Eric Hansen on fri 2 jul 10
Question: If in a two-chamber kiln the first chamber is arched & directiona=
l
downdraft/crossdraft, and the second chamber is oxidation fired up-draft,
does that second chamber reduce CO2 emmissions at the flue? In other words
the second chamber replaces the stack. I can't reason that it would change
the atmosphere unless the second chamber was stoked/fired, etc., also?
--
Eric Alan Hansen
Stonehouse Studio Pottery
Alexandria, Virginia
americanpotter.blogspot.com
thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
hansencookbook.blogspot.com
"To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and of
mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and ocean is
not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the great universe
that folds it in on everyside, are still more wonderful, complex, and
attractive to the contemplating mind." - Theodore Parker, minister,
transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
Lee Love on sat 3 jul 10
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Eric Hansen
wrote:
> Question: If in a two-chamber kiln the first chamber is arched & directio=
=3D
nal
> downdraft/crossdraft, and the second chamber is oxidation fired up-draft,
> does that second chamber reduce CO2 emmissions at the flue? In other word=
=3D
s
> the second chamber replaces the stack. I can't reason that it would chang=
=3D
e
> the atmosphere unless the second chamber was stoked/fired, etc., also?
Eric,
The cleaner the wood burns, the more C02 you create.
The part of the black exhaust you see is particulate. It falls out
of the exhaust as it cools.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
ivor and olive lewis on sat 3 jul 10
Dear Eric Hansen,
Your proposition makes an assumption that Carbon Dioxide created in your
first chamber will be converted to a different gas when it comes into
contact with oxygen in the air that is introduced in the second chamber.
This seems to me to be an improbable chemistry.
To reduce carbon emissions my suggestion would be to use fuels that contain
less Carbon and more Hydrogen in their chemical make up. Were the Hydrogen
Economy to get of the ground so that Automobiles were using Hydrogen with a=
n
energy cost comparable to the energy cost of Gasoline or Fuel Oil any guil=
t
syndrome associated with High Carbon content fuels might evaporate. Probabl=
y
more practical would be a anaerobic digester producing Methane (CH4).
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis,
REDHILL,
South Australia
| |
|
