Fw: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation]]

[jkell]

Bamboo would burn hot enogh for a steel drum heater to serve as a supplement
in interior sustainable heating,grow it and burn it it is like a grass and
if you plant a clump type it will not be a problem to keep it neet in the
area you choose to plant it, but the culms can and will explode as the air
inside expands,not a major problem most of the time unless there is water
inside that can be a nicer blast, slit your bamboo!
-----Original Message-----
From: Sojourner <sojournr at missouri.org>
To: coblist <coblist at deatech.com>
Date: Saturday, July 17, 1999 6:18 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation]]


>C'mon, guys, check your TO field.  Remember, this list is set up so that
>hitting the "Reply-to" button AUTOMATICALLY sends your reply to the
>individual rather than the list.
>
>That's the way the list-owner wants it, so we have to be extra-careful
>to make sure our replies are going where we intend them to go.
>
>I'm not picking anyone out in particular, its just this is about the 6th
>message TODAY that came to me personally when it was intended for the
>list, I'm just reminding, not blaming anybody or mad or anything.
>
>OK?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Now, on to the message.
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation]
>Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2099 16:20:07 -0500
>From: "H. Wayne" <hcrowbird at lawtonnet.net>
>To: "Sojourner" <sojournr at missouri.org>
>
>    Hey, have you guys thought about burning bamboo instead?  Or is that
>just an oriental thing?  I know most bamboo types will not grow all that
>far
>north, but then there are a few that can tolerate temperatures down to
>-20
>F.  You are probably thinking, who would want to grow and burn over
>sized
>grass?  Like I said, Orientals might be very smart about something that
>is
>possible over us, since we are so spoiled and do not consider what can
>be
>done at little or no cost like they do from necessity.
>    By the way, I have two kinds of bamboo started in my back yard now.
>Bamboo is more than just useful, it grows like a weed, and China has
>some
>very hard temperatures there, and since bamboo grows there...well you
>get
>the point.  It is amazing what you can make with it, do with it, and how
>fast it grows.  One warning though, many types of bamboo can grow
>themselves
>into a weed problem.  Some are better for a purpose than others, and you
>can
>use the leaves also.  If you compost it, it is just as good as grass
>clippings as mulch and stuff like that.  Great source of renewable pea
>and
>other stakes.  Dang, they are basically free!  How can you beat a deal
>like
>that?
>    Wayne
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sojourner <sojournr at missouri.org>
>To: coblist <coblist at deatech.com>
>Date: Saturday, July 17, 1999 2:35 PM
>Subject: [Fwd: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation]
>
>
>>I'm PRETTY SURE this was intended for the list as well.
>>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation
>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:02:29 +0100
>>From: Michael Saunby <mike at Chook.Demon.Co.UK>
>>Reply-To: "mike at Chook.Demon.Co.UK" <mike at Chook.Demon.Co.UK>
>>Organization: Teachmore
>>To: "'Sojourner'" <sojournr at missouri.org>
>>
>>On 17 July 1999 13:28, Sojourner [SMTP:sojournr at missouri.org] wrote:
>>>
>>> Wood burning is actually sustainable only if it is practiced only by a
>>> small percentage of the population on enough land to maintain their own
>>> personal woodlots (and I do mean maintain - NOT just cut 'n clear until
>>> you run out of wood).
>>>
>>> Coppicing might work well with a masonry stove, but coppiced wood is not
>>> so good for the typical wood stove - has a high potential for increased
>>> creosote buildup in your chimney.
>>>
>>> If everybody in the country started burning wood the pollution would not
>>> only be incredible, we would run through every burnable stick quicker 'n
>>> you could say "jack flash".
>>>
>>> What's "sustainable" on a small scale is not always "sustainable" on a
>>> large scale.
>>>
>>> Of course, you could say that our current population level is itself
>>> "not sustainable".  But I'm not planning on doing anything to reduce the
>>> population level to one I think IS "sustainable", myself.
>>>
>>
>>I guess your talking "middle scale" if such a thing exists.  I'm pretty
>>sure that for domestic fuel wood is the human fuel of choice, i.e. if
>>you
>>check per household globally the vast majority of the population (global
>>of
>>course, anything else is largely irrelevant) nearly all use, and
>>probably
>>prefer wood.  Now it is also likely to be the case that wood is being
>>burned faster than it's being planted, though it's also likely that we
>>could easily grow (in many parts of the world) a great deal more.
>>
>>For the US I realise this is largely irrelevant, per capita fuel
>>consumption is incredible, so I'm not too surprised by your figure of 40
>>acres per family, but for most (global) households it would be just an
>>acre
>>or so, much more realistic. But then they're already doing it, though
>>not
>>always sustainably.
>>
>>It doesn't help anyone to suggest that the only way to provide adequate
>>fuel supplies for domestic use require gas, oil or nuclear power, or in
>>truth any form of power distribution.  The large energy hungry cities of
>>the northern hemisphere are a peculiar anomaly when you take a global
>>view,
>>and their needs are not those of normal human families.  In most parts
>>of
>>the world access to fuel wood is much more realistic than access to
>>other
>>types of fuel.
>>
>>In the long term I suspect that per capita fuel consumption in the
>>northern
>>hemisphere will fall and that although most will choose to use
>>sanitised,
>>switchable, metered power the source of that power could just as easily
>>be
>>industrially grown wood as nuclear, wind, wave or any other power
>>source.
>> Because on a global scale wood does not pollute, the sun shines the
>>trees
>>take chemicals from the air (almost nothing from the soil, and they
>>return
>>that) and when burned the chemical return (in the same form, i.e. mostly
>>CO2) to the atmosphere.
>>
>>Michael Saunby
>>