The webmaster just loves pellet and corn stoves!

[webbie]

Amazingly enough, I don't hang out on the forum for $$.

I learn a lot!

Now that the recent discussions about GPH are over, it is time to reflect on a point which was not brought up in those threads, but was referred to many times in the links and studies which were cited.

That fact: PELLET AND CORN/BIOMASS STOVES ARE REALLY CLEAN - EVEN IN THE REAL WORLD WITH REAL USERS

This is a major victory for those classifications of stoves. Even Burning Issues (BI) shows that pellet and biomass stoves burn quite cleanly, and field studies show the same.

Although it is not my nature to pit one stove type against the other, this factoid does (or should) put some pressure on the wood burning stove industry to improve their products. By improve, I don't mean lower GPH, but lower EVERYTHING when used by normal people in everyday situations. The articles made reference to the fact that R&D in wood stoves had been lacking due to market forces (slow sales).....well, it's time for the industry to invest some money and time!

Given those studies showing an average of over 10 grams per hour (plus all the other POM's) from both cat and non-cats, I am not as proud as I could be.....the only conclusion that Tiegs comes to is "even after degradation, it can be said that EPA stoves burn cleaner than non-certified models" - That just is not good enough!

I see no reason why real world burning cannot be brought down to an average of 5 GPH or even lower. Yes, some of it depends on chimney, wood, weather, operator, etc......maybe we should have electronic sensors which tell folks they have to learn to burn correctly (when too much smoke is being produced).....

Anyway, those studies and the facts are humbling and a bit troubling......but they are good news for makers of the (more efficient) pellet and biomass automatic stoves.

 

[babalu87]

I have a real problem with the corn stoves.
They are already taking enough corn (read FOOD) from the livestock industry WORLDWIDE to make ethanol. Sure corn is renewable but when the market for the fuel to drive our cars and heat our homes raises the price of pork, beef, chicken and milk what is the real net gain?

Oh, I'm sure AGENERGY will post something touting the benefits of corn for fuel and stating that rising fuel costs are driving the prices of the food up but it doesnt take much in the way of brains to see the correlation between food prices and the ramped up production of ethanol.

The corn burning stoves (as are wood stoves and pellet stoves ) are still pretty much a niche market.
Now imagine just 50% of the homes in your area having a corn bin in their basement getting 1 ton deliveries a few time a winter, how much is a gallon of milk then?

The good thing about cord wood and pellets is nobody is eating it.

EDIT
What is the moisture content of corn used in corn/pellet stoves? Is it about the same as pellet/good cord wood as far as moisture?
I would imagine at $6.00 a bushel for feed/ethanol corn it could get very expensive to heat a home with it at a much lower moisture content?

 

[webbie]

I put corn stoves under the general "biomass" heading for a number of reasons. Some fuel makers are starting to blend wood and corn, and others are working with additional biomass crops. Even though corn is edible, direct thermal conversion is a much more efficient use of it than ethanol. And I agree about a niche market - I would not want to promote 30 million people burning corn stoves! (or wood stoves).

Corn is higher moisture than pellets - usually 13-15% or so (see wiki articles). Around here it is $180 a ton, which probably compares with $225. pellets - BUT, in corn country it is cheaper and to the farmer it is much cheaper.....yes, again, niche markets.

So back to the Buddha - everything in moderation.

We vegetarians have been complaining for decades that the livestock industry takes 10-15+ pounds of corn and creates one pound of chicken from it........so poor % conversions are being done on a regular basis. I think it is important that we see all these various markets as working in concert to improve technology and experiment with possible solutions. There is a big difference between a fraction of a million tons being burned for fuel and a bunch of ethanol plants...the biggest difference being the efficiency of conversion.

US corn crop is 11 billion bushels or almost 300 million tons......so an efficiency use of a tiny fraction of it would not be like the ethanol thing.

In any case, pellet/corn/biomass will eventually float toward the fuel which can produce the most BTU for the buck - whether it is compressed hay (food), or wood, etc.

Don't we eat wood? I always thought that was sawdust in those loaves of wheat bread with fiber?

Although I disagree (given current science) with AG about the ethanol thing, the use of 1/500 of the US corn crop for niche heating is not likely to have an effect on food prices. Also, another point where AG is correct is that the more demand for corn, the more R&D, which is improving yields and also the efficiency (less input to grow).....

Back to the point - controlled burning has advantages in terms of cutting down on pollution.

 

[Gooserider]

I agree the processed fuel fires are cleaner, but they lack the cost advantage that the woodstoves have. I see a couple of reasons for this...

1. The current gov't rules are a definite COUNTER-incentive to improvement! We were told on the VC tour that Elk and I took that ANY change in the design of a stove (even something relatively trivial like permanently attaching the handles) would require a complete retest, at MINIMUM of $20K per cycle, pass or fail, with failures requiring repeated $20K test cycles until the stove passed. Since the only way to recoup that cost is by amortizing the cost across multiple stoves, the incentive is to keep the design as stable as possible, making changes only when the stove has to be re-tested anyway, and keeping those changes minimal so as not to risk failing a test. What advantage does a stove maker gain in doing rapid / frequent innovations that increase the prices on his stoves and only give him a number that the very people specifying his tests say he shouldn't use as a sales tool to beat his competitor with the older, dirtier, stove design that sells for less?

2. The 90/10 rule applies, namely that the last 10% of the pollution costs 90% of the money to clean up. The current designs have basically gotten the first 90%, so now we are trying to get them to deal with the last 10% that costs much more, but gives much less benefit... It's worth noting that even at 10g/hr, improving the emissions efficiency of a woodstove isn't going to give the consumer any real advantage other than the "warm fuzzies" from putting out less smoke. Going from a smoke dragon to an EPA II stove results in a significant fuel use savings, but cleaning up an EPA II stove isn't going to help that much more when one considers earlier calculations comparing existing numbers that said a 2g/hr improvement amounts to less than one load of wood over the course of a season.

Others costs are going to stay about the same, you still need an annual chimney sweeping, installation costs probably won't change significantly, etc.

I am a bit cynical and say that you need to offer a good bit of "WIIFM factor" (What's In It For ME?) to get me to buy something - I tend to resist gov't mandates on principle, but once past that, there are lots of advantages to me in going from a smoke dragon to an EPA II stove - more heat / less wood burned, pretty picture window to watch the fire through, less need to sweep the chimney 2-3 times a season, etc... Plus I put out less smoke (that the neighboors haven't been complaining about anyway) So what advantage are you going to offer me to go from an EPA II stove to the hypothetical "EPA III" stove? Note that even with the current rules making it difficult to install a used smoke dragon, there isn't a big rush to go to even the EPA II stoves.

2. I think the technical problem is MUCH harder... A pellet stove burns a fuel with very constant size and shape, made from a very narrow recipe of ingredients, with a limited range of moisture content, etc. Even in this narrow envelope of fuel types, though we see significant problems with fuel quality - just look at post content here, how many pelletheads complain about fuel problems compared with cordwooders complaining about the differences in wood varieties? However the narrow range of fuel types means that it's relatively easy to design a "carburator" that will burn them in the best way possible, needing only minor adjustments to fine tune it. In addition all sorts of artificial enhancements get used, such as continuous fuel flow, forced draft, mechanical agitation of the coals, etc.

This results in an appliance that burns very clean, but requires a relatively expensive and specialized fuel source that is so highly processed it would be a net energy loss if one weren't starting the manufacturing process with a waste byproduct...

OTOH, Cordwood comes in a wide range of sizes and shapes, with variable moisture content and wood species... This huge variation in fuel types, plus the cyclic nature of refueling demands a tremendously flexible "carburator" - like trying to design a car engine to run well on everything from nitromethane to bunker-C fuel oil, with no more than minor adjustments allowed. In addition, what is expected of a wood stove design rules out artificial enhancements - no forced draft, no automatic fire agitation, batch fuel feed, etc. Even the natural draft is highly variable due to differences in chimney specs. (They've tried to tighten those up, but there are limits on how far it is possible to go in that direction) Bottom line is the cordwood fire is a much harder beast to tame, and it's amazing they've done as much with it as they have.

Gooserider

 

[Highbeam]

A nice feature of the versatile biomass stoves is that you have the choice to burn corn or wood pellets or whatever future biomass product comes up cleanly without burning fossil fuels. If you don't like to burn corn then burn wood pellets. Myself, I would choose the lowest buck per BTU fuel combined with the least fussing around when choosing a biomass fuel.

To get the great emmisions I believe it is a combination of tight fuel quality control, forced air combustion, and metered fueling to maintain a small and hot fire. Implementing these features on a cordwood stove would be so difficult that you may as well burn pellets. The pros of wood heat will be gone.

Cordwood heat is simple, dependable, very low cost, supports the local economy, and very satisfying so I choose cordwood while the fuel is abundant and cheap. Honestly, there is a place for both types of stove in my house and maybe someday I will have one of each. The biomass stove acting as a furnace with a lower thermostat setting than I would achieve with the cordwood stove.

 

[webbie]

I agree that the standards much it up somewhat - and I think they are (over the long term) addressing that. Future woodstoves might have a few levers that you can set for

hardwood/softwood
really dry wood/less dry
strong chimney/weak chimney

But, as you mention, this is impossible with current standards.
So the standards which originally helped are working against us now. We would probably have better stoves today if the EPA thing did not happen (but there would still be dirty stuff too, so the end result would be worse). Remember that the first cat stoves and non-cats (Kent) were on the market long before the standards became final - and they were selling based on their merits.

I guess we should look at it as a good thing, because this is what makes the "art" in addition to the science and keeps me (and the knowledgeable installers and stores) in business. Still, for many millions of people, the biomass stove could be a good supplement - especially when local biomass is available.

But I have to think that wood stoves are not as clean as they could or should be, even given EPA standards.

 

[Gooserider]

Actually we might have slightly cleaner stoves WITHOUT the EPA standards -

1. More options for incremental improvements w/o having to pay for expensive additional testing

2. Maybe more room for "niche" stoves - IE "hardwood" and "softwood" versions optimized for each wood type (maybe with a conversion kit to go between them)

3. Real competition between brands, instead of a gov't standard saying "This is clean enough, and don't look at the detailed numbers"

4. A demand for test procedures that more closely match the "real world" burning scenario, rather than an artificial standard that everyone designs to, but which doesn't really relate to actual burning. (How much "tuning" of the stove design to meet that test standard is done, and what sort of movement away from optimal "real world" burnng results?)

Gooserider

 

[bmstove.com]

If we'd suspend those stinking chickens into a comatose state, feed them a vitamin/steroid drip IV until they are ready to stuff in a plastic bag we could save so much corn we'd all be driving our cars on ethanol and heating our homes with the cheapest subsance known to man.

 

[BrotherBart]

If we'd suspend those stinking chickens into a comatose state, feed them a vitamin/steroid drip IV until they are ready to stuff in a plastic bag we could save so much corn we'd all be driving our cars on ethanol and heating our homes with the cheapest subsance known to man.

I think your chances for President of PETA are pretty slim BM.

 

[GVA]

Just a quick sidenote even though a pellet stove may burn cleaner in lab tests.... If not maintained and cleaned they will burn pretty dirty, as will most everything....

Yeah I said this and I'm a pellet person. (but I believe in maintenance) ;-P

 

[BrotherBart]

Just a quick sidenote even though a pellet stove may burn cleaner in lab tests.... If not maintained and cleaned they will burn pretty dirty, as will most everything....

Yeah I said this and I'm a pellet person. (but I believe in maintenance) ;-P

Yep. What would be the difference in emissions in an an un-maintained pellet stove from November to April and a similarly un-maintained wood stove in the same period heating 24/7.

Pellet stove would be a door stop by February.

 

[begreen]

I was pretty happy with our pellet stove and it burned very cleanly. The nice surprise was that it was easy to keep it clean running. When we moved into the house, I felt a bit guilty running two stoves at a time and the pellet stove provided a clean stove solution. No doubt there are disadvantages as compared to the wood stove, but there are many advantages as well. Clean burning is right at the top of the list.

 

[GVA]

Just a quick sidenote even though a pellet stove may burn cleaner in lab tests.... If not maintained and cleaned they will burn pretty dirty, as will most everything....

Yeah I said this and I'm a pellet person. (but I believe in maintenance) ;-P

Yep. What would be the difference in emissions in an an un-maintained pellet stove from November to April and a similarly un-maintained wood stove in the same period heating 24/7.

Pellet stove would be a door stop by February.

Door stop my a$$...
a pellet stove starts to burn dirty then it just won't burn anymore (till it's cleaned)
a wood stove that starts to burn dirty makes creosote and then self cleans the chimney with the chimney fire!!

How often do you clean any ashes from your stove/ sweep the flue etc.

c'mon BB........

 

[DaveR]

I have a real problem with the corn stoves.
They are already taking enough corn (read FOOD) from the livestock industry WORLDWIDE to make ethanol. Sure corn is renewable but when the market for the fuel to drive our cars and heat our homes raises the price of pork, beef, chicken and milk what is the real net gain?

Oh, I'm sure AGENERGY will post something touting the benefits of corn for fuel and stating that rising fuel costs are driving the prices of the food up but it doesnt take much in the way of brains to see the correlation between food prices and the ramped up production of ethanol.

The corn burning stoves (as are wood stoves and pellet stoves ) are still pretty much a niche market.
Now imagine just 50% of the homes in your area having a corn bin in their basement getting 1 ton deliveries a few time a winter, how much is a gallon of milk then?

The good thing about cord wood and pellets is nobody is eating it.

EDIT
What is the moisture content of corn used in corn/pellet stoves? Is it about the same as pellet/good cord wood as far as moisture?
I would imagine at $6.00 a bushel for feed/ethanol corn it could get very expensive to heat a home with it at a much lower moisture content?

Corn has been used in many applications beyond just food and far removed from ethanol. Burning corn does not seem to be anymore problematic than using it for ethanol, plastic, adhesives, coatings, etc. If the price is right and it offers better value as a residential heating fuel than other readily available alternatives, why not burn it rather than see it converted to ethanol, plastics, adhesives, coatings, etc?

Here are a couple of links that may provide consumers a better understanding of the many non-food related applications that use corn as a feedstock provided the economics support the application. If residential consumers do not use corn as a residential heating fuel to save on heating costs, industry will use corn as an alternative resource to petrochemicals when the economics support the applications. Someone is going to benefit from this abundant resource as an alternative to petroleum as long as it offers better value.

Here are some links to facilitate your own research. It is interesting to investigate the many nonfood related uses for corn as an alternative feedstock to petroleum. This has been going on for a long time and industry has never worried about using corn to their own economic advantage.

http://lepton.marz.com/ncga/comm_dev_center/index_PG.asp

(broken link removed to http://bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/industrial.asp)

(broken link removed to http://www.iowacorn.org/cornuse/cornuse_6.html)

Actually cleaner drier corn does offer improved heat value and performance to consumers and minimizes waste of this resource by releasing more of its inherent heat content for every pound burned. However, consumers should burn the fuel that offers the best heat value and convenience. Moisture content can and will vary for cordwood, wood pellets, corn and other biomass. Since this can and does have significant influence on effective heat content of these fuels, consumers should know the moisture content of biomass to understand the heat value purchased. As the price of a raw commodity like corn rises, the value in optimizing its utilization through reduction of waste increases.

To better understand the difference test weight and moisture can have on effective heat value of corn check out the following link and read the brochure "Corn Stoves". It should be noted that this is similar to effective heat value of various wood pellets relative to weight/cu ft and moisture content.

(broken link removed to http://www.auri.org/research/informational/inform.htm)

I hope this does not disappoint. By the way, pray for continued rains through the corn belt over the next several weeks.

 

[DaveR]

... Corn is higher moisture than pellets - usually 13-15% or so (see wiki articles). Around here it is $180 a ton, which probably compares with $225. pellets - BUT, in corn country it is cheaper and to the farmer it is much cheaper.....yes, again, niche markets. ...

In any case, pellet/corn/biomass will eventually float toward the fuel which can produce the most BTU for the buck - whether it is compressed hay (food), or wood, etc.

Market prices for large volume purchases of raw field corn meeting the USDA Grade # 2 Yellow Dent Corn Standard ranged from about $2.50-$4.15/Bushel from September 2006 through March 2007 in Illinois. This standard allows for Foreign Materials and Fines of 3% by weight and a commercial standard for moisture of 15.5% typical for corn stored in grain bins. However, this moisture content can vary especially during harvest with corn coming straight from fields typically seeing mositure running anywhere from 14-20% or more depending upon harvest conditions. Corn is living breathing biomass and moisture content does fluctuate with ambient conditions relative to temperature and humidity.

Central Illinois serves as a bellweather market for corn prices and can be found in the Wall Street Journal's commodity markets section. Corn prices vary significantly based upon local and regional market conditions and opportunities. The National Corn Growers Association website also offers market prices by zip code for the nearest 1 to 5 markets for large volume purchases of corn. The link to this website follows below ...

(broken link removed)

It is interesting to notice the difference in cash bid prices based upon local and regional market dynamics with $0.10-$0.60/bushel price spreads not uncommon and influenced in part by transportation costs to nearest processors or bulk shipping terminals.

Even here in Illinois in the heart of the corn belt prices for corn purchased for use as heating fuel this past season varied from around $160-$250/ton as corn prices moved higher September 2006 through March 2007. Some farmers in our area decided small volume sales were not worth the time or effort with higher market prices for truckload volumes of corn. Elevators were selling raw field corn meeting the USDA Grade # 2 standard in 100-Lb bulk sacks for $8.00-$11.00/bag based upon my inquiries. Small bulk corn sales were somewhat less. This corn typically had to be cleaned with potential to lose up to that 3% of Foreign Material & Fines and had greater variability of moisture content with 15.5% being the target commercial standard. Retailers in the Midwest have begun to sell various brands of cleaned dried corn processed to various standards for use as heating fuel. These typically offered lower and more consistent moisture content ranging from a low of 10%-11% to a high of 14-15%. Most of it was cleaned with Foreign Materials and Fines running from .5 % up to around 2%. It was being packaged in 40 or 50 LB bags and sold retail through the heating season for $200-$250/Ton. Wood pellets were selling for $200-$240/ton at these same retailers but were typically only available sporadically after January with many retailers offering varying brands throughout heating season.

It will be interesting to see how the industry evolves and if improved standards for corn used as heating fuel can offer consumers better heat value and convenience at competitive prices. I believe there are opportunities for corn in this market at a comparable value to premium wood pellets. Ultimately the market will decide and corn will likely compete in this market without benefit of government mandates, subsidies, or tariffs to encourage its use. It will be based only on corn's economic value relative to its many other uses including ethanol.

 

[TruePatriot]

Great thread (and comments), Web!

But I think we should reread Goosrider's anaylysis, above. I thought his whole thing was very insightful and coherent, and that this quote was beautiful, in its succinct accuracy:

This results in an appliance that burns very clean, but requires a relatively expensive and specialized fuel source that is so highly processed it would be a net energy loss if one weren’t starting the manufacturing process with a waste byproduct…

I'd like to use the bolded portion as a jumping off point for the white elephant in the room that has only been hinted at by Goose, if I'm not mistaken, namely:

How much energy is used in the production of those pellets? Or the processing and drying of the corn?

To help get our minds around this, please consider a similar FACT: For every gal. of ethanol processed from corn, ONE-AND-A-HALF GALLONS OF DIESEL FUEL WAS BURNED.

Now, I don't want to digress to farm subsidies, but since corn is part of this, it helps to consider the potential for hidden agendas. For instance, anytime you see a politician stand up on his or her hind legs and argue the benefits of ethanol, keep the above in mind, and know that their lips are moving NOT in the service of renewable energy but in support of FARM SUBSIDIES.

Farm subsidies may be justified, even essential--I'm no expert.

But I am smart enough to know that a 1.5 gallons of diesel is not a fair trade for 1.0 gallons of ethanol, which only has 80% of the BTU's of gasoline to begin with! (Translation: less h.p. produced and fewer mpg than gasoline.)

Now, get this: I'm not asking how economical pellets of corn are to the end user. I'm asking HOW MUCH CARBON IS DISCHARGED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, PER BTU EMITTED FROM THE STOVE, WHEN THE MFR. OF THE PELLETS IS CONSIDERED?

Fuel of some type is used to process, and presumably, to dry, those pellets, be they of corn, wood, or ?

The sun makes the wood, and dries it. Fuel is used in cutting cordwood, hauling it and possibly in splitting it. But that is MUCH LESS fuel than is used by a pellet factory.

And that's not counting the fuel used to till the soil, plant, harvest and haul the the corn.... And fuel is used in the prod. and application of fertilizers--and trucks have to haul that fertilizer too.

Trees, OTOH, tend to put down roots in one place, suck up free sunshine (scrubbing the air of carbon as they emit oxygen) and fall over near the truck that's going to haul them to the final site of consumption (i.e., not 2,500 miles, which is the average distance traveled by ALL of the food you loaded into shopping bags at the grocery, in the US--and that's a FACT! Incidentally, the average distance travelled by food, from farm to table, in Italy is--drum roll--27 miles. As in, less than 30 miles.).

The food thing is just an analogy, and to point out that other countries do some things almost 100 times (literally!) more efficiently than we do.

IOW, I think we can safely assume that much less fuel is burned in processing cordwood for consumption, than is burned in the manufacture of pellets--of anything.

Cordwood translates into much less carbon in the atmosphere than pelletized fuel, by virtue of the reduced amount of processing required, to prepare to burn it in the admittedly "dirtier" stove.

Sometimes, the true source of the pollution is not the thing in front of our faces (the stove) but the industry behind the mfr. of its fuel....

Woodburing is carbon neutral, of course. The only carbon ADDED to the atmosphere, by wood heat, is from the chainsaw, truck and the factory that built the stove.

In pellet/corn production, however, presumably electricity is used. And 52% of our electricity comes from BURNING COAL.

Coal contains trace amounts of URANIUM--naturally-occuring uranium. And MERCURY.

Uranium causes cancer. Mercury causes birth defects, and may be linked to autism.

I don't know the amt. of energy involved in pellet production--that's why I'm asking. But consider this:

Burning pellets and corn could, depending upon the amt. of electricity and diesel used in their production, put up MORE carbon, into the atmosphere, than if the pellet/corn burner had simply heated with natural gas, which is the cleanest, readily-available fossil fuel.

I'm no fan of nat. gas--I'm just sayin', wouldn't it be ironic if those who thought they were "being green" by burning "renewable pelletized energy" were actually guilty of emitting more cabon than if they'd just turned up the thermostat on their gas furnace, and watched the game?

Now, admittedly, burning corn in our cars could make us less dependent upon Middle Eastern "blood-for-oil" wars--there is a definite "peace dividend" to be had in ethanol-IF politicians actually took advantage of it and quit attacking countries full of brown people--and that's a big "IF".

However, wind, solar and hydro-generated electricity could supplant a HUGE portion of oil burned in cars, via "plug-in cars." Most families have TWO CARS ANYWAY...so a car with a 60-100 mile range (which can be recharged nightly) is enough for most "second car" commuting, erands, etc....

So...corn strikes me, as has been argued here, as FOOD, or FEED, primarily, and I would like to know:

How much CARBON is emitted into the atmosphere, from the electricity (or fuel oil? or nat. gas?) used to MAKE THOSE PELLETS or CORN?

The sun makes wood, and dries wood.

Many of you split by hand and mech. splitters don't use much energy--electric splitters could be run off of a solar installation on one's roof, creating ZERO EMISSIONS, less those used in the mfr. of the solar panels, but c'mon--there's a carbon footprint for most energy uses--the question is, what is a ridiculous carbon emisson (e.g., 1.5 gal. of diesel per 1.0 gal. of ethanol.)?

 

[begreen]

TP, some good thoughts, but maybe this is a better topic for the green room?

To succinctly comment: The fact that pellets are made from a waste-product is self-explanatory. It had been a waste, now it's fuel. They are not running equipment just to grind down logs into sawdust. The drying of the sawdust is accomplished by burning their own product. The power to run the equipment, at least in the NW, is mostly hydro. Point taken about the net carbon output. However, at least it's carbon neutral and not fossil or foreign based fuel. Wood heating in urban areas, without some degree of preprocessing (chipping, pelletizing, gasifying?) is not practical in urban areas. And hardly any wood stove comes close to the low particulate level of pellet stoves vs conventional wood stoves. Can both products improve efficiency? I certainly hope so. There a need and place for each technology.

 

[TruePatriot]

Be Green:

Perhaps this is a better topic for the Green Room, but it was Web who started this thread on "BIOMASS" and "CORN STOVES," so I guess I just followed along. However, upon further reflection, I'd vote to keep it here, as people contemplating a heater (to save money) might be considering pelletized fuel, but have no interest in visiting the Green Room, if they're only here to learn how to "stick it to the Man" and quit buying oil/'lectric/nat. gas. For such folks, if you moved it, they would miss any pearls of wisdom we may actually drop here, on the topic. Just my .02--not my thread, so I don't really have a dog in that hunt...(as Ross Perot used to say--lol).

I must admit I never considered (what now seems logical, after you point it out) that the pellet factories use their own product to dry their product. That's good, but do you know if they actually do that? And certainly, there's 'lectric used in the forming/compressing of the little buggers, but I'm sure the drying of them consumes much more power than the mechanical processing. No offense, but do you know for a fact that they use their own product for the heat to dry them? I certainly hope so....

That's cool that NW pellets are formed using mostly hydro. We don't really have that goin' on in the East, to my knowledge--at least not on any significant scale, sadly. But then, I don't know if they even make pellets on the East coast--let's hope so, however, as that's a lot of truckin', cross country, just to burn wood, right? (Thinkin' 'bout carbon footprints again....).

I agree that the wood pellets are carbon neutral (in the NW's case, with hydro power) but what about corn? Mega diesel burned tilling, planting, (irrigating?) and harvesting corn (see my ethanal example of 1.5 gal. diesel burned to make 1.0 gal. of ethanol from corn). Not to mention the SHIPPING. Of course the latter would also apply to wood pellets as well, which must also be packaged and shipped.

But hey, even given the reservations I raise, I admit, wood pellets are far more carbon-neutral than oil, gas, COAL or other fossil fuels. And I think it's cool if pellets' cleaner burn can make wood-heat inroads into urban settings. I'm more disposed to think favorably of wood pellets than I am of CORN as fuel, however, given the apparently-greater carbon foot-print of corn than wood pellets.

And I must admit I like the fact that some (all?) pellet stoves have thermostatic control of the draft (or so I've heard?). I wish, again, that the cordwood stove mfr.'s would shake a leg with that (I know PE does this, but only on the secondary burn).

I just feel that, unless someone has health issues precluding wood wrangling, the added cost, complexity and required battery-backup (for blackouts) of pellet stoves, PLUS the fact that you have to BUY the pellets (did I mention I'm really cheap?), makes them unattractive, to me.

And I still wonder: how much cleaner do pellets burn? Clean enough to offset the carbon used in forming, packaging, hauling and retailing them? I dunno--I simply raise the question.... And the same question needs to be asked about corn, after adding in all the carbon involved (i.e., diesel fuel burned) in corn farming. IOW, corn would have to burn significantly cleaner than wood pellets do, to not have a bigger carbon footprint than wood pellets.

I will admit that the carbon created by the gasoline in the chainsaw, splitter and pickup truck is not insignificant, when considered in the aggregate. And I pretty much believe that larger installations (like a factory) usually consume power more efficiently than residentially-owned and operated small engines. Certainly chainsaws, being two-stroke (which I still love!) are one of the dirtiest (carbon-wise) machines a homeowner can fire up. So I admit that cordwood doesn't fall, naturlly, bucked and split, and there's some fossil fuel involved in it's processing, as well.

Generally, I think you make a good point--there is a need and place for many types of renewable energy--a BIG need.

I guess the bigger problem is, I think we need some new politicians to really address that need and start using more renewable energy, on both the residential and commercial scales....

Good comments, all.

 

[kellog]

I burn wood for three major reasons and a few minor reasons.

1. I love it. In the winter it is great to have a very warm room you can go to and read a book in your skivvies. I likely would not heat with wood if I did not like it so much.

2. I hate sending all that money over seas. We are giving away our independence to a bunch of people who have no regard for us. This is an incredibly huge issue.

3. It is almost carbon neutral and less polluting than fossil fuels if burned properly (EPA stove, cat, etc).

Along with these major reasons I do like to save a bit of money, I have independence from fuel suppliers and their price increases, it supports the local economy (my neighbors), if the power goes out I don’t freeze to death, etc.

The more a fuel is processed and transported, the more it costs and the more secondary pollution is caused (not to mention the markup by each middle man). We should use fuel as close to the source as possible.

I don’t believe wood is the answer to our energy issues but is a very small piece of the answer. I believe the answer lies in a multitude of sources such as conservation, geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear, etc. Most of these sources do not have a product to deliver so BIG OIL’s area of expertise (fuel attainment and delivery) is cut out. BIG OIL is too politically powerful to let that happen.

We need a great leader to step up and say (as Kennedy did with the moon shot) WE ARE GOING TO BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT BY 2025. We could do it!!

To the point of the thread, corn and wood pellets (and other biomass) are part of the answer. Corn should be burned in the mid west where it is grown not transported all over the country. Corn based Ethanol might be a stop gap fuel for cars and trucks but there are more efficient less polluting ways to fuel vehicles long term. Without farm subsidies I believe ethanol would look less attractive as a fuel however likely more attractive than oil which we pay for with blood.

The key question is “How can we make this country change quickly to better energy mix.”

 

[jamorris]

TruePatriot; Accept it, this planet teams with carbon based life forms. All carbon is not bad. You are carbon based!

You can stay within the carbon loop doing all these things you mention. If TCP ever goes mainstream, even your dread diesels will be carbon neutral. I have been watching Thermal Conversion Processing for years. I am amazed that it has not been pushed out of sight, or sent straight to the head of the whole shebang.

You can worry yourself sick over this stuff, or just go with the flow. I prefer the flow. I even prefer a decent low sulfur diesel, over my present gasoline driven Dakota. When they make a diesel like my 02 Dakota, I am buying.

As for the pellet manufacturing? You just have to see mass production in process. Those little pellets come outta thar right fast, with each pass of the ram. Your eye cannot keep up with it. If it wasn't cost effective, it would not have been done. If it can be done on a cost basis, it can be done on a clean basis. You take what can be referred to as a fouling waste and turn it into a marketable commodity, when you make wood pellets. Surely you would not want to restrict the making of that "fouling waste"? Lots of Craftsmen working would then go on The Dole! Craftsmen are productive. Or, all those downed trees? Is it better to burn them raw?

In the end, as you suggested at the end of your post, it is politics. But, mostly it is the politics of "lazy Americans". We want our wants and needs serviced. We do not like to have to think about it and we are willing to pay through the nose, both in cash and our basic Rights. Most Americans do not want to have to stoke the stove and furnace. They want it the easy way. So don't put down the rare ones who want to and will "Stick it to the Man"! The old 3% rule can still work.

Jerry

 

[Kenny1]

TP brings up some interesting points.

The only study that I could see on Google about this subject is from Norway:


A comparison of avoided greenhouse gas emissions when using different kinds of wood energy

Ann Kristin Petersen Raymer, a,
aDepartment of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O.Box 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway
Received 24 January 2005; revised 19 January 2006; accepted 30 January 2006. Available online 3 April 2006.





Abstract

In this study, micro-level data from wood energy producers in Hedmark County were gathered and analysed. The aim was to find how much greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions various kinds of wood energy cause (not only CO2, but also CH4 and N2O), which energy they substitute, their potential to reduce GHG emissions, and the major sources of uncertainty. The method was life cycle assessment. Six types of wood energy were studied: fuel wood, sawdust, pellets, briquettes, demolition wood, and bark.

GHG emissions over the life cycle of the wood energy types in this study are 2–19% of the emissions from a comparable source of energy. The lowest figure is for demolition wood substituting oil in large combustion facilities, the highest for fuel wood used in dwellings to substitute electricity produced by coal-based power plants.

Avoided GHG emissions per m3 wood used for energy were from 0.210 to 0.640 tonne CO2-equivalents. Related to GWh energy produced, avoided GHG emissions were from 250 to 360 tonne CO2-equivalents. Avoided GHG emissions per tonne CO2 in the wood are 0.28–0.70 tonne CO2-equivalents. The most important factors were technology used for combustion, which energy that is substituted, densities, and heating values. Inputs concerning harvest, transport, and production of the wood energy are not important.

Overall, taking the uncertainties into account there is not much difference in avoided GHG emissions for the different kinds of wood energy.

Keywords: Bioenergy; Wood energy; Greenhouse gas emissions


Alas, it seems that you must purchase this paper, it does not seem to be free to download.


So TP, I think that it is fair to say:

1 - currently wood pellets work because they are made from waste byproducts

2 - some people are looking at whole tree pellets (A while ago I posted this link:

(broken link removed to http://www.workingforest.com/02-news/article.php?id=2724)

This article briefly mentions using whole trees destroyed by the pine beetle for pellets in BC. )


3 - the pellet factories will have economy of scale in their production that the average week end wood chopper would not (small gas engins are very dirty...)



As to what is BEST ....

I think that that depends on where you are, what your options are, and what your priorities are. The convince of pellet stoves is nice. The low cost of cord wood is hard to beat. Other bio mass pellets are starting to turn up, but are currently rare.

I think that we all have a roll to play, and need a variety of options to suite different people.

 

[begreen]

TP, every fuel, even wood has some degree of processing unless you have handsaws and mauls (or beavers) doing every step of the work. Coal has a lot of preloading, and transportation. So does oil. It doesn't get to the cities by itself. I think pellets stand up pretty well considering that unlike oil and gas, they aren't subsidized.

 

[webbie]

No offense, but do you know for a fact that they use their own product for the heat to dry them? I certainly hope so....

And I still wonder: how much cleaner do pellets burn? Clean enough to offset the carbon used in forming, packaging, hauling and retailing them? I dunno--I simply raise the question.... And the same question needs to be asked about corn, after adding in all the carbon involved (i.e., diesel fuel burned) in corn farming. IOW, corn would have to burn significantly cleaner than wood pellets do, to not have a bigger carbon footprint than wood pellets.

Generally, I think you make a good point--there is a need and place for many types of renewable energy--a BIG need.

I guess the bigger problem is, I think we need some new politicians to really address that need and start using more renewable energy, on both the residential and commercial scales....

Good comments, all.

The first answer is 100% yes, see the video and explanation of the wood pellet process in our "factory visit" section - they burn sawdust to dry the pellets.

As to the energy input, this is a valid question and speaks to the LOCAL ideal of wood, corn and other biomass. The closer that the fuel and plant are located to the actual use, the better it would seem the input-output equation would be.

The plastic bags can be recycled and are very light in total weight, so I think that is not a big part - my guess is that transportation makes up the bulk of the added energy....of course, the electric to produce them is a big part also.

We can guess on the second part and perhaps I will find out about the electric from my contact at NE Pellet (or maybe Harryback can tell us).

So, the pellets leave NH at 22 tons on a trailer (guess) and come 100 miles to somewhere in Ma. at 5MPG = 20 gallons. Let us guess that the truck returns empty at 7 MPG, for another 15 gallons.

Total so far - 35 gallons. Let's add another 5 for local delivery and handling and for a fudge factor.

That is still under 2 gallons per ton, or 275,000 BTU used to make 16 million BTU.

Even adding a large factor for the electric used (let us guess at 1 million BTU per ton, although it is probably less), that is a good conversion.

We need to add a little for the pellet or corn stove electric, but the fudge factor should contain that.

So the largest factor is the drying, which takes about 1/6 or so of the total energy...but, again, this is sawdust (stored, renewable solar energy) and if it is burned clean (it is), the main concern becomes the price.

Personally, I think the actual largest part of the formula could be the actual stove if it does not last for decades. On a financial basis (which is not exactly related to energy out), a $3,000 stove that lasted 10 years would cost $300 per year to the average 3 tons of pellets burned. That is a high cost....BUT, the steel is likely to be recycled when the stove goes kaput, so the energy used to make that steel is nowhere near as large as the financial cost.

 

[Gooserider]

Thanks for your kind words TP, it is appreciated...

Another factor that may be a bit "survivalist" but which to me makes a cordwood stove more desirable than a pellet stove is the flexibility question... A pellet stove requires a specialized fuel, with some of the better models being a bit more flexible in burning corn or other grains, and similar stuff, not just pre-processed pellets of wood in exactly the right size and shape, stored with the proper conditions, etc... If something happens to disrupt the supply chain, the pellet stove turns into a doorstop.

OTOH a cordwood stove may only be INTENDED to burn wood, but in actual practice, you could if necessary heat with ANYTHING that will A: burn, and B: can be reduced to chunks that will fit in the firebox... I am NOT advocating this on a regular basis, and I'm well aware that doing so does all sorts of nasty things from voiding your warrantee to smoking out the neighbors, but the key point is that I can keep making BTU's in my smoke dragon long after the pellet head has given up on trying to whittle his own pellets out of rounds hh: Not to mention how much cordwood I can get from the backyard in the short term, (followed by the municipal park across the street, etc...)

Maintainance the same deal... I'd love to replace my smoke dragon, but I can guarantee it isn't going to wear out any time in the next 30 years or so... An EPA II stove will probably need more maintainance and won't last quite as long, but probably will hold up better than a pellet stove (and the fewer parts / repairs needed, the less energy gets consumed in supplying them)

Web's figures seem to say that the energy "footprint" of the pellet delivery and production is not that bad, but I'd lay odds my cordwood has a smaller one... I go through 2-3 gallons of gas in the saw each year in the course of processing my 6 or so cords of wood, plus another gallon or two of chain oil. I split and move the wood around the yard by hand, no energy there (plus it keeps me out of the health club). The wood guy brings me a truckload of log-length, but probably he cut that within 20 miles of my house, so that probably burned less energy than just the local delivery on the pellets. I also burn almost all my cordwood, with the exception of the sawdust (and I'd burn that if I could figure a reasonable way to collect it and do so - like I've said before, I'm cheap... :coolgrin: )

Gooserider