Which is more polluting... A car or a wood stove?

FyreBug Posted By FyreBug, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:14 AM

?

Which do you think is more polluting (Co2) a car or a wood stove?

  1. Car fer sure!

    82.7%
  2. No way! Wood stoves pollute more

    17.3%
  3. Me after eating Martha's five beans special chili recipe!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. FyreBug

    FyreBug
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Oct 6, 2010
    771
    145
    Loc:
    Kitchener, Ontario
    Well then... Just trust me!

    BTW, i can provide the simplified version for $19.95 just PM me your visa # :)
     
  2. Adios Pantalones

    Adios Pantalones
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    May 20, 2008
    6,587
    1,421
    Loc:
    S.NH- Mass's smoking section
    You breathe out about a kg of CO2 a day. A car produces 8.8 kg of CO2 per gallon burned.
     
  3. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    61,344
    7,825
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Yep, that's 19.4 pounds! You can see why saving 10 or 20 mpg over 100,000 miles = a big number. At 25mpg, (4000gal) = 77,600 lbs CO2. At 40mpg (2500gal) = 48,500 lbs CO2. A 29,100 lbs difference. Multiply that difference times the ~255 million cars on just American roads and you get a 7,420,500,000,000 lbs reduction. Not a small number at all. And this does not include trucks which is another area where we can achieve fantastic differences with today's technology and by beefing up our rail networks to carry more freight.

    We can't stop people from breathing, but we certainly have the technology right now to make a very serious dent in our CO2 output. Doing so also reduces our dependence on foreign oil. It's a win-win situation.
     
  4. BrowningBAR

    BrowningBAR
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jul 22, 2008
    7,607
    1,106
    Loc:
    Doylestown, PA
    Source: Emissions in Grams/hour or day
    Cigarette .4 grams/hour (0.8 grams/pack)
    Gas or Propane Furnace .001 grams/hour ( 0.024 grams/day)
    Oil furnace .02 grams/hour (0.48 grams/day)
    Pellet Stove 2.4 grams/hour ( 56.6 grams/day)
    Single Simulated Log 8 grams/hour
    Certified Wood Stove 8.2 grams/hour (196.8 grams/day)
    Non-certified wood stove 15.6 grams/hour
    Fireplace-hardwood: 30 grams/hour
    (36 lbs. or 16 kg burned over 3 hours.)
    Fireplace-softwood: 59 grams/hour.
    (31 lbs.or 14kg burned over 3 hours.)
    Auto-with Catalytic Converter .66 grams/hour
    Auto-without Catalytic Converter 3.5 grams/hour
    Auto-smoking 6 grams/hour
    Diesel 14 ton Truck or Bus >1994 36 grams/hour
    Diesel Truck or Bus < 1993 70 grams/hour
     

    Attached Files:

  5. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    61,344
    7,825
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Very interesting graph. That would be fine particulate emissions, not CO2. Still it's an interesting comparison illustrating where we need to work first on air cleanup, fireplaces included. If they put ocean going boats on this chart, like some that call locally on the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, the particle emissions from bunker fuel would be way off of this chart.

    PS: certified wood stove is listed at the top of the range. 2-4gms/hr is more typical.
     
  6. Delta-T

    Delta-T
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 27, 2008
    3,144
    579
    Loc:
    NH
    seems the way to go is to use condensed wood gas as a fuel for our cars....need to find something without fuel injection prolly for a retro fit.

    and just because something is natural doesn't mean its not a pollutant. anything, well, most things, in excess can be dangerous.....even water.. hydro-toxicity.
     
  7. BrowningBAR

    BrowningBAR
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jul 22, 2008
    7,607
    1,106
    Loc:
    Doylestown, PA

    There are a few things that the graph does not take into account. For instance; extraction and transportation pollution, which you would think would be quite a bit more for some of the fuels listed.
     
  8. darkbyrd

    darkbyrd
    New Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 25, 2011
    35
    0
    Loc:
    Pisgah Nat'l Forest, NC
    If we're talking about CO2, wood-burning appliances are carbon neutral, tree growing absorbing CO2, yadda yadda yadda. Stove wins. Particulates a different story depending on stove, fuel, methods, more yaddas. Car wins (probably). Extra helping? Chili, hands down.

    But if we really want to get into it, you need to look at production and transport of the firewood. I make all my own stove wood, and between the saws, splitter, and tractor, I'm at the gas station once a week. And that fuel is not carbon-neutral.

    2-man saw and a maul, now we're talking! ;)

    EDIT: B-BAR beat me to the 'extraction and transportation' part
     
  9. Jutt77

    Jutt77
    Feeling the Heat 2.
    NULL
    

    Dec 18, 2010
    371
    19
    Loc:
    Idledale, Colorado
    Good stuff. This doesn't even account for CO2 emissions from the production and distribution of gas does it?
     
  10. henkmeuzelaar

    henkmeuzelaar
    New Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 26, 2010
    209
    1
    Loc:
    Targhee NF, ID

    I know this is all in good fun. Moreover, like most forum members, I do not consider burning harvested deadwood (or livewood replaced by new seedlings) as adding net CO2 to the atmosphere. Therefore, my only comment about FyreBug's calculations is that complete combustion of wood (at 20% moisture content) is going to produce roughly 10 times the amount of CO2 stated. Probably just a decimal point.....but who cares??

    However, particulate matter emissions are threatening to become a much, much bigger issue. At the rate PM regulations are expanding worldwide (spurred by secondhand tobacco smoke and urban traffic PM health effect findings) most of us may well see a time that our children or grandchildren will no longer be able to sit around a campfire at school, scout or other youth camps because the organizers don't want to be liable.... Sorry, just realized I am going off topic.

    To stay on topic: the proposed new EPA regulations still appear to allow approx. 10 times higher particulate matter emissions from stoves burning wood than from car engines running on a comparable amount (energy-wise) on diesel fuel. Although this may not sound too bad, one has to take into consideration that, in contrast with tobacco smoke and traffic-dominated urban PM, there are few if any reliable studies directly tying population-wide health effects to wood smoke (not talking about people with allergies or other uncommon predisposing conditions here).

    I have researched pyrolysis/combustion processes as well as pollutant/health issues intensively for more than three decades and strongly favor a pro-active government role in protecting community health. However, what is urgently needed here are some relatively simple studies that can show whether it makes any sense to lump wood smoke in with the tobacco smoke and/or urban traffic PM threats. Oops, going OT again.......

    Will try to bring some of this up in a separate thread, at some point.

    Henk
     
  11. littlesmokey

    littlesmokey
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Does anyone else have a problem the figures? Who did the testing on what machines? Based on what it says, most of the data doesn't meet EPA standards, especially the stoves, right???
     
  12. remkel

    remkel
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 21, 2010
    1,459
    199
    Loc:
    Southwest NH
    I am voting for a coal fired car without scrubbers.
     
  13. phatfarmerbob

    phatfarmerbob
    New Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 10, 2011
    109
    0
    Loc:
    hudson valley ny
    like i said .. electric cars ie: the volt , and the new nissan leaf, are pretty much coal fired i mean if you burn the coal to make the electricty isnt that like having a coal fired car? just playing devils advocate.
     
  14. Hanko

    Hanko
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 26, 2008
    795
    10
    Loc:
    livingstion co, Michigan
    who cares
     
  15. henkmeuzelaar

    henkmeuzelaar
    New Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 26, 2010
    209
    1
    Loc:
    Targhee NF, ID
    If you are referring to roughly estimating the CO2 yields per unit weight of wood, one does not need much testing since the chemistry is fairly straightforward as long as we are talking complete combustion: e.g. using a catalytic or thermal afterburner stove.

    The literature says that wood contains approximately 50% carbon, on average. So, FyreBug's 28.12 kg of wood contains approximately 14 kg of carbon.

    When carbon (atomic weight 12) reacts with two atoms of oxygen (atomic weight 16 each) the resulting CO2 molecule has a molecular weight of 44.
    In other words, 1 kg of carbon produces 44/12 (3.667) kg of CO2 and 14 kg of carbon produces 14 x 3.666 = 51.333 kg of CO2.

    Because there are always small carbon losses to other combustion products (creosote, soot, VOCs, CO), it seemed that FyreBug's CO2 weight (4.22 kg) could perhaps be off by a factor 10.

    Henk
     
  16. Backwoods Savage

    Backwoods Savage
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 14, 2007
    27,815
    7,367
    Loc:
    Michigan
    It matters not to me which is more polluting. I occasionally have to drive the car and I heat with wood and will continue to do so, albeit in a very efficient stove.
     
  17. littlesmokey

    littlesmokey
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    GIVE US THE DAMN RECIPE, so we call all polute equally. :coolgrin:
     
  18. jensent

    jensent
    Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Apr 22, 2010
    158
    13
    Loc:
    central Ill
    Off topic but here are figures for various home heating fuels from The Forestry commission in GB.

    Kg CO2 per KWH
    Wood logs,chips pellets 0.025 (modern EPA stove or not!)
    Coal 0.291
    Natural gas 0.194
    Oil 0.265
    Thanks,
    Tom
     
  19. littlesmokey

    littlesmokey
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    O(K, so my British English is a little weak, and i speak American English, But the graph means Greek to me.
     
  20. jensent

    jensent
    Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Apr 22, 2010
    158
    13
    Loc:
    central Ill

    What the figures say is that coal,oil,and natural gas heat produce ten times the CO2 per given unit of heat as burning logs, chips or pellets.
     
  21. henkmeuzelaar

    henkmeuzelaar
    New Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 26, 2010
    209
    1
    Loc:
    Targhee NF, ID
    These British values for CO2 production from wood are meant to report carbon footprint data and already incorporate a more than 90% offset for renewable carbon fuels. The reason they don't totally offset wood as "carbon neutral" is that wood decomposition is a slow process, so that burning dead wood may lead to a temprary acceleration of CO2 released to the atmosphere. Moreover, some of the live wood might not have been replaced by new seedlings.

    When using one of the straight CO2 calculators on the web, you will find approx. 1.7 kg of CO2 produced per kg of wood and 2.5 kg or more CO2 per kg of coal.

    Henk
     
  22. Adios Pantalones

    Adios Pantalones
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    May 20, 2008
    6,587
    1,421
    Loc:
    S.NH- Mass's smoking section
    Not a lot of people are processing wood without the aid of fossil fuels in saws, trucks, etc
     
  23. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    61,344
    7,825
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    True indeed. There's no free lunch. And don't forget the post processing pollution. Beer can be a mighty source of methane for some folk.
     
  24. Texas Fireframe

    Texas Fireframe
    New Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Hi! Do you have a link for this graph you posted? Just curious what the source is.

    Is trailnotes your website? Great idea.

     
  25. BrowningBAR

    BrowningBAR
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jul 22, 2008
    7,607
    1,106
    Loc:
    Doylestown, PA

    I do have a source for that info... somewhere. I'll try to find it again. And yes, TrailNote is my (and my business partner) website. I'm glad you like. Just trying to keep people safe.
     

Share This Page