The future of wood heat

You can never predict the stupidity of politicians; but I would think they would embrace wood heat. It's renewable, and newer EPA approved stoves have surprisingly low emissions.

Interesting post. I've often wondered too but not because of the pollution but instead because of the efficiency of newer homes requiring less and less heat to keep warm and the efficiency of heating appliances becoming more and more.

Which parts of the Paris talks got you thinking about this? Did they discuss wood heating? Any links?

They usually hit the easier targets first, sheet runs downhill guess who's at the bottom.

People have a tendency to look at the efficiency of the end product and not what it takes to get it there. E-cars, electric heat, and all the rest are great but someone somewhere is burning coal or damming a river for it to work unless you are producing your own energy. . Not to say we shouldn't conserve or use the most efficient methods. But nothings free and every choice we make has an environmental toll. To many people rely on wood heat for it to go away completely but I would expect that every state will slowly phase out non-EPA versions.

Hopefully the future of wood burning is 'Bright'

Averaging 1.2 GJ of gas consumption per month.

As long as the wood burning population remains a minority like it is now I hope it will continue to be OK. But logic would suggest that it will never be a viable option for large urban areas. So here's to hoping it remains a small but viable niche for a long time. Of course I'm talking about places where people have the access to low emission stove technology and the resources to make use of it. But the truth is that the majority of wood burners in the world are in less developed countries where extremely inefficient stoves are the norm and subsequent emissions are much higher. Whether the environmental regulations will ever be directed towards them or not is another discussion entirely.

Yup! Clearly the greatest sources of pollution are large scale industries, and for countries that are just now going thru a sort of delayed industrial revolution, trying to play catch up with other countries the problem is huge. India is another example, and rightly the political powers at work trying to curb the problem are focusing on those industrial polluters first. But in densely populated countries it is often these dirty industries that provide work for so much of the population, hence the problem is indeed complicated.

I can't help but recall a recent conversation with an Indian friend. As we sat in front of my EPA approved stove and close to 9 meters of class-A chimney and I told him how much it cost to get it installed he just sort of rolled his eyes and explained that he is used to building wood stoves for less than $10. They get used for 4-5 years and before they rust thru and then get replaced with another $10 setup. One of my axes alone could pay for twenty families in India to have a stove... I wasn't sure how to respond.

I'm not sure how much of a problem wood burning will see. You'll almost certainly see a requirement to go to very clean stoves, and I don't think that's a bad thing. However, many places in the EU are encouraging citizens to add wood heat as a way to shift the heating demand off of fossil fuels. They're doing it with small, super efficient stoves though. Things that look CRAZY compared to what we're used to calling a wood stove. The US often tends to lag Europe by ~15 years in energy and environmental policy, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the pendulum swing over to supporting the use of biomass in extremely-low-emission stoves. It's pretty clear that's where Woodstock thinks the industry is going.

This video has some examples of the kinds of stoves they're selling over there

As Williaty says, over here in Europe we've been very actively encouraged for quite a few years now to heat with wood, wood briquettes or pellets... This has all been a part of the move towards increasingly sustainable forms of home heating, so there's no indication after the Paris summit that the direction will change. Over here, wood heat is very much associated with sustainability, if it's different to any degree over the pond, I can only think it's becuase you still have so many of the old pre EPA stoves over there.. whereas here, the move is more from old-fashioned coal fuelled open fires to modern wood stoves.

And yes, typically stoves are much smaller over here, partly I think because the average winter temps are much warmer than many places in the US.... But also, I think because our homes are smaller - and we tend to heat them to a lower temperature (I'm cosy at 18 -19 deg C). We are also more likely to put on a sweater if we're cold, rather than crank up the heat...

My jotul F3 is considered a pretty big stove by most folk over here! I think I would melt if I had a bigger stove.

Everything boils down to overpopulation...All we do is talk about how to treat the symptoms of overpopulation...without talking about the thousand pound gorilla in the room.

True. But then we're voluntarily blind in so many ways when it suits us.

Down here in the southern US wood burning carries a negative connotation associated with poverty which keeps most of the yuppies from looking at it at all as a viable heating solution. It shocks that more people do not burn simply for the economics of it but also for the freedom it affords. Wood burning is the ultimate form of self sufficiency. Food gardens and firewood, the only savings account worth having!