I guess that would include our stoves! What happens if they tax carbon emissions ie cap and trade.Anybody know if that stat is correct? Just thinking and wondering out loud.
any truth that 80 percent of all energy produced comes from carbon?
- Thread starter Doug MacIVER
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
Actually carbon is higher than that, about 85%. Wood is a 'split' energy resource. It is actually listed as a renewable, like biomass, but they are both actually hydrocarbons. Total energy sourced in the US listed by the DOE in 2009 was broken down be 37% petroleum, 25% NG, 21% coal, 8% renewable, and 9% nuke. Wood and biomass make up about 1/4 of renewables.
I think the reason wood would be listed as renewable is that it comes from the part of the carbon supply that is in already in the atmospheric loop and not sequestered, like buried coal methane.
Burning it just releases it faster than rot. This does add to some problems with the epa types I guess.Washington state has instituted some burning bans due to inversions asthis was mentioned on another thread.
It sure could cause problems if wood burning levels increased to try and account for all the fuel needed to run a modern society, as it does in some areas.
Several places have ban in effect or limits on wood burning. WA state has banned all OWBs for example. They also require all wood stoves to be better than EPA standard, with their own stricter standard for smoke and efficiency. In many counties in WA state all wood burning appliances and fireplaces must have an OAK fitted. In OR state, all houses sold with wood stoves must be either Oregon DEQ or EPA approved. In the Willamette Valley metro areas, there are wood burning ban days when inversion layers are bad (except for those houses that only heat with wood). In CA state, the SF Bay area has banned fireplaces and any wood burning appliances in all new construction. They also have wood burning bans on bad air quality days. When I lived in the SF area, the wood smoke was really bad there in winter months. There are over 7 million people in that area now.
So far wood as a fuel source has stayed under the radar in most of the US, and remains cheaper to heat with in places like Oregon. However, it is becoming more commonly used as a fuel for electricity generation, and they are building more wood fire plants in MN and CA. The rapid increase in NG has staved off a larger move to wood and other alternative fuels. As I said in my last post, regions are adapting and enforcing stricter standards in regard to wood burning as well.
We have gone from wood to a coal to oil/NG to fire civilization. As far as wood rotting instead of being burned, you could say that wood built houses are sequestering carbon for as long as the houses are being used. Eventually it will burn or rot though. Rotting is worse as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned, as more methane is produced that way. Burning mainly just releases carbon dioxide and water. I have lots of debates with the greenies about this. They think they can cut trees down and leave the wood and they will have sequestered the carbon. However, the termites and ants will hit the wood as soon as it is on the ground, and they create quite a lot of of methane in the process of digesting the wood.
Overall, wood is a mere 2% of the energy produced and used today in the US. Small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. However, it is a carbon based fuel and we are hopelessly dependent on carbon fuel to keep this civilization going.
- Status
Similar threads
