This makes too much sense to not post it here.

[heaterman]

This was posted in the Garn news for June. The thoughts are those of one of the deans (Martin Lunde) of the wood burning industry and have too much merit to let pass without sharing.
He is absolutely correct in saying that conservation should always be the first category looked at when lowering energy use is considered.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

In September 2009, I wrote an article for GARNews titled GOING GREEN. In that article, I quoted the following excerpt from the GARN® WHS Installation Manual:


Remember this: Eliminating fuel usage is the same as burning fuel with absolutely zero emissions - impossible for any fuel even natural gas! A well designed and constructed energy efficient building can reduce heating demand (thus fuel usage) by at least half, and sometimes by two-thirds when compared to a present day "code built structure."


In the later part of April 2010, I attend a 3 day conference that focused almost totally on biomass fuels. Although there was abundant talk about converting from fossil fuels to renewable biomass fuels (primarily pellets), not a whole lot was discussed regarding conservation. I was dumbfounded! Conservation clearly has the greatest reward for the fewest dollars spent and has one of the lowest environmental impacts. Indeed, conservation must always be the first approach to reducing fuel cost and fuel consumption. This naturally leads to a reduction of emissions over the long haul.


Why the lack of significant discussion? I believe that conservation is not "sexy" - many times it is the old "stuff and caulk" routine. Plus, it is an approach, not a definitive "high tech" new wiz-bang heating product. However, it does involve thoughtful good building design as well as many diverse products such as: insulation, caulking, vapor barriers, air to air heat exchangers, better controls, etc.


Beyond lower fuel usage, lower fuel cost and fewer emissions, the better-built building is healthier, more comfortable and lasts longer. All of these enhance our environment by keeping our earth and its people healthier, by using less energy and sequestering carbon for a long period of time (by not having to remanufacture heating appliances and/or by manufacturing smaller appliances).


One other item stuck in my mind. Most of the discussion revolved around wood pellets, with little mention of cordwood. In fact, a GARN WHS unit was one of only two cordwood burners on display at the conference. Toward the end of the conference an Engineer visited the GARN booth to discuss the GARN WHS unit. It turned out that this gentleman designed pellet manufacturing facilities, so I inquired about the energy required to make pellets. Apparently, a significant quantity of coal fired electrical energy is required to power a pellet mill. Pro-Pellets (an Austrian based pellet trade association) estimates that 5% to 15% of the energy in a pellet is "lost" during the manufacturing process. By comparison, cordwood has virtually zero loss. Neither estimate takes into account transportation energy only "manufacturing energy."


So my question is: Should this "lost energy" be deducted from the energy efficiency rating of pellet fired heating equipment? Cordwood is "more local," has virtually zero lost energy and typically no coal fired electrical energy is required in its "manufacture." Furthermore, cordwood does not require a storage bin or dedicated material handling equipment; thus yielding a lower first cost.


© DECTRA CORPORATION June 2010

 

[ihookem]

Good to hear from people that know how important it is to have your house well insulated. I tell people all the time, even on this and other sights that they don't have near the insulation in their house. Most of us kind can so easily do it themselves. The attic is most important and the easiest. Just blow it in. If you have 6" in the attic, blow in another 12-16". Every attic I blow in I make sure they have at least r 50 or more. Every single time I call them to ask, the say they noticed a difference right away, some people tell me they noticed as soon as they walked in the house. Their heat bill are at least 20 % less, some 33% less just by putting in 500 bucks of cellulose insulation and half a day of labor for 2 people.
I hear folks on this sight talking about their poorly insulated house. They talk about using 8-10 cords of wood, even with a gassifier. It seems they are almost proud that they cut so much wood and maybe even a status of " how many cords did you burn?" I am also dumbfounded about lack of conservation, mostly cause I do it for an extra for home owners cause I'm a carpenter.
There are so many things you can do. Insulate between your floor joists, it makes your basement warmer and your floor is warmer too. Caulk does wonders around windows and using caulk on old glass instead of glaze. Also, one of the weirdest things I do is push snow up against the house when there is a lot of snow. This really helps the basement stay warmer. and cost nothing. I burned 3 cords of average hardwood last winter and should burn about the same this year. As for me cutting and splitting 3 cords is enough, after that I'm sick of it already. Later, Steve.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Sadly I have to agree that things are typically the same here (there are some exceptions).

When I talk to people about their home, be it a reno or new I explain about the advantages of more than average or minimum code insulation, then they ask about cost & I explain giving various options for different R values & types of insulation.

They (in most cases) will say something like... that is too expensive or that is more than we thought.

Funny thing is the next sentence will usually be a complaint about the cost of home heating & how it costs more every year & how they have to find a solution to the "problem".

I try hard not to laugh or even smile.

Most people just dont get it

Truth of the matter is that the less you use/consume/waste needlessly...well...the more you can afford to have.

 

[heaterman]

Sadly I have to agree that things are typically the same here (there are some exceptions).

When I talk to people about their home, be it a reno or new I explain about the advantages of more than average or minimum code insulation, then they ask about cost & I explain giving various options for different R values & types of insulation.

They (in most cases) will say something like... that is too expensive or that is more than we thought.

Funny thing is the next sentence will usually be a complaint about the cost of home heating & how it costs more every year & how they have to find a solution to the "problem".

I try hard not to laugh or even smile.

Most people just dont get it

Truth of the matter is that the less you use/consume/waste needlessly...well...the more you can afford to have.

Exactly! I have never been able to grasp the disconnect many seem to have regarding investment in weatherproofing and insulating along with highly efficient heating appliances. They pay huge fuel bills through lack of investment in the above mentioned things and then complain that fuel costs so much. Reducing the heating load should always be the first step. In fact, i have a hunch that many here would not be burning wood if they had taken the same $$ invested in their wood burning equipment along with the proportional labor and used it to buy and install better windows, doors and insulation.

 

[jebatty]

The conservation point made by Martin Lunde is known by almost everyone, but it fails to be implemented because it doesn't "follow the money." The money goes to big oil, big gas, and big coal. Yet in a very major sense we have to point the finger at us, the consumer. We have the ability to make choices which in mass number massively impact energy uses. As consumers we all too often demand bigger, more expensive, more energy, more, more and more.

For me quibbling over "lost" energy for pellets or "lost" energy in harvesting and distributing round wood is counter-productive, distracting, and directs attention to the fringe rather than to the real problem. We don't need a very small tempest in a very small teapot. We do need to deal with the really big issue of coal -- about 50% of US electrical production; and oil -- about 70% of US transportation energy.

The more the wood burning appliance industry can support, rather than fight, each other, the better it will be. Only the big guys will win the fights between the small players -- and then we all continue to lose.

 

[heaterman]

The conservation point made by Martin Lunde is known by almost everyone, but it fails to be implemented because it doesn't "follow the money." The money goes to big oil, big gas, and big coal. Yet in a very major sense we have to point the finger at us, the consumer. We have the ability to make choices which in mass number massively impact energy uses. As consumers we all too often demand bigger, more expensive, more energy, more, more and more.

For me quibbling over "lost" energy for pellets or "lost" energy in harvesting and distributing round wood is counter-productive, distracting, and directs attention to the fringe rather than to the real problem. We don't need a very small tempest in a very small teapot. We do need to deal with the really big issue of coal -- about 50% of US electrical production; and oil -- about 70% of US transportation energy.

The more the wood burning appliance industry can support, rather than fight, each other, the better it will be. Only the big guys will win the fights between the small players -- and then we all continue to lose.

Good points Jim. Especially the "follow the money trail" comment as it is sadly very true. Why for example do you think there is so much resistance to adopting and accepting European standards for pressure vessels? Hint, it's not about public safety.
One can however extrapolate the issue that is raised (energy in vs energy out) and clearly see that part of the equation has been largely ignored by the powers that be. Ethanol is a prime and classic example. According to some studies I have read, when all energy inputs are considered, it takes more energy to make it than the fuel itself produces. Another fallacy of the "green" movement. Same goes for windmills and solar, at least at this point. So in the end, it is and always has been, about conservation first and foremost. That's a fact we ignore at our peril.........Sheesh........been reading The Oil Drum again and it's getting to me.

 

[Como]

This subject has come up in a few other threads. We will be burning a lot of wood to keep us warm, but my first consideration was stopping the wind coming in and the heat going out.

We have a historic building and we are limited in what we can do, it is a bit like the old Irish joke of How do you get to Tiperraray, I would not start from here.

Even so we will be doing what we can, pile it in above, repairing existing windows not replacing, storm windows, and stopping leaks.

Snow does act as a good insulator but it has also damaged our brick.

If you have the opportunity to remodel, or are starting from scratch, the sort of equipment and wood usage mentioned on here should be gross overkill.

We have a friend nearby who heats mainly by solar, much more effective/efficient than PV and much less overall consuming. But there are grants available for PV.

There was a bit on the BBC web site where the grid was paying commercial wind operations not to supply.....

 

[heaterman]

This subject has come up in a few other threads. We will be burning a lot of wood to keep us warm, but my first consideration was stopping the wind coming in and the heat going out.

We have a historic building and we are limited in what we can do, it is a bit like the old Irish joke of How do you get to Tiperraray, I would not start from here.

Even so we will be doing what we can, pile it in above, repairing existing windows not replacing, storm windows, and stopping leaks.

Snow does act as a good insulator but it has also damaged our brick.

If you have the opportunity to remodel, or are starting from scratch, the sort of equipment and wood usage mentioned on here should be gross overkill.

We have a friend nearby who heats mainly by solar, much more effective/efficient than PV and much less overall consuming. But there are grants available for PV.

There was a bit on the BBC web site where the grid was paying commercial wind operations not to supply.....

That solar issue you bring up is a classic example of how lobbying can skew things away or toward a certain technology. It's painfully obvious that solar thermal is much more cost effective for a far broader slice of the population but we don't get near the incentive for that. Typical.

I just visited an installation that had 8 panels connected to an ancient Garn that had finally rusted through. The customers were/are in a bit of a panic as they have no domestic hot water until they make a decision on how they want to proceed. (They are in their 70's and burning wood is getting more difficult) The point here is that since the solar and Garn were installed (circa 1984) they have not needed a hot water heater. They told me that the 8 panels kept the Garn at a minimum of 130* through the entire non burning season and they have used no fuel for domestic hot water or heating other than wood and the sun since then. That's a pretty good return on investment.

 

[Como]

That is basically my long term plan.

Just wondered why the Garn rusted out, first time I have heard of this.

 

[heaterman]

That is basically my long term plan.

Just wondered why the Garn rusted out, first time I have heard of this.

Because it was 27 years old and they had never done any water treatment of any kind. None. It was serial number WHI0004 which puts its date of manufacture around 1982-1983 from what I can determine. That is positively ancient for any kind of wood burner let alone one that the water quality was never monitored or checked.
I really don't know how long a Garn would last given proper care. Probably at least 10-20 years additional.