RE: MSNBC Article on Woodheat

[firefighterjake]

Interesting article . . . but a bit vague on some details and some things I shook my head on (well figurately at least) as some points seemed to be a bit off (but then again this was written for a general audience and as such there will be some things in such an article that may not be quite right.)

http://realestate.msn.com/improve/Article2.aspx?cp-documentid=13677655&GT1=35000

A few notations that I made. . . .

-- A bit sparse on the manufacturers. Only Jotul, Quadrafire and Hearthstone were listed as woodstove manufacturers . . . although this was probably only designed to give a sampling of some of the dealers or perhaps the more cynical side of me could say that there was a pay off involved here as an advertising tie-in

-- One expert interviewed suggests not shopping at Big Box Stores and shopping in person at specialty woodstove shops for info vs. relying on the Internet. Personally, the Internet (specifically this website) gave me a lot more info and knowledge . . . and a lot more info than what I took away from visiting most woodstove shops. As for the Big Box stores . . . as long as folks know the possible downfalls and have the knowledge and know-how to do a proper install I thought it was a bit misleading to suggest that this is not the best option.

-- I had a real issue with the recommendation to not buy a model with a catalytic converter. While I didn't go this route, from reading many threads here it sounds as though there are many, many folks with cats that are very, very happy . . .

-- On the positive side I liked the fact that the author suggested speaking with one's insurer to see if they will still be covered, if there are any premium increases or special requirements.

 

[gyrfalcon]

Jake, seen any Jotul ads on MSNBC lately?

I used to work in the big-time news biz. They keep the ad people and the news people completely walled off from one another. An ad sales guy got fired outright where I worked when he was discovered after-hours frantically rifling through the news side's wastebaskets looking for hints on upcoming stories he could use to sell ads around.

Trade journals, glossy consumer magazines and small-circulation papers have to do things differently in order to survive, and there the feature editors and the ad sales people do work together on some things so they support each other. But otherwise, it's a huge scandal and a firing offense if a good-sized news organization of any kind engages in this kind of thing.

So while you can't trust these journalists to be competent, you can trust them not to be deliberately slanting their stories to include only advertisers' products.

 

[Todd]

Funny that good old Dirk Thomas would dis cat stoves since he states that "he burns a soapstone cat and is very happy with it" in his book.

Also no mention that wood heat is green in the fact that it is renewable and releases less co2 when burned rather than left to rot on the forest floor.

 

[woodjack]

Anyone that thinks that the media does not sell ads based on editorial content - and that editorial content is not influenced by advertisers - lives in fantasy world.

 

[sgcsalsero]

and releases less co2 when burned rather than left to rot on the forest floor.

news to me, thought burning was carbon neutral? ...I'll have to research that

 

[northwinds]

"Gulland estimates that heating his home in cold Ontario with oil would cost $4,000; with a wood stove, it costs him several hours chopping wood for several cords of wood"

Several hours? I spend a bit more time on processing than that.

 

[Ken45]

"Gulland estimates that heating his home in cold Ontario with oil would cost $4,000; with a wood stove, it costs him several hours chopping wood for several cords of wood"

Several hours? I spend a bit more time on processing than that.

LOL! Maybe he knows how to be more efficient than we are, he he. Or maybe he is descended from Paul Bunyan?

Ken

 

[woodjack]

I feel like my whole life is cutting, splitting, moving, stacking, and covering wood.

 

[fossil]

I feel like my whole life is cutting, splitting, moving, stacking, and covering wood.

You're supposed to burn some of it. Rick

 

[woodjack]

I feel like my whole life is cutting, splitting, moving, stacking, and covering wood.

You're supposed to burn some of it. Rick

I knew I was forgetting something.

 

[CowboyAndy]

so what about this statment:

"It's worth noting that despite recent design improvements, burning wood causes significantly more pollution than burning natural gas or oil and could cause health issues in more populated areas. Even pellet stoves burn cleaner than wood stoves. (See the differences, here.) But wood is a renewable resource that, used in the right conditions, could save you money."

if burned efficiantly, isnt it producing LESS pollution??

They also neglected to point out that burning with wood has a NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT.

 

[Ken45]

I feel like my whole life is cutting, splitting, moving, stacking, and covering wood.

You're supposed to burn some of it. Rick

I knew I was forgetting something.

That's why we have moderators like Rick to help you out ;-)

Ken

 

[Ken45]

if burned efficiantly, isnt it producing LESS pollution??

They also neglected to point out that burning with wood has a NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT.

While efficient burning produces less pollution than burning inefficiently, it still produce more pollution than heating with natural gas or sitting in the cold.

Wood burning has a LOW carbon footprint (neutral except for the gasoline used to cut, split and transport), but I don't see how it would be a negative footprint. It is lower than oil or natural gas, however and does not release any of the sequestered carbon that is stored in natural gas, oil, or electric (coal).

But let's face it, not all wood burners burn clean and efficient. While out gathering wood for next year, I saw a neighbor's OWB with a 200' plume of smoke. Like old junker cars, one burner like that produces more pollution than 100 efficient operations. Efficient burners aren't even noticed.

Ken

 

[CowboyAndy]

if burned efficiantly, isnt it producing LESS pollution??

They also neglected to point out that burning with wood has a NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT.

While efficient burning produces less pollution than burning inefficiently, it still produce more pollution than heating with natural gas or sitting in the cold.

Wood burning has a LOW carbon footprint (neutral except for the gasoline used to cut, split and transport), but I don't see how it would be a negative footprint. It is lower than oil or natural gas, however and does not release any of the sequestered carbon that is stored in natural gas, oil, or electric (coal).

But let's face it, not all wood burners burn clean and efficient. While out gathering wood for next year, I saw a neighbor's OWB with a 200' plume of smoke. Like old junker cars, one burner like that produces more pollution than 100 efficient operations. Efficient burners aren't even noticed.

Ken

On the carbon subject, I really think it is a negative carbon footprint, and here is why.

Wood burning releases the same amount of carbon than if a tree dies and falls. OUTCOME: NEUTRAL

The gas and oil I use in the chainsaw, splitter and transportation of my wood is about 20 gal per season compared to almost 1200 gal of fuel oil. OUTCOME: NEGATIVE

So overall my carbon footprint is NEGATIVE compared to burning dino oil.

 

[SteveT]

Andy -

Interesting way to look at it. But I think the word negative implies that the total carbon impact is "less than zero" and not "less than it would have been". To say wood burning is carbon neutral makes sense... for it to be a real negative it would have to reduce atmospheric carbon.

 

[CowboyAndy]

But it is indeed reducing the net carbon spewed into the atmosphere, by NOT burning (and subsequently releasing carbon) oil.

 

[GaryS]

Andy -

Interesting way to look at it. But I think the word negative implies that the total carbon impact is "less than zero" and not "less than it would have been". To say wood burning is carbon neutral makes sense... for it to be a real negative it would have to reduce atmospheric carbon.

I think it just means that burning the wood releases less carbon than what was taken up in the growth of the wood. I'm not sure how this can happen though. Surely, more carbon will be released when the ash decays? For this statement to be true, some of the carbon in the wood would have to be permanently stored.

 

[CowboyAndy]

The tree is releasing the same amount of carbon wheather by natural decay or burning.

 

[SteveT]

The statement on "carbon neutral" or anything like that has to do with the timing of the carbon capture and release and not just the amount of carbon. A tree will capture and release carbon over its lifetime plus any time needed for decay. That is usually a few decades and at most a couple of hundred years. And the cycle repeats with a new tree.

Burning fossil fuel on the other hand releases carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago.

 

[karri0n]

Except for the creosote and ash that never leaves the system... You are taking a small amount of carbon and putting it into long-term storage on the walls of your chimney and non-burned surfaces of the inside of your burning device. If you are composting your ashes, you aren't producing CO2 with them, but producing more complex carbon chains(see below)


On the other hand, Wood left to rot on the forest floor produces less CO2 than wood burned. Oxidation(burning) is required to produce CO2, whereas the carbon atoms in a rotting piece of wood go through other chemical changes due to bacteria, fungi, and insects, and produce more complex carbon chains such as sugars and other compounds, rather than being released in the atmosphere as CO2. There's no such thing as a negative carbon footprint, unless you are physically removing CO2 from the atmosphere, then breaking that into pure carbon and pure Oxygen. They have made a device that does this, but it uses electricity. It produces a slightly smaller footprint than the power it uses, but if you factor transportation, construction, etc, I don't think it's practical at all.

I still don't like the misleading claim about more pollution from wood heat, however. True, there is more particulate matter, but I think he should have included the fact that burning is carbon neutral. Also, it's REALLY easy to tell from the smell alone that burned wood is a lot more healthy than burned fossil fuels. It's a natural defense mechanism for humans that poisonous things smell bad, while healthy things smell good. There's obviously some exceptions to this, such as fast food.

 

[CowboyAndy]

Okay, I agree with you guys on the aspect of the terms neutral and negative. +1 learning experience.

 

[karri0n]

Andy, I believe the true moral of your statement was to be that wood burning is better for the environment than NOT burning wood, as you would be consuming oil/gas/coal to do the same purpose. You are correct. The rest is just semantics. Don't take our posts as attacks.