![[Logo]](/templates/default/mobile/images/mobile-permies-2015.png)
I think you are better off agreeing to disagree.
"You won't truly hear it or concede when I'm correct."
You have demonstrated this point well. You have claimed that ancient or traditional methods of heating were as or more efficient than the RMH, and that RMHs do more harm than good. You have not presented any sources for measurements of efficiency, while measurements of RMH efficiency have been linked here. Some of the traditional methods (like the Korean ondol) are still used and could be examined, and unless they have more advanced combustion chambers than diagrams I have seen, would be unlikely to achieve near complete combustion. The burden falls on you to now present evidence rather than assertions.
To say that RMHs do more harm than good requires supporting evidence as well. Only comparing them to a theoretical future where some completely non-polluting energy sources are universal can make this a true statement. In the real world of today, converting a substantial fraction (which is the most that is theoretically feasible given urban population densities) of fossil fuel heating to RMH heating would by the numbers substantially reduce CO2 emissions and the pollution caused by fuel extraction. Burning wood efficiently only hastens the return of its carbon to the atmosphere by years, not eons, and is effectively carbon-neutral.
"You won't truly hear it or concede when I'm correct."
You have demonstrated this point well. You have claimed that ancient or traditional methods of heating were as or more efficient than the RMH, and that RMHs do more harm than good. You have not presented any sources for measurements of efficiency, while measurements of RMH efficiency have been linked here. Some of the traditional methods (like the Korean ondol) are still used and could be examined, and unless they have more advanced combustion chambers than diagrams I have seen, would be unlikely to achieve near complete combustion. The burden falls on you to now present evidence rather than assertions.
To say that RMHs do more harm than good requires supporting evidence as well. Only comparing them to a theoretical future where some completely non-polluting energy sources are universal can make this a true statement. In the real world of today, converting a substantial fraction (which is the most that is theoretically feasible given urban population densities) of fossil fuel heating to RMH heating would by the numbers substantially reduce CO2 emissions and the pollution caused by fuel extraction. Burning wood efficiently only hastens the return of its carbon to the atmosphere by years, not eons, and is effectively carbon-neutral.
