Wood burning stoves and global warming

[OnionPatch]

We've been using our wood stove to save on heating costs this year but I'm wondering how much carbon this releases compared to our gas furnace. I tried googling this and got a few articles with numbers and formulas and charts and I couldn't figure it out at all. My question is simple: all I want to know is whether using a wood stove is worse than using gas. Anyone?

[bananas]

1. They are carbon neutral

Plants literally create themselves out of thin air - they turn CO2 into solid matter.
So there is no net increase in CO2 when you burn them.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061113/nymfns4.html?.v=1

The New Oxford American Dictionary Announces the Word of the Year: 'Carbon Neutral'
Monday November 13, 5:20 am ET

NEW YORK, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- What do Al Gore, Rupert Murdoch, and the Rolling Stones have in common? They are all advocates of being "carbon neutral," the New Oxford American Dictionary's Word of the Year for 2006.

Being carbon neutral involves calculating your total climate-damaging carbon emissions (your "carbon footprint"), reducing them where possible, and then balancing your remaining emissions, often by purchasing a carbon offset: paying to plant new trees or investing in "green" technologies such as solar and wind power.

The rise of carbon neutral reflects the growing importance of the green movement in the United States. It's more than a trend, it's a movement, which is why the editors of the New Oxford American Dictionary have declared carbon neutral the word of the year for 2006. It will be added to the next update of the dictionary, due in early 2007.

<snip>

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Wow. I never thought of that.

They have already "paid" their dues, haven't they? (the logs, that is)

[lapfog_1]

4. Not only that, whether you burn the log or not

the CO2 trapped within IS going back into the atmosphere. (with rare exceptions like petrification)

But, if you want to help the environment, every time to cut down a dead tree for firewood, try to plant at least 2 of the same variety. Also, if there are a number of dead trees in the area you are getting your firewood, leave a number in place, as they provide the forest with many, many benefits in their decay.

[HereSince1628]

7. I think they are only "sort of" neutral, you must consider the balance

True as a tree grows there is a net sequestration of carbon. But remember that carbon reservoir builds up over decades until the tree is harvested. The carbon released by burning a fire happens in minutes. The timeframe of the release of all the carbon in a cord of wood or in a ton of pellets obviously depends on how much wood is being burned. But, it isn't hard to imagine entire cords of wood representing many trees can be consumed in one season if a house gets all its heating and cooking fuel from burning wood.

Consequently there is a huge potential to "drain the reservoir" of carbon that's in the standing crop of trees as the rates output (burning) are _potentially_ many times greater than the rate of inputs. To be carbon neutral the flux of carbon sequestered vs released must be a balance between what goes into the reservoir each year, and what is released from it every year. .

[Porcupine]

12. Carefully managed you could even sequester some carbon

When you empty the ashbox there will usually be some small bits of charcoal in your ashes. Screen these out with hardware cloth or a compost screen and bury them in your garden. Ta-da!!! You've sequested carbon and improved your soil. Those bits of charcoal will stay in your soil for as long as it's there or several hundred thousand years. (whichever comes first)

If your wood comes from a managed orchard or woodlot so that it consists largely of prunings or coppiced branches the soil is never fully exposed to the elements. Therefore you would have your wood but the area it came from would continue to act as a carbon sink.

Terra Preta is the name for soils with high amounts of sequested charcoal.

[MervinFerd]

3. Wood is not a fossil fuel.

Natural gas and coal are made from carbon stored for eons. Burning them releases the carbon into the air as CO2.

So, wood is better for CO2.

Though wood stoves can be seriously polluting locally. Do you have a modern stove with after burners and a catalytic converter?

[mike_c]

5. all you're doing is capturing the heat of oxidation...

...when the carbon in the wood is returned to the atmosphere-- something that would happen anyway. Fossil fuels exist because that didn't happen during part of Earth's history, and lots of carbon built up in the form of undecomposed vegetation and wood. All current wood ultimately decomposes and releases all of it's carbon back to the atmosphere anyway, so by accelerating and controlling that process inside a firebox, you simply capture the energy released during oxidation.

[OnionPatch]

6. Wow, that was fast

This forum must be popular. That makes me happy. :D

Thanks, all. I'm glad to know it's carbon neutral. We get our firewood from the dead trees on our property and I have planted at least 25 new saplings in the last few years we've lived here.

But I have a question,: Even if wood is carbon neutral, is it a good idea to be releasing that carbon NOW? If there is too much carbon in the atmosphere at this point in time, wouldn't it be better to keep the carbon stored in the trees for as long as we can?

[bananas]

8. Yes, wood furniture is one method of carbon sequestration. nt

[doodadem]

9. On my soapbox

Or, woodbox, I guess...

We had a super efficient insert installed in our FP last year, rated at something like 89%. It's supposed to be the next step beyond catalytic conversion as well. This is our only source of heat, other than a small electric heater in the bathroom. We have 40 heavily wooded acres on our little ranch, and in 5 years, have only burned already downed trees, or diseased/dangerous trees that needed to come down. We are in the mountains, about 50 miles east of Fresno.

It pisses me off mightily, that down in the Valley, people are flogged for burning their FP's or stoves. It's blamed for being this major source of air pollution, and all of the asthma there. Total horseshit! They say that, and then do absolutely nothing about the huge ag burns. On any given day, you can see smoke billowing for miles from someone burning out an entire vineyard or orchard. That's not even to mention the huge amounts of dust that the giant farm machines put into the air. Ironically, in the past year (and in non-headline grabbing small articles), research has proven that the biggest producer of air pollution in the valley is the big commercial dairy farms--METHANE.

[eppur_se_muova]

10. FP ?? Please enlighten. nt

[jpak]

11. fireplace??

n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

14. French Polynesia.

Very high heat content, but not a renewable resource.

[eppur_se_muova]

16. Going OB on ABVs? nt ;^) eom

[doodadem]

18. Sorry--yes, FP means fireplace

I admit, we probably have a pretty unique situation here, in the resources that we have. I'm also an avid tree planter, although I'm not replanting the type of trees that we're currently burning--what most people consider scrub oak.

When we are finally able to start remodeling the little farmhouse, I'm going to do as much solar as we can. I think that's the answer for most people here, along with increased use of wind turbines tied into the grid.

[NNadir]

13. The answer to this question would depend on how far you truck the wood.

I suppose the fuel used by chain saws, splitters, etc counts too.

For my chain saw, I use about 5 gallons of gasoline every two years. It's a relatively small one, but it gets the job done. Occasionally I drive to pick up parts for the chainsaw.

I do split the wood manually, since it relieves stress and is great exercise.

The external cost of wood burning is fairly high, mostly because of particulates. In an average year, about 4 million people die from health effects related to biomass burning. This number is expected to double in the next 25 years. To be fair, most of these people live in the third world or developing countries, where practically no one can afford a fancy wood stove with all sorts of catalysts.

However almost none of this external cost - chain saw juice aside - is related to carbon dioxide. However life cycle analysis of energy is not as simple as one might think.

Someone trucking their wood a few hundred miles would have a very different situation than someone burning felled trees on their property. Also someone who is pumping water to irrigate trees would also be having a greenhouse impact. It is well known that the wholesale deforestation connected with wood burning in many countries has had a profound climate impact as well.

However the greenhouse gas impact of wood burning can be generally assumed to be low when one is using local wood and where one is not engaging in wholesale forest destruction to get that wood.

[phantom power]

15. There's also the question of how many people can burn wood sustainably

I don't know the answer to that question, but it's not all 300 million of us (speaking just for the USA). So, who gets to burn the wood, and what do the rest of us burn?

[jpak]

19. Not just wood - wheat straw, corn stover, switchgrass pellets, etc.

and a lot more weatherization and solar thermal too...

[mod mom]

17. May I use this thread to offer a big thanks to this forum on providing info

on wood burning stoves. We are just installing our Wittus soap stone wood stove, which I heard of here. We went with the soapstone because it radiates heat longer and the stone casing only heats up to 175 F, thus eliminating the risk of burn to my kids and 2 dogs.

Here's my beauty:

[jpak]

20. Huzzah!!

:toast: