What is the carbon footprint of wood heat?

None! There is no such thing as CARBON FOOTPRINT. Nothing but a Hoax......

EatenByLimestone said:

It shouldn't put any more C into the air than it takes out. Or than would be released if it was left to fall and rot.

Matt

Click to expand...

exactly: wood heat via a woodstove or pellet stove is carbon nuetral. wood releases no more carbon into the ait if it is left to rot, or burned in the stove. It does release some particulate matter, which is why an epa stove is inportant to rduce those emissions.

While oil release carbon that has effectively been trapped, burning wood certainly isn't as clear cut as: it's carbon neutral (despite my forum name...). Wood left to rot in the forest releases its C over years (10-20), compared to a burning where it may only take two years, and often much less unfortunately. The important metric is carbon cycle time, rather then carbon released. Sources like solar and wind are truly carbon cycle neutral (except for the manufacturing of the technology), wood is the next best I would guess (after nuke, tidal)

Edit: wood that is sustainably harvested is C neutral

so then go burn some oil.

Don 't worry if it has a carbon footprint, worry if someone is trying to tax you over some silly carbon tax. Wood.... still fat free. Caffeine free.

Farmer Bill said:

And that if wood is burned instead of uranium, then we don't have all that radioactive waste to look after for over 500,000 years.

Click to expand...

500,000 years? Try 4.5 billion years. That's the half-life of U238, the overwhelmingly dominant radioactive uranium isotope found in depleted uranium tailings and spent fuel rods. Earth is widely believed to be 4.4 billion years old (or 6000 years if you are a creationist), so that means when the earth is twice as old as it is now, just over half of the depleted uranium we are producing will still be left. There are currently over 1.5 million metric tons of depleted uranium in the world.

I'll take wood over nukes any day. ;-)

Burning the wood itself is functionally carbon neutral for the rationale stated already -- but that doesn't include transporting the wood or cutting it up if you use a chain saw.

A quick google for grams of CO2 released for 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity use:


Coal = 800 to 1050
Natural gas (combined cycle) = 430 (average)
Nuclear = 6
Hydroelectric = 4
Photovoltaïc solar = 60 to 150
Wind Power = 3 to 22

1000 grams is roughly 2 pounds

mbutts said:

Don 't worry if it has a carbon footprint, worry if someone is trying to tax you over some silly carbon tax. Wood.... still fat free. Caffeine free.

Click to expand...

If anyone has convinced you there is a proposal to tax carbon, you've been mislead.

I always thought it was slightly better than carbon neutral.

What's ash made out of?

Konrad said:

mbutts said:

Don 't worry if it has a carbon footprint, worry if someone is trying to tax you over some silly carbon tax. Wood.... still fat free. Caffeine free.

Click to expand...

If anyone has convinced you there is a proposal to tax carbon, you've been mislead.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess I've been misled by the President and his Cap and Trade bill?

Here is what I know. My heat pump is run by electricity that is generated from coal. We use a lot of electricity. Based on what I saw from the last two bills, we are going to use about 25% less for the year. I own the trees, so far I have not cut down a healthy tree in the 12 years we have been here, just cleaning up down trees from storms should keep me in heating wood. And if they don't, I have neighbors who are into the fact that we switched to the "earth friendly" wood heat and have offered me to clean up in their woods. Now some of that will have to be moved with the tractor or truck back here but it's all split by hand, only real energy cost other then my own is the gas for the saw, and I even switched to the all natural bio friendly chain oil for that.. so I figure even if not carbon neutral.. at least much more earth friendly. Big step for a ex-tanker who used to run over trees on purpose just to see them fall. I wonder if since the raising of livestock is so hard on the planet, if I can get extra "green" credit for not having eaten any red meat not harvested from my own woods for the last couple years..?

I will admit that I now look at my trees differently, keeping track of what shape they are in, which ones look like they might need to come down, or will come down, and which ones have wildlife in them. Just this week noticed we have wood ducks in two cherry trees. Big oak on the north side has had red tailed hawks in it for about 5 seasons.

If a tree is killed to burn it can't photosynthesize the CO2 in the air & that is a factor.

A living tree removes C from the air and converts it into living tissue (cellulose, starches, glucose and other carbs).

When a tree rots in the woods, bacteria and fungi break it down. Some of that C goes into the ground, some goes into the air, and some goes into the bacteria and fungi. So it's not true that 100% of the roting tree's carbohydrates end up in the air. How much, I don't know.

When you burn wood in an EPA stove to minimize pollution, some of the C is turned into ash, some is converted into smoke which is then combusted in the firebox, and some is given off as smoke into the air or sticks to the walls of your flue on the way out.

If you are running a smoke dragon, more C is stuck to the flue and less is combusted in the firebox.

How much C goes into each place, I cannot say, but it if you really want to know the true answer, I think you have to measure C in all of these places.

When people ask me about liberating C and all that, I tell them I think my wood stove does at least as good as nature if not better. Some of the C in the smoke is combusted after all. Does that beat how much C bacteria put on their bodies when breaking down a fallen tree . . . maybe someone knows.

BLIMP said:

If a tree is killed to burn it can't photosynthesize the CO2 in the air & that is a factor.

Click to expand...

Yes, but by properly managing a wood lot, the total biomass will go up. Selective culling of trees can dramatically increase the light to the understory, increasing photosynthesis and thereby taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and adding oxygen to it.

Farmer Bill said:

Yes, but if one focus' on the entire woodlot, and the health of that woodlot, then I would think that the CO2 consumption from that missing tree is quickly made up for.

Click to expand...

I think this is the right way to look at it: in other words, the forest (or woodlot) is a *system*.
As long as you're maintaining this woodlot properly, it is carbon neutral. Of course, as someone
else mentioned, there's still the chainsaw gas and oil and possibly truck gas (I wheelbarrow
most of mine from my woodlot). But when you look at what you're replacing, I'm sure those
other costs are dwarfed.

Vic99 said:

A living tree removes C from the air and converts it into living tissue (cellulose, starches, glucose and other carbs).

When a tree rots in the woods, bacteria and fungi break it down. Some of that C goes into the ground, some goes into the air, and some goes into the bacteria and fungi. So it's not true that 100% of the roting tree's carbohydrates end up in the air. How much, I don't know.

When you burn wood in an EPA stove to minimize pollution, some of the C is turned into ash, some is converted into smoke which is then combusted in the firebox, and some is given off as smoke into the air or sticks to the walls of your flue on the way out.

If you are running a smoke dragon, more C is stuck to the flue and less is combusted in the firebox.

How much C goes into each place, I cannot say, but it if you really want to know the true answer, I think you have to measure C in all of these places.

When people ask me about liberating C and all that, I tell them I think my wood stove does at least as good as nature if not better. Some of the C in the smoke is combusted after all. Does that beat how much C bacteria put on their bodies when breaking down a fallen tree . . . maybe someone knows.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, from a carbon emission standpoint it doesn't matter what you burn in, EPA stove, smoke dragon, camp fire... all liberate just about as much carbon as you put into them assuming you leave no charcoal. Burning carbon (carbohydrates) is just turning it into CO2 (and a little CO) no? Doesn't burning smoke just break more of it down to CO2 leaving less CO & other more complex particles? I imagine the carbon in ash & smoke would get liberated fairly quickly (few months to years) in nature & a few ounces of hard creosote one way or another doesn't add up to much compared to the multiple cords of wood burned in a season.

There is no wood harvesting method that is really carbon neutral - at the very least YOU aren't carbon neutral. Quit exhaling! The woodlot, on the other hand, can be 'carbon negative' if properly managed, when it accumulates soil organic matter and biomass in the long term. Even accounting for the wood you take out and burn, the forest can still be a carbon sink. The reality is that most of the carbon captured by a forest is released back to the atmosphere relatively quickly. Leaves are eaten or decompose quickly, insects die and decompose, and much of the wood, if not burnt, decomposes in relatively short time. However, over the long term the amount of biomass and the amount of soil organic matter increase in a well managed forest. There is an equilibrium level of biomass and organic matter in mature forests, but most forests are not there yet, so there is plenty of room to capture carbon AND burn firewood.

By the way, none of the trees in my wood pile wre cut down for firewood. They were all cut for some other reason, then I found them and made them firewood. if they weren't in my firewood stacks, they'd be rotting, not capturing carbon. I bet the same is true for most firewood scroungers.

My position is the amount of wood consumed by home heating is so small as to be inconsequential. I would like to point out though the estimate of 10 to 20 years for a tree to decompose is only for warm climates. Up here a tree can still be looking pretty much like its old self after 40 years on the ground and I would bet it takes a over hundred to completely get rid of it. This is no guess as trees that I cut down over 35 years ago still work as bridges over marsh land.. Its the cold winters there is not much time for decomp.
I also do not know why some get so upset that there is such a thing as GW. I mean the climates going to change weather we do it or nature does it. Its also common for many animals to destroy their own habitat. Why should we be any different. The same greed on wall street will cause us to destroy everything eventually. Best thing is to enjoy life and try to be a decent human being.