Answer: No life forms could flourish indefinitely. In an isolated system, entropy always increases. Life tries to push entropy in the opposite direction. When life is created, entropy decreases in the cave but nature demands a greater entropy increase offset. The cave, being sealed, would mean that entropy would reach its max, thus energy necessary to sustain and generate new life would be unavailable. Maybe we should learn a lesson from this. Available energy is mandatory. Wealth may equate to available energy. If you want to live in a nation that is prospering make sure that its available energy supply is abundant.

Entropy is one of “Physics Foibles”. Look it up.

        DV82XL said:

I agree, but the Law is blind, it would be hard to administer except by issuing fire permits (like my town does for outdoor open flame fires) and that would be drag.

Right, but as I pointed out: You do not need to have any law pertaining to wood burning stoves to restrict their emissions. If you provide an alternative method of heating which has equal or greater economic and practical value then people will stop using wood as a primary fuel without having to be forced into it.

Nobody burns wood because they enjoy chopping down trees. They burn it for two reasons: 1) it’s cheaper, more avaliable or more suited for their heating needs 2) They like a nice wood fire at the ski lodge.

Reason number 1 is really the problem. You don’t need to legislate it away. Reason 2 doesn’t cause much harm.

        drbuzz0 said:

One other thing: I really do not want wood burning stoves to go away! This is an example of how misguided energy policy can be. “we tried to stop [people from using oil and now we’ve got a wood burning problem! I guess we better burn wood stoves.”

I agree, but the Law is blind, it would be hard to administer except by issuing fire permits (like my town does for outdoor open flame fires) and that would be drag.

        DV82XL said:

T
Ironically, some of the worst-hit areas of the country are in the pristine, remote B.C. interior, where steep mountains can trap thick smog over villages nestled in the valleys below. In 2006, the ski-resort town of Golden banned the installation of new wood stoves after recording some of the worst pollution in the province. In the logging town of Houston, an even harsher bylaw requires all wood stoves to be dismantled by 2010.

Nothing better for the environment than folks making heat from natural, renewable sources I always say.

One other thing: I really do not want wood burning stoves to go away! This is an example of how misguided energy policy can be. “we tried to stop [people from using oil and now we’ve got a wood burning problem! I guess we better burn wood stoves.”

I happen to like a wood fire to kick my feet up near after a long day skiing. I also happen to like some good smoky BBQ, slow cooked meats on a hickory fire. I also like being able to have traditions like a fire when the family is around for Christmas eve and to let kids roast marshmallows on the open fire. During the holidays nothing sets the spirit like a fragment roaring fire. In Ireland, a smoldering peat fire is really great on a cold rainy nite when having a traditional dinner. Peat actually has a nice fragrance when it burns slowly.

The problem is NOT that people use wood burning stoves or that they have them. The problem is when they are relied on as a primary source of heating and not simply for occasional get togeathers or for everyone to gather around at the ski lodge If everyone used wood burning stoves for that kind of thing or for when the power goes out and such it would not produce enough pollution to be concerned about.

You don’t want to outlaw wood burning! You simply want to have an energy policy where people are not forced or encouraged to use wood burning as a major source of energy. If it was not economically beneficial to burn wood people would stop doing it as a regular activity and start only doing it on occasion and you would not have to tear all the stoves out of the ski lodges!

Coal was banned from being burned in the city of Dublin in 1990. The effect on health was dramatic and clear cut: There was a reduction in deaths from acute respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease. The reductions of respiratory and cardiovascular deaths are 15.5 and 10.2% respectively. This totals about 360 less deaths per year. Obviously in a closed population where this occurs suddenly it is very statistically significant.
http://www.smfrancis.demon.co.uk/airwolvs/
Studies have confirmed the link between the reduction in coal burning and the reduction in mortality. It has been found to directly correspond to the proportion of “black smog” – which is down in the Dublin area by 70% It is not coincidental. Research has found the cause is almost certainly the simple fact that coal was banned.

There has also been an extreme reduction in non-trauma visits to hospitals in general, mostly attributable to reduced heart respiratory and general health problems. This has been so large that hospitals have transfered staff to other areas of the country or found they did not need as many doctors on call.

http://www.irishhealth.com/?id=4323&level=4
http://www.smfrancis.demon.co.uk/airwolvs/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2002-releases/press10172002.html

Ironically, some of the worst-hit areas of the country are in the pristine, remote B.C. interior, where steep mountains can trap thick smog over villages nestled in the valleys below. In 2006, the ski-resort town of Golden banned the installation of new wood stoves after recording some of the worst pollution in the province. In the logging town of Houston, an even harsher bylaw requires all wood stoves to be dismantled by 2010.

Nothing better for the environment than folks making heat from natural, renewable sources I always say.

        John A. said:

If homes and businesses are able to generate their own energy from a renewable source…

Let me show you something. Look at this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Völkerschlachtdenkmal_Leipzig.JPG

Do you see that this building has a much lighter color in the top part? Well, this is not by design; a few years ealier it looked like this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Battle_Of_The_Nations-Monument.jpg

The black coating is not paint, it is a residue from the burning of carbon-based energy carriers called soot. This soot formed from 40 years of homes and businesses generating their own heating energy in a distributed fashion. The energy carrier of choice was lignite, but biomass would have had quite the same effect. Lignite is just old biomass, after all.

I don’t claim to be objective and see the world as it is without bias. I only claim that I try to as much as I can.

        J Carlton said:

Classic quote from Alfin;
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2008/04/cane-ethanol-from-brazil-current.html

Quasi-religious thinking lies at the heart of most people’s beliefs about energy, economics, society, politics, and life in general. Even atheists unwittingly tread the same quasi-religious thought pathways and processes that the most devout believers walk. But don’t tell them. They might burn you at the stake.

Definately the way it is. I personally don’t claim to be 100% objective or free of emotion or attachment to certain things or general bias at times. I don’t pretend to lack anger/outrage/affinity/attachment/discomfort with certain things.

I generally think it’s a mistake to claim to be 100% objective or to say that you don’t occasionally end up holding onto things too strongly or getting into denial or something similar.

All I say is that I try to avoid it and I try to be logical and objective and avoid dogma or irrational excuses and beliefs. I think I do a fair job at it, but I’m not about to claim 100% success at it or of being Vulcan or an android.

Much as I value objective and rational thought, I think one of the biggest mistakes made is claiming that one can always be rational and objective. That is not part of the human condition. The only way to keep bias from becoming a big problem is to first admit it exists and accept that you might fall for it from time to time.