Positive Proof Of Global Warming

[cnfsdnlostinside]

Hoppefully we don't resort to the U.S. Department of Energy's idea to dump the nuclear waste into a mountian less than 10 miles from a presently innactive volcanoe:

(scroll about 1/2 way down the page for my main point; other questions answered in the letter too)
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_e...s.cfm?ID=12861

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by pmaust

I agree. I just wonder where they are going to dump all that nuclear waste? The technology has improved but, what about the waste management issues?

Yucca Mountain is nearing completion.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/

Pebble Bed Reactor technology is implementable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Whining is prohibited!

[pmaust]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Yucca Mountain is nearing completion.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/

Pebble Bed Reactor technology is implementable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Whining is prohibited!

Thanks for the links Turtle. No whinning from me.

[cwes99_03]

I would agree that the PBMR needs to be put into place, however burying the spent nuclear fuel will not affect the dormant volcano.

Zyth, perhaps Lyptus is the wood that you are thinking of. Eucalyptus trees can be grown and harvested in 7 years according to other sites I visited and this is hard stuff (chopping block wood).

The problem with getting everyone to use these type of woods though is pointed out in the following article.

http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_bas...ng_Grades.html

After all, compare poplar with peruvian walnut or Imbuia
It is so bland.

In looking at a few more sites though, I think it comes down to chosing the right pieces, because there are others that have much more character than the pictures above.

http://www.penningtonhardwoods.com/sshownav.htm

You could also go with reclaimed wood. There is apparently a lot of it around. My father and I used to tear down corn cribs and barns for the used lumber. It takes time, but what a great value.
Additionally some places sell reclaimed wood from wine and olive vats in california and all kinds of other sources. That's one way to get redwood or other hard to get beautiful wood. There's a place in like Northern California or somewhere in the Pac NW that supplies the stuff. Probably a bit pricey but worth it if you want that wood.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Speaking of critical mass, even the Sierra Club is now promoting more nuclear plants in the US.

Wow. That is cool. How exactly do these differ from the photosynthetic kind?

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Do you have blinds in between the window panes, or are they inside the house? I was wondering if, in the case of standard blinds, the heat from the sun would just increase the temperature of the blind and air in-between the blind and the window.

My blinds currently are of the inside the window, horizontal slat variety. The blind basically serves to reflect away the sun's radiation which has passed through the window. Just like being outside. It's nicer to lay in the shade during summer than in an open field.

I have a few other "higher priority" changes to do on the house first (namely, replacing the roof... eek), but want very much to change the windows from the crappy 1972 poor efficiency ones in currently to something much more efficient. They make many windows now, such as those you referenced with blinds in the middle, but also with clear films and pressurized gas which provide a barrier to heat transmission but not visible light. Very cool indeed, and once I've paid for the roof, I will begin saving for those.


The Efficient Windows Collaborative

Fact Sheets for proper windows by location

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

The problem with getting everyone to use these type of woods though is pointed out in the following article.
http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_bas...ng_Grades.html

If I may be so bold as to point out some errors myself.
First, a quote from your link:

Originally Posted by woodweb

You know home buyers want the warm personalities of North American hardwoods like ash, maple, birch, and poplar.

The term "hardwood" is sorely misunderstood generally, and misapplied specifically here. "Hardwood" refers to wood from a deciduous tree, wheras "softwood" refers to wood from a coniferous tree. The terms have nothing to do with the specific hardness of a wood. Poplar is a hardwood only technically(deciduous) but it is far softer than Ash, Maple, or Birch. Douglas Fir on the other hand is technically a softwood, but it is often physically harder than poplar.

The Poplar farming is oriented not to producing face quality wood, but structural pieces as well as pulp for paper.

Originally Posted by CW

You could also go with reclaimed wood. There is apparently a lot of it around. My father and I used to tear down corn cribs and barns for the used lumber. It takes time, but what a great value.

Reclaiming is good. I'm curious to know what region of the country those cribs were in and the type of wood you recovered?

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Wow. That is cool. How exactly do these differ from the photosynthetic kind?

Good question Now! They glow in the dark and so carry on photosynthesis even at night.

[cwes99_03]

Your definition is quite right according to numerous websites that define the terms (google "define: hardwood").

My and mine have always referred to hardwood quite differently, though. For instance, we have a "hardwood" maple in the backyard, but a couple of "softwood" maples growing elsewhere. It is the hardwood variety that my dad likes, but the different types make for better syrups.
I was a bit confused as to why they would call poplar a hardwood, as most of my family have always thought of it as a junk tree. I did a quick search and found a for dummies site that defines the differences in hardness of wood.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Dumm...e/id-2323.html

That being said, I would always want to choose a long lasting hard wood, not something that will get gouged easily.
I would assume that if they make poplar flooring (which they do) then they would have to have really high grade poplar, and it would most likely come in thinner strips instead of 3, 4, or 6 inch wide boards.


I have lived my entire life in central Illinois. We reclaimed wood of all types and status, keeping the good parts. If the crib was still useable, then we could reclaim 2x4 to 2x12 solid pieces of wood anywhere from 4 to 20 or more feet in length. Let me tell you 20' 2"x12" is mighty fine for any beams you want to make, but are hard to keep straight. Of course we knew how to store wood, so we put it to use in repairing other old barns and occasionally put it to use in remodels and add ons of new houses.
Shiplap flooring and siding, and tongue and groove flooring, wainscoating (sp?) and other types of wood were often salvageable out of these structures if they were sound.
Other dilapidated structures generally had good 2x4 up to 2x10 boards in lengths 4' to 10' in length but little else.
Farmers have to keep busy during the winter months, and while it might teach you how to endure the cold, it wasn't very enjoyable work as a 10 year old kid.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Your definition is quite right according to numerous websites that define the terms (google "define: hardwood").

My and mine have always referred to hardwood quite differently, though. ...

I spent one of my 20 year careers as a carpenter/cabinetmaker so I appreciate your checking up on me, and also your different definition.

Originally Posted by CW

I have lived my entire life in central Illinois. We reclaimed wood of all types and status, keeping the good parts.

In collecting some crib wood myself in the midwest, I found that a lot of the old ones were Walnut.

On the Poplars again (still?), here is a link which explains the special hybridization of Poplar & the uses of the wood:
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/poplar/h...lar/poplar.htm

[cwes99_03]

Excellent site. I was of course referring to the generic poplar tree that grows rather rapidly has a white bark, grows to about 30 feet and dies after about 10-15 years of life leaving just a bunch of junk wood.
Cottonwoods grow all over the place and are also considered junk wood because they aren't hard enough for furniture or other building use, make a mess every spring/summer (i like the fluff but it makes keeping your car clean tough) and isn't dense enough to burn in the regular fashion for fuel (denser woods burn much longer thus making stoking the fire a less time consuming thing.)

The last part on that link though says pelletizing the stuff which I agree would be the only good way to make it burn. Since it would be easier to pelletize than harder wood, and it grows a heck of a lot faster too, that makes it A1 stuff in my book. Keep the "better wood" for other use.

As for solving the "greenhouse effect" (yes I purposefully put quotes around it) fast growing trees need extra energy and thus would absorb a whole lot more carbon. But wouldn't burning the pellets then just make the situation back to bad?

[matrixscarface]

i seen that a man, who has the nobel prize for his work on the ozone layer, once thought of a plan, that if we shoot sulfer into the atmosphere.. they will act as a mirror and bring down the temp about .5 percent.. kind of like a volcano. i don't remember the link.. ill look for it.

a shame we are killing our one and only world.