Musings of an Energy Nerd - is Wood burning "green"

[semipro]

This is an interesting article on the "greenness" of burning wood for heat where both sides are presented.

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/should-green-homes-burn-wood

 

[begreen]

Good article. Moving to the hearth forum for a wider read.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

There is one thing not mentioned... Many of us burn wood that was cleared because somebody wanted a tree taken down for any number of reasons. They might have wanted to clear land, it might have been a danger to a house, might have been dead, diseased, etc. If it was going to come down anyway and you are disposing of waste does that earn you greenie points? What would happen if the forest was not thinned an a big ole Yellowstone forest fire rolled through?

Matt

 

[Jags]

Yep, its good to know both sides. Good article. Burn on!

 

[midwestcoast]

Good article! I do wish that the author didn't discourage all but rural woodburning. I do think there's room for responsible urban burning on a small-scale, and made the case in a comment that's long enough to ensure no-one will bother reading...

 

[semipro]

It strikes me that most of the arguments against burning wood have to do with the air emissions. Hopefully, improvements in stove and small engine technology and education about the quality of wood fuel (e.g., water content) and proper stove sizing will address these "negatives".

 

[dougstove]

I would like to see a comparative analyses of wood burning vs. gas powered lawn mowing.
Many evenings my neighbourhood is roaring with poorly tuned mowers belching blue smoke.
If I made that much noise playing music and having a bonfire, the Mounties would be at my door.

 

[Slow1]

It strikes me that most of the arguments against burning wood have to do with the air emissions. Hopefully, improvements in stove and small engine technology and education about the quality of wood fuel (e.g., water content) and proper stove sizing will address these "negatives".

Unfortunately until you get enough people properly educated and/or the old school burners (not just talking stoves here) phased out it is likely there will be plenty of people (largely non-burners) with plenty of personal bad experiences to relate to. One or two smoke filled areas is all it really takes to turn a very large number of people against wood burning. I drive by a couple places where there is one person burning dirty and filling a whole hillside with a smoky mess. Naturally the 100's of clean burners (if there are that many) don't stand out now do we? Bah - hard to set a good example when it is invisible eh?

We can argue lab values all day but they don't convince the general public (i.e. voters) who will gladly back something that seems to solve a problem they have driven by for some feel-good titled legislation that really is there for some other reason buried in the details and not debated in public.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Some people have a problem with everything, of course its green.

 

[webbie]

Most human endeavors are complex. If everyone burned wood and many did so less efficiently, it would be ANYTHING but green. Excess use of biomass has been and still is responsible for a lot of problems.

The Key is.....and I think I made up this phrase (tm).... Heat Local....you know, like eat local?

And it is important that it be part of a larger mix - that is simply good policy. Log wood burning does seem to fit better with rural and rural suburban areas while pellets can expand biomass to just about anywhere. However, I don't see wood burning as playing a big part of the energy picture in modern cities......which are already (or should be) incredibly energy efficient anyway (compared to suburban and rural living).

As to the emissions, there is finally a new wave starting.....probably due to EPA again....which could end up being much cleaner than the last generation. IMHO, the open fireplaces and older stoves present more of an immediate problem.

 

[semipro]

As to the emissions, there is finally a new wave starting.....probably due to EPA again....which could end up being much cleaner than the last generation. IMHO, the open fireplaces and older stoves present more of an immediate problem.

Good point. Old stoves and open fireplaces are sort of like "clunker" vehicles in that their contribution to fuel waste and air pollution is way out of proportion to their relative numbers. Hopefully new "green" building initiatives and certifications like LEED, Earth Craft, and others; and progressive update of building codes will address this issue. It seems like EPA's efforts would be better spent addressing the long list of "exempt" units rather than tightening existing requirements.

Whether your concern is how much wood you acquire and manage, environmental impact, or something else; efficiency benefits all... except those selling fuel.

 

[tiber]

What grinds my gears is the fact that everyone complains about burning wood, air quality in general, "old vehicles" or global warming due to greenhouse gasses and what we haven't seen is anyone pick on how a jet engine works. Jets have no catalytic converter, no exhaust system to speak of, and they dump their exhaust right into the upper ozone layer. More on the point there's really not been any advancement to speak of in alternative fuels or jet engine design for your typical passenger jet. Once you get into the military stuff it gets really bad since an afterburner dumps fuel directly into the flame path. Raw fuel, right into the air.

This doesn't give anyone pause in the EPA? They really are picking on old cars and woodstoves?

(Why do I pay taxes?)

 

[Deadcalm]

And if you remove ALL the various references to carbon, which at last, is becoming recognised as not being a particular problem , and certainly not the culprit it has been alleged to be in AGW arguments, what then? Just the particulates?

DC