More government bullshit! (Score: 1, Insightful) by hairyfeet@pipedot.org on 2015-02-04 16:38 (#2WWM) Don't you just looove how they can just ban anything they want while costing them nothing? If they want to ban something as expensive they should not be allowed to unless THEY come up with the money in the budget to pay for the replacements! I don't know about everybody else but I'm personally getting sick and fucking tired of nanny state shitters telling what I can eat, breathe, listen to, watch...how about a nice cup of STFU and leave people alone? Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 3, Informative) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-02-04 19:44 (#2WWR) Did you just call *Utah* a "nanny state"?! Utah, where they want to go against Federal law and eliminate the public education system, because it smells too much like socialism: http://www.mintpressnews.com/utah-aaron-osmond-against-mandatory-universal-education/165597/ Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 2, Insightful) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-02-05 23:45 (#2WX5) Utahn here, and yes, I believe that Utahns believe that Utah is a nanny state, mostly because of things like their current ban on wood burning stoves. There are something like 12 homes in Utah (that the government is aware of) that rely solely on wood to heat the house because it's illegal to give/get a mortgage on a home, new or not, that doesn't have a proper heater. The problem I have with the ban it is possible to operate a wood burning heater that produces less emissions than a propane or butane heater; both of which are entirely legal (and horrendously expensive to operate). I think wood should remain an option for heating your house as long as it is a heater that produces very little emissions. Burning wood for the romanticism? Sorry; fuck you. I have to breath the air you are polluting. It's for the greater good, so fuck off.All of that said, Utah is a nanny state in so many more ways. For example: you can't buy liquor at the grocery store. In many cities you can't buy beer (which here is very much near-beer because the alcohol content is so low) on Sunday. If that's not the state being a nanny, I don't know what is.My favorite part? Utahns are so very much in favor of some nanny-state laws and so much against others. If it's something they don't agree with (and Utah mormons in particular are a very cohesive voting bloc) then it should be banned. It makes for very entertaining political theater. (Another favorite is things like politicians saying, just the other day, that it's okay to rape your wife if she's asleep; seriously Utah wtf?) Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 2, Interesting) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-02-05 23:52 (#2WX6) it is possible to operate a wood burning heater that produces less emissions than a propane or butane heaterHow's that? The summary mentions the best EPA-certified wood stoves emit 60 times as much as natural gas (presumably propane is similar), and other stoves do worse. A "butane" heater is new to me, though there are butane stoves. Perhaps you meant natural gas? See above... Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-02-06 00:07 (#2WX7) You're right, looking up the numbers now, I see butane, propane, and wood all in the same order of magnitude for CO2 emissions, which is not what we're directly talking about here. However, there are wood heaters that beat those numbers by a large margin, as those are aggregate numbers, not best-of numbers (the same is of course true for propane, butane, natural gas, etc). I tend to agree mostly with another poster that suggested burning wood in a power plant instead. Capturing emissions is much easier at scale (if not cheaper), and wood is CO2 neutral in the long run. As far as climate change is concerned, wood is great on so many levels. As far as me, and other asthmatics go, wood needs to go for all but a very small population that relies on it as the sole source of heat.
Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 3, Informative) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-02-04 19:44 (#2WWR) Did you just call *Utah* a "nanny state"?! Utah, where they want to go against Federal law and eliminate the public education system, because it smells too much like socialism: http://www.mintpressnews.com/utah-aaron-osmond-against-mandatory-universal-education/165597/ Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 2, Insightful) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-02-05 23:45 (#2WX5) Utahn here, and yes, I believe that Utahns believe that Utah is a nanny state, mostly because of things like their current ban on wood burning stoves. There are something like 12 homes in Utah (that the government is aware of) that rely solely on wood to heat the house because it's illegal to give/get a mortgage on a home, new or not, that doesn't have a proper heater. The problem I have with the ban it is possible to operate a wood burning heater that produces less emissions than a propane or butane heater; both of which are entirely legal (and horrendously expensive to operate). I think wood should remain an option for heating your house as long as it is a heater that produces very little emissions. Burning wood for the romanticism? Sorry; fuck you. I have to breath the air you are polluting. It's for the greater good, so fuck off.All of that said, Utah is a nanny state in so many more ways. For example: you can't buy liquor at the grocery store. In many cities you can't buy beer (which here is very much near-beer because the alcohol content is so low) on Sunday. If that's not the state being a nanny, I don't know what is.My favorite part? Utahns are so very much in favor of some nanny-state laws and so much against others. If it's something they don't agree with (and Utah mormons in particular are a very cohesive voting bloc) then it should be banned. It makes for very entertaining political theater. (Another favorite is things like politicians saying, just the other day, that it's okay to rape your wife if she's asleep; seriously Utah wtf?) Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 2, Interesting) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-02-05 23:52 (#2WX6) it is possible to operate a wood burning heater that produces less emissions than a propane or butane heaterHow's that? The summary mentions the best EPA-certified wood stoves emit 60 times as much as natural gas (presumably propane is similar), and other stoves do worse. A "butane" heater is new to me, though there are butane stoves. Perhaps you meant natural gas? See above... Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-02-06 00:07 (#2WX7) You're right, looking up the numbers now, I see butane, propane, and wood all in the same order of magnitude for CO2 emissions, which is not what we're directly talking about here. However, there are wood heaters that beat those numbers by a large margin, as those are aggregate numbers, not best-of numbers (the same is of course true for propane, butane, natural gas, etc). I tend to agree mostly with another poster that suggested burning wood in a power plant instead. Capturing emissions is much easier at scale (if not cheaper), and wood is CO2 neutral in the long run. As far as climate change is concerned, wood is great on so many levels. As far as me, and other asthmatics go, wood needs to go for all but a very small population that relies on it as the sole source of heat.
Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 2, Insightful) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-02-05 23:45 (#2WX5) Utahn here, and yes, I believe that Utahns believe that Utah is a nanny state, mostly because of things like their current ban on wood burning stoves. There are something like 12 homes in Utah (that the government is aware of) that rely solely on wood to heat the house because it's illegal to give/get a mortgage on a home, new or not, that doesn't have a proper heater. The problem I have with the ban it is possible to operate a wood burning heater that produces less emissions than a propane or butane heater; both of which are entirely legal (and horrendously expensive to operate). I think wood should remain an option for heating your house as long as it is a heater that produces very little emissions. Burning wood for the romanticism? Sorry; fuck you. I have to breath the air you are polluting. It's for the greater good, so fuck off.All of that said, Utah is a nanny state in so many more ways. For example: you can't buy liquor at the grocery store. In many cities you can't buy beer (which here is very much near-beer because the alcohol content is so low) on Sunday. If that's not the state being a nanny, I don't know what is.My favorite part? Utahns are so very much in favor of some nanny-state laws and so much against others. If it's something they don't agree with (and Utah mormons in particular are a very cohesive voting bloc) then it should be banned. It makes for very entertaining political theater. (Another favorite is things like politicians saying, just the other day, that it's okay to rape your wife if she's asleep; seriously Utah wtf?) Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 2, Interesting) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-02-05 23:52 (#2WX6) it is possible to operate a wood burning heater that produces less emissions than a propane or butane heaterHow's that? The summary mentions the best EPA-certified wood stoves emit 60 times as much as natural gas (presumably propane is similar), and other stoves do worse. A "butane" heater is new to me, though there are butane stoves. Perhaps you meant natural gas? See above... Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-02-06 00:07 (#2WX7) You're right, looking up the numbers now, I see butane, propane, and wood all in the same order of magnitude for CO2 emissions, which is not what we're directly talking about here. However, there are wood heaters that beat those numbers by a large margin, as those are aggregate numbers, not best-of numbers (the same is of course true for propane, butane, natural gas, etc). I tend to agree mostly with another poster that suggested burning wood in a power plant instead. Capturing emissions is much easier at scale (if not cheaper), and wood is CO2 neutral in the long run. As far as climate change is concerned, wood is great on so many levels. As far as me, and other asthmatics go, wood needs to go for all but a very small population that relies on it as the sole source of heat.
Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 2, Interesting) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-02-05 23:52 (#2WX6) it is possible to operate a wood burning heater that produces less emissions than a propane or butane heaterHow's that? The summary mentions the best EPA-certified wood stoves emit 60 times as much as natural gas (presumably propane is similar), and other stoves do worse. A "butane" heater is new to me, though there are butane stoves. Perhaps you meant natural gas? See above... Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-02-06 00:07 (#2WX7) You're right, looking up the numbers now, I see butane, propane, and wood all in the same order of magnitude for CO2 emissions, which is not what we're directly talking about here. However, there are wood heaters that beat those numbers by a large margin, as those are aggregate numbers, not best-of numbers (the same is of course true for propane, butane, natural gas, etc). I tend to agree mostly with another poster that suggested burning wood in a power plant instead. Capturing emissions is much easier at scale (if not cheaper), and wood is CO2 neutral in the long run. As far as climate change is concerned, wood is great on so many levels. As far as me, and other asthmatics go, wood needs to go for all but a very small population that relies on it as the sole source of heat.
Re: More government bullshit! (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-02-06 00:07 (#2WX7) You're right, looking up the numbers now, I see butane, propane, and wood all in the same order of magnitude for CO2 emissions, which is not what we're directly talking about here. However, there are wood heaters that beat those numbers by a large margin, as those are aggregate numbers, not best-of numbers (the same is of course true for propane, butane, natural gas, etc). I tend to agree mostly with another poster that suggested burning wood in a power plant instead. Capturing emissions is much easier at scale (if not cheaper), and wood is CO2 neutral in the long run. As far as climate change is concerned, wood is great on so many levels. As far as me, and other asthmatics go, wood needs to go for all but a very small population that relies on it as the sole source of heat.