shy of 50 grams (reference).  Or, four alkaline AAAs would weigh in at around 46 grams (reference). Close enough.

So, how many lumen-hours can I get out of two AA or four AAA alkaline cells?

West Marine advertises one nautical safety light getting 11 hours’ run time, at 25 lumens, using a single AAA cell (reference).  They advertise another with 30 hours’ run time, at 20 lumens, from two AA cells (reference).

Respectively, four of the AAA lights would provide (11 hours x 25 lumens x 4 =) 1100 lumen-hours.  One of the AAA lights would provide (20 x 30 =) 600 lumen-hours.

And I haven’t even tried to look for the most efficient flashlight available.  These are just off-the-shelf marine safety products.

In short, candles aren’t even close to competitive with flashlights these days, on an illumination-to-weight basis. An off-the-shelf LED flashlight, with standard alkaline batteries, provides roughly 10 times as much light as a candle, per unit of weight.

Sure, I’ve ignored the weight of the devices themselves, and only concentrated on the fuel (or batteries) consumed.  And, in theory, you might have to carry some dead batteries around for a while, if you were backpacking with them.  And so on.

But it’s no wonder backpacking candle lanterns have all but disappeared.  They’re a really dumb idea in the era of alkaline batteries and LEDs.


Candles:  Much better as a heater.

That said, the actual energy density of candle wax is far higher than the energy density of alkaline batteries.  In the same way that (say) ten gallons of gasoline stores vastly more energy than the equivalent weight of charged lithium batteries.  It’s really merely the case that candles are incredibly inefficient at converting that energy to light.  For that efficiency, you see estimates that are all over the map, but if I had to guess, I’d guess that vastly less than 1 percent of the energy of the burning candle is actually released as light.  The rest is released as heat.

So, as as heat source, candles stack up pretty well against any battery-powered device. But just how well?

A typical high-end AA alkaline cell holds about 4 watt-hours of energy (reference).  So two of them would be able to release about 8 watt-hours.

Candle wax contains about 46 kilojoules per gram (reference), and a watt-hour equals 3600 Joules (reference).  Together, all of that means that one 50-gram candle contains about (50 grams x 46,000 Joules/gram / 3600 Joules/watt-hour =) 640 watt-hours of energy.  Restated, one nine-hour candle contains about 80 times as much total energy as two AA alkaline cells.

This shouldn’t be a surprise.  In fact, it’s probably conservative, given that gasoline is cited as being somewhere between 50 and 100 times as energy-dense as lithium batteries, depending on the metric and the source of the comparison.

So, candles as heaters, great concept.  Candles as a light source, not so much.

Finally, we can roughly infer just how inefficient candles are at converting chemical energy into light.   A typical figure for modern LED efficiency is 30%.  That is, 30% of the electrical energy ends up as light, the rest ends up as heat.  All told, that nine-hour candle has 80 times as much energy, and produces one-tenth the light.  Which means that if an LED is 30% efficient, then a candle is about 0.04% efficient.  Which, surprisingly, is quite close to a quoted figure of 0.05% (reference). In other words, 99.9+% of the energy in the candle wax is converted to heat, not light.

That said, per unit of weight, as a heat source, candles are no better than any other hydrocarbon.  Other than an ability to burn them quite slowly, there doesn’t seem to be any advantage to using candles as a heat source rather than (e.g.) gasoline, kerosene, propane, butane, etc.


Addendum:  Can’t I just add a mantle?

Source:  Amazon

Traditional kerosene lanterns are also incredibly inefficient at converting fuel to light.

But more than a century ago, the dismal inefficiency of a traditional flat-wick kerosene lamp was improved by the addition of an incandescent mantle.  A modern kerosene lamp works not by producing light directly, but by heating the mantle until it glows.  Aladdin kerosene lamps, for example, are unpressurized kerosene lamps that use a mantle.  They produce about four times as much light as traditional flat-wick kerosene lamps, per gallon of fuel (reference).

The use of an incandescent mantle is standard for all modern lights powered by burning hydrocarbons.  Next time you see a decorative natural gas light, look closely, and you’ll see a mantle over the flame.  Burning natural gas, by itself, produces almost no light.  The light you see from a gas lamp is the light of the glowing mantle, heated by the burning natural gas.

So, why not stick a mantle in a candle lantern?  Near as I can tell, the flame from burning wax is just as hot as the flame from burning kerosene.

I’m pretty sure that the issue isn’t so much the temperature of the flame, as it is the total amount of heat produced.  Both Coleman (pressurized) and Aladdin (unpressurized) lamps burn about three ounces of fuel, per burner, per hour.  That works out to roughly 65 grams of hydrocarbons burned, per hour, or roughly 10 times the burn rate for my nine-hour candles.  Plausibly, if I put a Coleman lantern mantle over my candle, I could get a little spot to glow.  But there’s no way I’m going to get that entire mantle to glow with just the energy input of a nine-hour candle.

Addendum to addendum: Well, I couldn’t just leave it like that, so I bought a Coleman lantern mantle and tried it.  Turns out that the only part of the candle flame hot enough to make the mantle glow is a tiny bit of it, right in the heart of the flame.  With that, you can get a piece of the mantle about the size of a match head to glow. 

The upshot is that a mantle is totally impractical for a candle lantern.  You have to suspend a tiny piece of the fragile burnt mantle literally inside the candle flame.  And then, you get a modest increase in light output.  Even if you could set that up and make it work, that fragile piece of mantle would never survive even the slightest bump. 

Post #1590: 100% clean electricity from Dominion Energy? No. Renewable Energy Certificates and all that jazz.

 

I got an email from my electric company a couple of days ago.   It was an offer from Dominion Energy (née Virginia Power).  For the low, low price of just $5 per month, I can buy 100% clean electricity. 

Or something. Continue reading Post #1590: 100% clean electricity from Dominion Energy? No. Renewable Energy Certificates and all that jazz.

Post #1581: Excessively screwed.

A man with one garage knows where his tools are.  A man with two garages is never quite sure.

That’s the hardware version of Segal’s Law.

Take two garages, a basement, and a son who borrows tools at will.  Add in decades of hardware accumulation from D-I-Y home projects.  Season with a habit of leaving tools wherever I last used them.  Top off with limited storage space and an increasingly faulty memory.

The result is chaos.

These days, every significant D-I-Y project starts off with a 15 minute stream of questions.  Don’t I already own a blank?  Where the hell did I leave that blank?  Is that the blank that broke five years ago, or did I buy another blank to replace that?  Didn’t I lend that blank to somebody?  Which toolbox would I have put that blank in?

Honey, do you have any idea where I would have left my blank?

And, for those of us in the Washington DC area, the inevitable “I know I bought that blank at Hechinger’s.  It hasn’t been that long since they closed.  Has it?”  (Answer:  23 years.)

Increasingly, I’ve come up with one-size-fits-all answer to all of those pesky questions:

Just buy another one.

Even though I’m pretty sure I already own one, even though it’s inherently wasteful to run to the hardware store at the drop of a hat, arguably the biggest time-saver for the aging and disorganized D-I-Y enthusiast is just to shell out for another one of whatever you’re looking for.  Search for five minutes, and if it ain’t where you think it should be, just buy another one.  It’s quicker.


The time of reckoning, hardware version.

I turn 64 this month.  I’ve been on a rampage to reduce the amount of stuff that I own.  Call it my home-grown version of Swedish death cleaning.

It’s no great secret that once you qualify for Social Security, much of what you own can be expected to outlast you.

Some of that will be great, quality, usable, heirloom goods.  True assets.  Something that a relative or a stranger will enjoy after you’re gone.

But much of it is just crap.  If not crap to you, then crap to anyone but you.  E.g., a toilet plunger is a useful, perhaps even necessary, device.  A good one is practically indestructible.  But is somebody going to want mine after I’m gone?

Crap is not one large, amorphous category.  Household crap comes in hundreds of distinct varieties.  Absolutely the best categorization I ever saw was in the book “Clutter’s Last Stand“.  The author (Don Aslett) was the Marie Kondo of his day, and the book is well worth the read for the listing of different types of clutter alone.

Your own personal pile of crap is going to be most evident in whatever area of life you tend to go most overboard.  For some people, maybe it’s clothing.  Perhaps books, or art, or glassware.  Stamps, coins, guns, cars.  You name it.

My personal crap avatar (crapvatar?) is the coffee can of mixed fasteners.  Bolts, screws, nuts, and God only knows what else.  All the leftovers from all my D-I-Y projects, conglomerated into one great cloacal mass of hardware.  Too good to toss out.  Not worth enough to sort through.  Occasionally useful.

Unambiguously crap once I’m gone.

As part of this round of cleaning, I am consolidating all my hardware and tools, with the idea of getting rid of as much as possible.  Following the process outlined by KonMarie, I have started by gathering all I own, from all its various hiding places.  The first step to recovery is to face the full extent of your excesses, hiding nothing.

This is the point at which “just buy another one” comes back to bite me, as I discover duplicates, triplicates, and more, of pretty much any type of home hardware you can imagine.  Some of it seeing the light of day for the first time in decades.

It is appalling, but not unexpected.  Like cirrhosis for the alcoholic, or a heart attack for the obese, a lifetime of bad hardware habits is catching up with me.


But how?

I now need some strategy for disposing of this ridiculous lifelong accumulation of tools and hardware.  Everything from perfectly usable power tools down to the inevitable coffee can(s) of mixed fasteners.

Obviously, I could dumpster the lot and be done with it.  Keep back the minimal set of items I think I might need over the next few years.  Toss the rest in the garbage.  Dust my hands, and I’m done.

That’s wasteful.  Not merely from an environmental standpoint, but even more from a value standpoint.  At least some of my hardware hoard could be of utility to someone, if I could only get it into the right hands.

The goal, then is to generate as much value out of this hardware excess as I can.  Find the people who could use it, and get it into their hands.

And conversely, I need to acknowledge that large parts of it are virtually worthless, or not worth the cost of processing it.  In particular, if you look on Ebay, you do in fact see people selling what amounts to the contents of their coffee cans.  Everything from dealers in new fasteners combining odds lots from open boxes, to what appears to be literally a coffee can full of mixed steel fasteners.  And people will buy that, in large lots, for about $1 a pound.  So I guess there’s that, as a last resort.  I don’t think that’s worth the cost of shipping, really.

I’ve already had my son sell some high-quality but no-longer-needed tools on Ebay.  I don’t think I have much of anything left that is of enough value that it would pay the shipping costs to try to sell it.  Although, per the above, it’s surprising what some will pay good money for on Ebay.

As a result, I’m now in the business of trying to find ways to give this away locally, to produce the highest value for the ultimate end users.  Without paying shipping costs.  And that means I’ll be giving it away through my local Buy Nothing and Freecycle groups, and similar.

I haven’t evolved a complete strategy yet, but it’s clear that there is some low-hanging fruit.  For example, I have an open box of deck screws.  It doesn’t look like much, but at today’s prices this scruffy box with four pounds of screws is about $40 worth of fasteners.  Surely I can find a taker for that.  The same for (e.g.) functioning power tools that I no longer need.

The real trick is going to be getting any value at all out of the lower-end merchandise.  With the coffee can of mixed fasteners being the apex of that problem.  The question being whether there is some way I can easily repackage that so that someone in my immediate area would be pleased to take that off my hands.

One can find examples of D-I-Y devices to sort out the contents of the typical suburban coffee can of mixed fasteners.  Upon investigation, these seem to be either aids to manual sorting or Rube Goldberg contraptions that are unlikely to work well.  The upshot is that technology is unlikely to come to my rescue.  And in any case, do I really want to buy or make yet one more hardware-related device?

So, the question is, how can I pack up this excess in way that provides some value.  Otherwise, there’s always the option of turning it in as scrap metal.  But only as a last resort.

I’ll let you know how it goes.  But I’m keeping the stuff from Hechinger’s.

G22-058: Of wood heat and black carbon.

 

Edit:  This post is obsolete.  See Post #1893.  The most recent estimate for the impact of black carbon is much lower than it was when I wrote this post.  (But still within the error bars of that prior analysis).  From a global warming perspective, if you have a modern air-tight wood stove, the drawbacks of wood burning are much less than I estimated for this post.

Original post follows:

I bought my wood-burning fireplace insert circa 2007.  The idea — consistent with scientific thinking at the time — was that I could reduce my global warming impact by burning wood (“biomass”) instead of fossil fuels. 

And, as far as C02 emissions goes, that’s right.  Over a ten-year time frame, the wood I burn is essentially a carbon-neutral fuel source.  I’ll show the math below.

But that was before the global warming impact of black carbon (airborne soot) had become well-known.  Over the time since I bought that wood stove, the estimated global warming impact of soot had grown significantly.

This year, as I get ready to have the chimney cleaned and purchase my usual two cords of wood, I’ve decided to take a good, hard look at that issue.  And, roughly speaking, the tiny amount of soot that my wood stove puts out completely offset the benefits of using a carbon-neutral fuel.

Bottom line:  With the grid getting cleaner every year, it now looks like my most carbon-sparing heating option, by far, is just to run my ground-source heat pump. 

I guess I should have seen that coming.  This is really part-and-parcel with the decision to go to electrically-powered miles via a Prius Prime.  The de-carbonization of the electric grid makes electricity the preferred fuel from a global warming standpoint.  Not just for the car, but now also for the home. 

Sometimes the tree of knowledge is not the tree of happiness.  Not even if it’s cut down, split up, kiln dried, and turned into a nice, cozy fire.


Why burn wood?

Firewood is very nearly carbon-neutral within a roughly one-decade timeframe.  For me, at least.  Sure, burning wood generates C02, just like burning any other carbon-based fuel.  The difference is that my firewood was atmospheric C02 just ten years ago, on average.  Ten years ago, C02 was deposited out of the atmosphere in the form of wood.  Now it goes back into the atmosphere as C02.  The net impact on atmospheric C02, for that ten-year period, is zero.

It may surprise some to hear that my firewood is just ten years old, on average.  That’s because the age of the wood is not the same as the age of the tree.  The typical piece of wood I’m burning has about 30 annual rings on it.  It is, if you will, a “30 year old tree”.  Or tree limb.  But:

  • Only the very center of the wood is 30 years old.
  • The outside edge of the wood is a year old.
  • Trees get bigger as they grow.

You can work out the math any number of ways — from calculus to setting up a spreadsheet — but the average age of the wood will always work out to be somewhere around one-third of the age of the tree.  So, by weight, the wood in my “30 year old trees” is, on average, just ten years old.

The upshot is that if you think in terms of the impact over ten years, burning wood added nothing to atmospheric C02.  It just re-injected C02 into the air that had been extracted (by a tree) a decade earlier.

I bet some of you thought I burned firewood because I’m cheap.  I am cheap.  But in this locality, firewood at (say) at $350 a cord (stacked!) is a more expensive heat source than natural gas at around $1.50 a therm.  Just wanted to make that clear.


A few ifs, ands, and buts

There are some nuances to the simple carbon-neutral argument.

First, some fossil fuel is consumed in harvesting and transporting the wood in the first place.  But by any account, that amount is negligible compared to the energy value of the wood.  The heat value of cord wood varies by species and condition, but a good round-numbers value for a typical hardwood is that a cord contains about 20 million BTUs of energy, and weighs about a ton and a half.  Even if that has to be trucked a total of 50 miles from source to delivery (including deadheading), in a typical small dump truck (roughly 7 MPG), the roughly 7 gallons of diesel consumed contain less than a million BTUs of energy.  In the absolute worst case, the fuel required to truck the wood around eats up 5 percent of the energy value of the wood.

Second, no trees were harmed in making this firewood.  By that I mean that in this urbanized area, firewood is mostly a waste byproduct of tree trimming services.  Trees weren’t cut down to make firewood. Instead, my firewood comes primarily from trees that were going to come down in any case.  Frequently, it’s from trees that had already died.

One way or the other, once a tree is dead, it begins the process of returning to C02.  It’s just a question of speed.  Smaller pieces can end up chipped into wood mulch, which then becomes C02 in a few years as that mulch rots.  The larger pieces of wood can’t be disposed of that easily.  If left above-ground, and not turned into lumber, they’ll rot in a few years to a few decades.  And they can always end up in the landfill.  There, they might last longer, but their anaerobic decomposition produces methane (which, if not captured and burned, results in global warming).  If nothing else, processing the downed trees into firewood keeps them from ending up in the landfill.

Because urban firewood is largely a byproduct of tree-trimming, the fossil-fuel inputs are lower than for trees purpose-cut for firewood.  These trees were going to get trucked away from where they fell, no matter what. The only incremental transportation fuel used in the firewood process is for the delivery trip.)

The upshot is that production of urban firewood is the exact opposite of clear-cutting a forest.  If you take standing biomass of a forest and purposefully cut that down and burn it, that definitely increases atmospheric C02.  (E.g., the ongoing destruction of tropical rainforests is accounted for in estimates of man-made C02 production.)  Urban firewood is more like waste disposal than like forestry clear-cutting.  In the main, you’re only using trees that were coming down anyway.

Third, in my house, I obtain a secondary environmental benefit from burning wood.  Burning wood makes my ground-source heat pump more efficient.

The main heating/cooling system for my house is a ground-source heat pump.  Using about 6000 feet of plastic pipe buried in my back yard, this system extracts heat from the ground in winter, and disposes of heat into the ground in summer.

Heat travels slowly through the ground.  (That’s why this system needs so much pipe — it needs all that surface area.)  Ideally, the injections and withdrawals of heat should be matched.  If not, excess heat withdrawals during the winter will cool the ground field and so reduce the wintertime efficiency of the heat pump.

This is not a small matter.  In my area, heating demand is about five times cooling demand, when measured in heating and cooling degree-days.  Thus, I need a significant additional heat source if I’m going to keep that ground-source heat pump operating at peak efficiency.  Which is supplied nicely by burning a couple of cords of wood each year.

Fourth, wood burning raises real health concerns.  No matter how hard you try, a wood burning stove will pollute your indoor air to some degree.  Every time you open it up to add wood, you’re letting something out into your house that you’d really be better off not breathing. And, to some degree — typically less than the indoor air, due to dilution — you do the same to nearby outdoor air.

Those problems tend to be more significant:

  • In areas where many people use wood as the sole or principal source of heat.
  • In areas where older, higher-polluting stoves are in use.
  • In tighter home construction, with fewer air changes per hour.

I use a new, relatively clean stove (rated at under two grams of soot per hour), in an old leaky home that probably gets a complete air change every half-hour.  I’m also the only person within at least a half-mile radius who routinely heats with wood.

In short, I just ignored the health-related issues.  I don’t think they are a huge concern in my situation.

Fifth, on the positive side, heating your home with wood teaches you a lesson in just how damned much fuel a modest suburban home consumes.  Every year, I buy and burn roughly three tons of wood.  Every piece of it gets picked up and moved three times.  By the end of the heating season every year, I’m right tired of firewood.

The mass of that firewood is obvious.  But it’s only modestly greater than the mass of the fuel I would burn if I heated entirely with natural gas.  Two cords of wood weighs about three tons and generates about 40 million BTUs.  That’s the heat value of 400 therms of natural gas, which would weigh (in round numbers) about one ton.  With firewood, you are constantly reminded of the enormous mass of the fuel being used.  With natural gas, it’s still an enormous mass of fuel, but you are completely blind to the order of magnitude.

So chalk that one up in favor of firewood.  It never lets you forget that you’re burning tons of fuel to heat your home each year.

In summary, as of 2007, on balance, wood heating:

  • reduced my carbon footprint,
  • increased the efficiency of my ground-source heat pump,
  • made me aware of the large amounts of fuel I was using, and
  • posed seemingly small heath risks.

The evolution of thinking on black carbon a.k.a. soot.

When I bought my wood stove, the importance of black carbon (soot) emissions for global warming was only starting to be realized.  I believe that the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was the first time that black carbon made it into the summary for policy makers.  If I look back at an earlier (2001) report, it wasn’t even clear at that time that all soot much mattered.  They just didn’t know one way or the other.  Just read that 2001 chart.  The level of understanding about black carbon was very low, and the estimated impact was quite low as well.

Source:  IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.

By the time of the IPCC fifth assessment report (2014), they had enough understanding of the issue to start suggesting that reducing soot emissions was a good way to slow global warming.  This AR5 report showed this history of the estimate of radiative forcing (the impact on global warming) of black carbon.  It’s only a modest exaggeration to say that every time they reconsidered it, the estimated impact on warming doubled.

Source:  Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza,
T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Currently, the U.S. EPA uses a value of just over 0.6 (watts per square meter) as its estimate of the impact of black carbon.  So it’s a pretty good guess that the IPCC’s estimate is going to go up in its next (Winter 2022) summary report.

Source:  US EPA

In short, between the time I bought my stove and today, the estimated importance of soot as a source of global warming has increased dramatically.    At present, black carbon (soot) is now reckoned to be the third most important contributor to global warming.  Only C02 and methane are judge to be more important.


A little soot goes a long way.

But can this possibly be that big a problem?  For me, I mean?

Rather than fuzzy-think my way to avoiding the issue, I decided to do a quick calculation.  If I shut down my wood stove and fired up the equivalent amount of natural gas heat, would that increase or decrease my contribution to global warming?

I figured this had to be a no brainer. Just look at the facts.

Properly run, my wood stove produces under 2.0 grams of soot an hour.  Some of that gets trapped in the flue.  The rest of it stays in the atmosphere for (on average) just a couple of weeks. And my black carbon gets carried out over the Atlantic, and so doesn’t cause the darkening of snow surfaces that’s an important part of the overall impact of black carbon.

Seriously, how bad can that be?

Turns out, a crude calculation shows that it’s uncomfortably close to a wash.  Based on the published estimates of the 100-year “global warming potential” of black carbon, the grams of soot emitted by my wood stove, hanging in the atmosphere for a couple of weeks, matter just about as much as the kilograms of C02 put out by my natural gas furnace, hanging out in the atmosphere for the next century.  All that, for producing the same amount of heating.

What I thought was a no-brainer is nothing of the sort.

Here’s the crude calculation, comparing the soot from my stove, to the C02 from my gas heater, for an equivalent amount of heat energy.

First, I need to be able to compare the impact of soot to the impact of C02.  That comparison is defined as the global warming potential (GWP) of soot.  The GWP shows how much global warming you would expect from emitting a gram of any given substance, compare to the warming you’d get from emitting a gram of C02.  The GWP is generally cited over a given period of time, say 20 years or 100 years.

I simply have to accept somebody’s reasonable estimate of that.  Estimates vary, but a reasonable mid-range value for the 100-year GWP of black carbon is 900.  That is, each gram of black carbon emitted causes as much warming, over the next century, as 900 grams of carbon dioxide emitted.

(I will note in passing that this is truly a mind-blowing number, given that the black carbon only stays in the atmosphere an average of about two weeks.  While the C02 is, for all intents and purposes, practically forever.  Apparently, a black carbon particle is just about a perfect absorber of sunlight, and so provides an enormous amount of heating to the atmosphere during its brief lifetime).

Next, let me produce 100,000 BTUs of heat with either my wood stove, or a natural gas furnace.  And compare the global warming impact of the soot from the wood stove and the C02 from the gas furnace.

I use a Lopi Revere fireplace insert.  At a typical burn rate, that produces about 30,000 BTUH, and is certified to emit less than 2 grams of soot per hour.  Let me assume all that soot goes into the atmosphere (as opposed to being deposited in the flue).  In round numbers, to produce 100,000 BTUs of heat, my stove emits 6 grams of black carbon.

When I take my six grams, multiply by the GWP factor of 900, and convert to pounds, I find that six grams of soot, from my wood stove, produces warming that is equivalent to 12 pounds of C02.

But here’s the punchline.  To produce 100,000 BTUs of heat with natural gas, you (by definition) burn a therm of gas.  Burning a therm of natural gas, to create the same amount of heat, releases just under 12 pounds of C02.

In other words, as a rough cut, and with a lot of uncertainty, heating with wood has no benefit from a global warming standpoint.  Those six stinking grams of soot, from burning my carbon-neutral firewood, have as much global warming potential as the C02 from the natural gas that the wood replaces.


When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do?

The above is a quote from John Maynard Keynes, arguably the most influential economist of the 20th century.  I believe it has general application outside the field of economics.

There’s surely a lot of uncertainty in this calculation.  Mostly, it’s uncertainty about that figure of 900 for the global warming potential of soot.  At the minimum, I should try to remove the portion of that attributable to the darkening of snowpack from soot.  Where I’m located, that just doesn’t apply to any material degree.

Beyond that:

On the one hand, a lot of the soot from the stove ends up stuck to the flue pipe.  Exactly what fraction is hard (maybe impossible) to determine.  For sure, that’s not a question that gets asked every day.  Best I can figure, based on one reported experiment, I should expect half the soot to end up in the flue and not in the air.  But clearly that has to depend on the (e.g.) the length of the flue.

On the other hand, I believe that two-grams-per-hour figure is for a perfectly maintained burn.  It doesn’t include the warm-up time.  It doesn’t include any time the fire is smouldering (no visible flames).  It doesn’t account for imperfectly cured (high-moisture-content) firewood.

All of those factors — cold operating temperature, smouldering, wet wood — result in higher soot emissions.  The two grams figure just generally doesn’t account for all the forms of operator error that can result in a smoky (high-soot) fire.

If nothing else, this has convinced me to switch entirely to kiln-dried wood.  In general, the drier the wood, the less soot it produces.  I have bought air-dried wood from a trusted supplier for years.   But two years ago I was forced to buy some kiln-dried, due to a badly cured batch of wood.  Not only does kiln-dried burn much more readily and with less soot, my best guess is that the increased heat output from the kiln-dried wood more than pays for the fossil fuels used in the kiln drying process.

I’m also going to re-evaluate my heating mix in light of the ever-cleaner U.S. grid.  Years ago, I compared emissions from my gas furnace to estimated emissions from my ground source heat pump.  I decided that they produced more-or-less equivalent C02 emissions for a given amount of heat.  But as the grid has gotten cleaner, it’s probably smarter to use the heat pump more, and other sources less, even if that reduces the efficiency of the heat pump somewhat.

(Best guess, my heat pump nets out to a coefficient-of-performance of about 3.0.  That is, I get about three KWH of usable heat energy for every KWH used to run the equipment.  You’d think it would be higher, but you spend a lot of energy pumping water through pipes, and a lot of energy moving air through crappy old ductwork.)

And when I do that calculation, the now-cleaner Virginia grid makes this almost a no-brainer.  With cleaner electricity, the heat pump beats the gas furnace hands-down.

The heat that would have generated 12 pounds of C02 when generated by my (efficient!) natural gas furnace would only generate a little over six pounds of C02 if generated by my heat pump.

It’s starting to look like the right answer for me is just to run the heat pump all the time.   That’s about as un-romantic a solution as you can get.  But the numbers are what they are.

 

 

Post G22-047: Heat and tomato ripening, just one more thing that I can’t test this year.

 

I’ve been harvesting ripe tomatoes more-or-less continuously over the past week.

Accordingly, it’s about time I admitted that my prediction of a period of no ripe tomatoes, due to excess heat, was wrong.  And it’s time to do the autopsy. Continue reading Post G22-047: Heat and tomato ripening, just one more thing that I can’t test this year.

Post #1563: Meanwhile, the price of gasoline continues to plummet

 

Just thought I’d say it, because nobody seems to be.  Below, the top graph is gas, bottom graph is crude oil.

People were stupid enough to blame the rise on the President.  But the President, praise the Lord, was not stupid enough to take credit for the fall.  Yet.  Though he did remark on it as being a good thing. Continue reading Post #1563: Meanwhile, the price of gasoline continues to plummet