# What is the Most "Environmentally Friendly" Way to Heat a Home? Looking for FACTS!



## Whimfield (Sep 21, 2008)

I'm a writer, and I recently asked for a couple of people to help me out with an article that I'm writing on heating with wood heat. You guys were great, and I got a lot of help.

But now I'm looking for some technical details about wood burning...

Basically, I _want_ my piece to be able to say that "wood heat is the most environmentally friendly way to heat your home". But...I need some stats/research/hard facts to back me up.

Can anyone think of any studies or well-researched articles/websites that have done comparisons between the "environmentally friendliness" (or something similar) of different types of heat? Basically, my main reason for posting this is that I need some *facts from a reputable source* that I can quote from.

I know this is a heated topic, and many people have different opinions on what constitutes "environmentally friendly". Do you think it's even going to be possible for me to find any hard, undisputed facts on this topic?

One more thing...when comparing geothermal and woodheat, do you think that geothermal is "greener" (if you ignore the cost difference)? I've read that geothermal may not necessarily be the most efficient option in really cold climates?

Any advice and links that you can share would be appreciated. 

Best,
Laura-Jane 
Professional: www.laura-jane.com
Personal: www.whimfield.com

Edit: Two factors that I should mention: 
1. I would like to ignore "cost" as a factor in the comparison;
2. I'm talking about heating in cold climates.

Thanks again!


----------



## fossil (Sep 22, 2008)

Whimfield said:
			
		

> ...Basically, I _want_ my piece to be able to say that "wood heat is the most environmentally friendly way to heat your home".



I'm not the expert you're looking for, but I'm a Mechanical Engineer, and I think that your statement above's gonna be a tough sell.  In terms of being plain "green", I can't think of anything that could beat passive solar...but that doesn't have geographically wide feasibility.  Hydroelectric can be exploited with limited impact on the environment.  There are lots of agruments on all sides of the multi-faceted issue.




			
				Whimfield said:
			
		

> ...One more thing...when comparing geothermal and woodheat, do you think that geothermal is "greener" (if you ignore the cost difference)? I've read that geothermal may not necessarily be the most efficient option in really cold climates?



Look a bit into Iceland, you might be surprised if you're not familiar with that country's energy infrastructure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland

Good luck with it!  Rick


----------



## jbroich (Sep 22, 2008)

I don't have some kind of "facty" reference for you, Laura-Jane. But it's not obvious that you have to appeal to such a source. Isn't it kind of self evident that burning wood is a carbon-neutral act (the trees would've rotted and released their carbon, anyway) as opposed to pumping out carbon stored when dinosaurs roamed the Earth (that otherwise wouldn't be released)? Sure, one can imagine big solar or hydroelectric or wind plants supplying everyone...but wood burning is something an individual can do now for a realistic initial capital investment.


----------



## jpl1nh (Sep 22, 2008)

I agree with fossil, passive solar is the most friendly.


----------



## Jimbob (Sep 22, 2008)

Whimfield said:
			
		

> I'm a writer, and I recently asked for a couple of people to help me out with an article that I'm writing on heating with wood heat. You guys were great, and I got a lot of help.
> 
> One more thing...when comparing geothermal and woodheat, do you think that geothermal is "greener" (if you ignore the cost difference)? I've read that geothermal may not necessarily be the most efficient option in really cold climates?
> 
> Any advice and links that you can share would be appreciated.



Do I think Geothermal is "greener"? I would have to say it depends on where the electricity to run the heat pump comes from. 
If the electricity is coming from coal or oil fired generating plants, then I would have to say NO.
If it were coming from wind or hydroelectric generating stations, then I would say YES.

Here's a linky for you, if you haven't seen this one already:
http://www.hydro.mb.ca/earthpower/index.shtml


----------



## karl (Sep 22, 2008)

Dress like an Eskimo.


----------



## Redox (Sep 22, 2008)

Jimbob said:
			
		

> Whimfield said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You might be confusing "Geothermal" with "Ground Source"

Geothermal is using hot water or steam from the earth to heat things directly.  Ground source heat pumps absorb heat from the earth at less than room temperature and amplify it with a refrigeration compressor.  This is (I believe) an incorrect use of the word "geothermal", but it sure makes good ad copy and sounds very green, until you realize the compressor uses 2-4 kw of electricity from mostly coal and nuclear sources.  It's still more cost effective than an oil burner, but it will not be "green" until we develop more wind and hydro sources.

Wood heat is considered more green as you will not be releasing any more carbon into the atmosphere than the tree originally took in.  There is a concern for air pollution, but I feel this is a minor concern in a modern EPA wood stove.  You are probably still going to use some gas in the chain saw and truck to get it to market, but considerably less than an oil burner for the same amount of heat.

Solar is probably going to be the greenest way to heat, but the logistics of a northern climate make this difficult as others have noted.  Therefore, the greenest technology is probably going to be wood heat; after all, that tree was just a huge chemical solar collector and storage container before we whacked it! ;-) 

Good luck with your project.

Chris


----------



## colebrookman (Sep 22, 2008)

Have to agree with fossil, passive solar is the best, followed by solar hot water in the floors powered by solar, wind or hydro for electricity.  Your premise is not correct with today's advances in energy for homes and businesses.
Ed


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 22, 2008)

Passive solar is what came to mind when I read the title.  Geothermal is great as well- and may be all you need in very particular areas.  

How about consciously living in a moderate climate?  many make that decision based on heating.


----------



## Vic99 (Sep 22, 2008)

Instead of taking this angle: "Basically, I want my piece to be able to say that “wood heat is the most environmentally friendly way to heat your home”. But...I need some stats/research/hard facts to back me up."

Perhaps you can highlight why heating with wood is excellent, even though it may not be the absolute best.

Here's an American EPA site on wood heat that should provide some data.

http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/

Good luck and let us know when the article comes out, please.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 22, 2008)

Vic- exactly- I would also like to point out that taking the tact of "I want to write an article that proves this hypothesis, please provide data" is very much against any definition of the scientific method.  

I don't want to slam you on this, Whimfield- but I'm a scientist and would like to see that sort of bias taken out of what I see published.


----------



## Vic99 (Sep 22, 2008)

""Vic- exactly- I would also like to point out that taking the tact of “I want to write an article that proves this hypothesis, please provide data” is very much against any definition of the scientific method.""

Mr. AP, this was actually my very first thought as well.  I agree. . . . but I wanted to be encouraging and use a positive spin.  When I wrote my post, it was before coffee.

Also, I thought about how the piece is not a scientific paper.  Although a journalist should be non biased, they also want to market, "sell the story" and keep the reader interested.  All of that was too much to process for before coffee.


----------



## Whimfield (Sep 22, 2008)

Science, schmience!! Hehe, you guys make good points... I, of course, concur about integrity and hypotheses. The piece I'm working on is a pretty light-hearted article about wood-heat in particular; wood heat's energy efficiency is just a small portion of the piece, so I haven't been too militant about methodology on this one. But you guys are right and called me on it, so that's a good thing. You gotta keep 'em honest. 

I like the free-flow of thoughts in this thread. Keep them coming!


----------



## Vic99 (Sep 22, 2008)

Whimfield,

Do you know where the piece will be published, or do you write it and submit it to buyers?


----------



## SteveT (Sep 22, 2008)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> Vic- exactly- I would also like to point out that taking the tact of "I want to write an article that proves this hypothesis, please provide data" is very much against any definition of the scientific method.
> 
> I don't want to slam you on this, Whimfield- but I'm a scientist and would like to see that sort of bias taken out of what I see published.



Expecting or predicting an outcome may not be appropriate for pure science but it certainly is appropriate in many engineering projects. For example a product is designed and put into test. There is an expectation that the test will be successful. If the facts don't support the expectation (i.e., it does not pass test)  the product is redesigned, or the project is scrapped. This would hold whether it is hardware or software - anything.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having a bias or expectation going in. The wrong would occur if that bias resulted in skewing the data. 

If Laura-Jane cannot find evidence to support her hypothesis she'll have to change the direction she's going in (like putting in the economic qualifiers, or some point on latitude for hours of sun, etc.)


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 22, 2008)

Engine rep- you are correct that in an engineering project your bias may help you overcome obstacles in making something work- but in a study of some statistical data that is merely measured it is a fatal flaw.  "Wood is greener heat" is not a hypothesis that you can just tweak the methods until it comes out right and then claim it statistically valid.

In fact one should test the null hypothesis rather than the hypothesis in these cases to avoid inserting the bias before the test: Ho = Wood heat is no more environmentally friendly than other heating methods.  Assume that true until it is disproven with unbiased data.

In fact in an engineering project- if you objectively break it down into small steps- each one may be shot down by the data until you find the solution, which is again tested.  You don't say "this works" as smoke pours out and parts fly all over the lab (unless your goal was to build a Pinto).

OK- I know that the goal is really probably to point out the green features of this form of heat, I just sort of twitched and spasmed when I saw the way the goal was stated in the first post


----------



## ExtraHorizons (Sep 23, 2008)

The inside-back cover of the brochure for "Napoleon" stoves (www.napoleonfireplaces.com) has a statement that heating your home with a Napoleon high efficiency, EPA approved fireplace, stove or insert releases no more carbon dioxide than a dying tree would lying on the forest floor.   You could probably download this from their website.  I'm not sure how much something like this from an actual manufacturer will help, but it is an interesting thought


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 23, 2008)

Extra- that is correct- assuming you don't drive to get the wood, cut it or split it with a gas powered saw/splitter, consume extra calories grown on petrol based fertilizers...  well, the burning part is pretty straight forward


----------



## fossil (Sep 23, 2008)

There's a good deal more to wood smoke than just carbon dioxide.  Rick


----------



## ExtraHorizons (Sep 23, 2008)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> Extra- that is correct- assuming you don't drive to get the wood, cut it or split it with a gas powered saw/splitter, consume extra calories grown on petrol based fertilizers...  well, the burning part is pretty straight forward



Haha...  I promise we'll only ride horses to get the wood and use axes powered by man.  Oh wait!  Horses will pollute the environment some as well.  Guess we can't win!


----------



## jebatty (Sep 23, 2008)

“wood heat is the most environmentally friendly way to heat your home”

The logic of your query is faulty at its core. 

This is a mine field. Suppose for a moment that the statement is true, but the homeowner has the most "un-green" home, wasteful of size, space, building materials, resources, location, environment, and on and on. Do we give the gal credit for an environmentally friendly heating system while she wastes everything else? Not in my opinion.

To me your inquiry is more properly relevant to life-style and cultural choices. For example, perhaps total carbon footprint is far more meaningful than just heat source. In this scenario, a 50% efficient oil burner, in a 800 sq ft house, owner walks to work, owns no motor vehicle, grows her own food in a bio-intensive, no fertilizer, garden, and re-uses nearly everything, is heads and tails above the gal with a 5000 sq ft home, an efficient wood burner, and opposite everything in the former.

IMO producing an article on this premise is all glitz and no guts.


----------



## RedRanger (Sep 24, 2008)

I think it will always come back to primeval times.  As long as the population doesn`t out-strip the source, then wood heat is the simplest and most enviromentally friendly.

Think back to dinasaur times, forest fires and no man to combat them.  Forest renewed!!  No digging, no drilling, no science. Just what to do to keep from freezing in the northern climes. Is what man does, make fire!!  When doing your paper, always think , that it is true that history repeats itself.

Don`t believe??  Then start to re-study history.  In the past-no fission, and no fussion, just simplicity.  And that is what (mother nature) intended.. :smirk:


----------



## fossil (Sep 24, 2008)

Sonny...there's been fusion for somewhere around 12 billion years, so far as we've been able to figure out, and there will be fusion for countless billions of years into the future.  Fusion, in fact, is the source of every atom in your body that's heavier than Hydrogen.  We are all children of the stars.  Take a little break from those history books you've been reading and have fun reading something like "_A Short History of Nearly Everything_", by Bill Bryson.  Great read.  Rick


----------



## Ken45 (Sep 24, 2008)

> wood heat is the most environmentally friendly way to heat your home



First off, you have to define what is "environmentally friendly".   I remember when the Sierra Club magazine heavily bashed wind power as environmentally unfriendly.  

Perhaps electric heat from a fast breeder reactor is environmentally friendly, but we don't allow those in the U.S.  

How about a well insulated small house built underground and densly populated so that body heat is enough to keep it warm?

Solar power is great...as long as you ignore the manufacturing process and waste products of solar.

Wood heat is carbon neutral and free if you can scrounge wood or have your own woodlot.  

There is no single ideal solution short of moving to the tropics (you only mentioned heat, you didn't mention air conditioning).

Ken


----------



## kenny chaos (Sep 24, 2008)

I agree 100%;  Of all the most common heating methods including using gas,oil or electric, for hot water or forced air systems, good old fasion wood burning IS the most environmentally friendly way to heat your home!


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 24, 2008)

Ken- wood heat is not "carbon neutral" if you use anything with an engine in the process- splitter, saw, tractor, car, truck.  Or... anything produced using petroleum or coal- so basically if you can eat all organic food and harvest without using metal or plastic- you are in better shape


----------



## kenny chaos (Sep 24, 2008)

Thanks Adios.  I never said it was carbon neutral.

I used to get a kick out of the people at the farmers markets that wanted to grill me on my offerings being raised and processed in a healthier manner.  I use to wonder how many of them were involved in some capacity with the production or sales of missles, pharmaceuticals, cars, tobacco, etc..  I use to wonder what all the "experts" did to improve things.  It was quite disheartening.  When people asked me where the organic veggie vendor was, I'd point him out, "That's him over there having a smoke."


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 24, 2008)

Kenny- I was responding to Ken45


----------



## BurningIsLove (Sep 24, 2008)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> Ken- wood heat is not "carbon neutral" if you use anything with an engine in the process- splitter, saw, tractor, car, truck.  Or... anything produced using petroleum or coal- so basically if you can eat all organic food and harvest without using metal or plastic- you are in better shape



Well that's interesting then that you vote 'passive solar' as the most green of heating sources.  If you define 'passive solar' to mean the sun's rays hitting your house directly and heating it up, then absolutely yes, not much can compete with that!   If you mean 'passive solar' to mean using solar cells (not photovoltaics) for hot water/radiant heating, then I'd have to strongly disagree.  It takes an great deal of energy to create a thermal panel when you factor in the cost of the mgring plant, transportation, energy required to create the cell/grow the crystals, etc), more than what can ever be realistically extracted from it before the cell degrades.  People use them because they are economical over the long term, but as I recall, cost is not the driving factor of the author's article.

I dont think much can compete with wood heating, assuming the normal arguments about supply, proper forest management, etc.  Sure, your average chainsaw/log splitter will use fuel & oil, but I find that I use about 5 gallons each year to process several cords of wood.  Most people burn that in less than a week of business commutes.  So while not 100% carbon neutral, it's pretty darn close.  In the like thread, a delivery truck bringing solar cells to your house is going to use that much fuel if not a whole lot more.

Geothermal (e.g. Iceland's supply) is certainly very green in the grand scheme of other reliable power sources, but it's sparsely available in supply close to sources of demand.

I know this will draw some flames (and hopefully some intelligent debate), but if you live in an area that doesnt have ready access to sustainable firewood, or your lifestyle/home simply precludes it, then nuclear would be the most green of alternate, *reliable* sources of energy when compared to fossil fuels.   We've got enough uranium on US soil that is easily accessible to mining for a few hundred years, more than enough to sustain heating/electrical needs until we figure out something better.  Sure, the age old problem of handling/storage of nuclear waste products should be considered, but if you gave me the option of electric heat using fossil fuels which an average plant hurls tons of particulates & CO2 into the air each day vs. one that produces tons/year which is tightly controlled, I'm going to pick the latter.  You can also process atomic waste as well as purifying before using it in the first place.  There is LOT of bad information out there on nuclear waste.  90% of radioactivity is gone within 10 years, 98% within a century.  And barring the unforeseen, its under tight security vs. floating around in the atmosphere.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 24, 2008)

You think that the energy to make the glass, reflector, an pipes in a panel is more than the energy to make a cast iron stove, plus liner and or chimney components?  People grow crystals for non-photovoltaic solar panels?  You assume that the chimney, woodstove, etc mystically appear and require no transportation- but that solar does?  Do you think that a panel degrades, but that a stove is eternal?

I know a guy that heats his house on 1.5 cord a year (no backup heat) in NH because one side of the house is insulated by the earth, and the other is his attached greenhouse (solarium) that heats in the sun- I'd say he's mostly "passive solar", with wood making up the difference.  He also starts all his garden plants in there (most of his food)- so it's multi-use.


----------



## fossil (Sep 24, 2008)

Passive solar _for space heating _can be as simple as a south-facing wall with lots of glass, and a trombe wall (basically just a big thermal mass of concrete, stone, adobe, or something) into which the radiant energy of the sun can be absorbed.  Incorporating an underground thermal mass or heat sink will allow even more energy storage.  Dwellings must be built anyway, incorporating some passive solar features takes some thinking but probably adds little if anything to the cost.  Nothing to do with panels, pipes, pumps, hot water, or electricity.  Ever lay back on a huge granite boulder well after sunset as the evening mountain air is rapidly cooling?...toasty warm!  Rick


----------



## Vic99 (Sep 24, 2008)

"I know this will draw some flames (and hopefully some intelligent debate), but if you live in an area that doesnt have ready access to sustainable firewood, or your lifestyle/home simply precludes it, then nuclear would be the most green of alternate, *reliable* sources of energy when compared to fossil fuels."

"It takes an great deal of energy to create a thermal panel when you factor in the cost of the mgring plant, transportation . . . . "

I like a lot of the aspects of nuclear power.  Everyone always (validly I think) points out the waste issue.  If you are going to go down the cradle to grave road regarding envi impact, don't forget about mining for uranium (and other substances mentioned above).  Although the U.S. currently recycles a fair amount of building materials, car parts etc.  (usually 49-52% of steel disposed of annually for example), many substance have to be mined.  To my knowledge this country mines all of its uranium (I thought I heard about a breeder nuke plant in England or Israel or something).  Mining consumes an enormous amount of energy.  Many techniques also often drastically changes the landscape (strip mining, tar shale extract for more oil, etc.)  Habitat destruction, pollution, etc.  Even with replacing overburden.


----------



## Ken45 (Sep 24, 2008)

Vic99 said:
			
		

> (I thought I heard about a breeder nuke plant in England or Israel or something).



I beieve that France gets 70% of it's power from fast breeder reactors.  My understanding is that they are very efficient and produce little waste and need little fuel.  The U.S. will not allow the technology for fear that the materials will fall into the wrong hands.  Duh! Half the world already has the materials and the rest can easily get it on the black market.

Ken


----------



## Vic99 (Sep 24, 2008)

Cool, thanks.  I'll look it up.


----------



## KeithO (Sep 25, 2008)

Once we have burnt all the oil and everyone grabs at ready alternatives, we will quickly be hearing of peak uranium.  Right now nuclear is only a small part of global energy and wouldn't last long if anyone tries to make it the mainstay.  A few hundred years and it is all over and we are back in the stone age.  Then, like previously, land is king.


----------



## webbie (Sep 25, 2008)

In truth, the greenest way to heat is simply to heat less - conservation. It is a major problem with our thinking that we think one fuel is greener than the other - wood might be green if only a small % of people burn it, and they burn it clean - but it certainly would not be as green if used on the honest scale that we would need to do in order to be a real contribution. 

From that point of view, Natural Gas is hard to beat. 

A good case can be made for wood in:
cold climes
where there is lots of wood
when it is burned cleanly
etc. 

but that is just one part of the BIG picture. We have a nice wind machines near here, and they are most definitely clean and green. 

Anyway, in a world of 6+ billion, it is getting tougher to work this stuff on an individual basis. The really greening of the world, if it happens, is largely to be on a larger scale.


----------



## begreen (Sep 25, 2008)

Amen, conservation is the best approach. An ideal house would be heated by body heat, lighting and appliances. 

I would also suggest the igloo as a pretty good solution using available materials. Not for me, but pretty ingenious use of materials and low planet impact.


----------



## Ken45 (Sep 25, 2008)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Amen, conservation is the best approach. An ideal house would be heated by body heat, lighting and appliances.
> 
> I would also suggest the igloo as a pretty good solution using available materials. Not for me, but pretty ingenious use of materials and low planet impact.



But efficient lighting won't give off enough heat to do any good.  How much heat do you get from LED bulbs?  Applicances?  The refrigerator and the computers are the only things that run much here (TV hasn't been on in six months).  Again, efficient applicances won't contribute much.  Body heat?  Even two person sleeping bags aren't all that warm in cold weather.  Unless you are going to pack 100 people into your 200 sq ft house, that isn't going to work either.


Igloos only work where there is a lot of snow and cold and even then they just don't last year around    Last time I could have built one was 1978.  IIRC, Minnesota didn't even have enough snow for one last winter (or maybe that was the winter before.)

While I agree that conservation is good, it will no more solve the problem than any other single answer.

Ken


----------



## BobTheTomato (Sep 25, 2008)

Vic99 said:
			
		

> " Many techniques also often drastically changes the landscape (strip mining, tar shale extract for more oil, etc.)  Habitat destruction, pollution, etc.  Even with replacing overburden.




Hey don't forget that strip mining prevents forest fires


----------



## Vic99 (Sep 25, 2008)

Well, that's true, Bob.


----------



## Chettt (Sep 25, 2008)

What you need Laura-Jane is a berm house facing south, with geothermal, solar panels, a wood-stove that burns dried poop and then invite the neighbors over for an orgy.


----------



## webbie (Sep 25, 2008)

Ken45 said:
			
		

> While I agree that conservation is good, it will no more solve the problem than any other single answer.
> 
> Ken



I think stats show otherwise. It is by far the quickest method to put into play. The invention of fuel injection and computer controlled car engines is perhaps the largest leap we have taken in the last 20+ years. 

When a Hearth.com members claims that, somehow, 3 tons of pellets have replaced 1000 gallons of oil - they are actually an advertisement for conservation, not for pellets. That is because they became very aware of their heating needs, turned the thermostat down, only heated the areas where they are living, etc. 

My house in Ma uses 1/2 the amount of energy as the same size house I had in Southern NJ. That is a big time reduction. If we were able to do 10% to 50% reductions in many areas over the next 10 years, we'd be very far along in solving this "crisis".


----------



## Ken45 (Sep 25, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> My house in Ma uses 1/2 the amount of energy as the same size house I had in Southern NJ. That is a big time reduction. If we were able to do 10% to 50% reductions in many areas over the next 10 years, we'd be very far along in solving this "crisis".



I'll assume that the current house is built more energy efficient, right?  It will not help the environment to bulldoze all older houses and build new energy efficient ones (just like buying a new car may save on gas but may be a net energy loss considering how much energy was used in the mining and production of materials).

Yes, improved windows and insulation may save 10%, but we are not going to get 50% energy reductions in the next ten years.   As I said, conservation is a part of the answer, just like other solutions, but it is not going to solve the issue any more than any other single answer.

"Turn the thermostat down?"  We never have set it very high (and we mostly have heated with wood).  Air conditioning only gets used 3-4 weeks per year and it's set at 78 or higher.  We put in good insulated windows when we bought the house.  What more do you expect?

Ken


----------



## Joey Jones (Sep 25, 2008)

I think a great system would have solar gain panels, windmills, high mass of stone in residence and a small woodstove to be comfortable


----------



## BurningIsLove (Sep 26, 2008)

KeithO said:
			
		

> Once we have burnt all the oil and everyone grabs at ready alternatives, we will quickly be hearing of peak uranium.  Right now nuclear is only a small part of global energy and wouldn't last long if anyone tries to make it the mainstay.  A few hundred years and it is all over and we are back in the stone age.  Then, like previously, land is king.



I'm sure that mining costs will only go up, for coal & uranium.  But uranium is not something traded on the WW commodities market, and the US had an abundant supply on its own soil so we dont have to get it from overseas sources.

As for percentage of global energy, that's more a matter of security, politics, and insufficient technology than viability.  As much as I hate to admit it, look how well France has done running over 70% of their demand from nuclear, selling their surplus to other European customers like Germany (the big solar panel production plants in Germany are powered by French nuclear plants if you didnt know that).  I do not in any way advocate that nuclear power is the answer to most country's power needs, quite the reverse.  Any country that is serious about using it as a large scale percentage of power needs to have a well thought out plan of infrastructure, security, safety, technology, supply, and of course, responsibility.   So while viable for the US, I would never advocate it for Pakistan.

And yes, someday uranium supplies will be depleted just like any other non-renewable sources.  My pitch was to use a known, proven, safe, green(er) power generation infrastructure like nuclear that can be started on tomorrow and meeting our residential and industrial needs for a few hundred years with economic security until we have come up w/ something better (fusion?).  Cheap nuclear power also means that new innovations like plugin hybrids will become more feasible and get us a bit greener in that respect.  Heating your home (the original intent of this thread) w/ electric heat becomes realistic again for non-stove owners.  It practically already is w/ the current cost of heating oil.


----------



## Joey Jones (Sep 26, 2008)

Maybe people who live by rivers can make water wheels with goverment subsidy...as long as the river flows there will be power, maybe excess power to sell


----------



## Duetech (Oct 7, 2008)

Here's a thought about carbon footprint/carbon neutral. Who is to say that the use of fossil fuels is not carbon neutral? The level of carbon in fossil fuels was generated by the "then" sources of consumption and production. Cataclysmic event caused the storage and confinement of the fossil fuels we use today. The carbon footprint we recognize measurement from today is based on current/past readings of atmospheric carbon. But that reading is skewed. Fossil fuels were generated by plants and animals at the time of the cataclysmic event. Simplistically, animals consumed the plant life and carbon produced by plant life and returned it to the earth through bio secretions and ultimately through death. Plants, animals and insects are carbon components. The carbon reading/footprint of that long ago period is not equal to today's carbon reading/foot print because a portion of that carbon is stored. History has shown fluctuations in the carbon record. The original carbon footprint cannot be precisely known as evidenced by the unknown quantity of stored mass that we engage to consume. Nor can we actually know today's real carbon footprint because we cannot know the actual carbon quotient of all life, land mass/aquatic/air. The question then arises "Would this world be better off with the pre-cataclysmic carbon readings or not?" Granted the use of fossil fuels should be geared to the release of non-harmful chemicals but their use does not necessarily denote a negative carbon impact. If by definition carbon neutral is equated to timed carbon release relegated to carbon consumption and release. Then is it not possible that fossil fuel use is actually carbon neutral? Just late in coming?...Cave2k


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Oct 7, 2008)

Assuming the human population does not crash and that we use at the current rate, using fossil fuels puts a net increase of carbon into the atmosphere.  You are asking if we might reach an equilibrium- maybe, but if there is a net carbon increase (and looking at probable time scales for petroleum production- it will be large) then we are not carbon neutral.


----------



## MarcM (Oct 7, 2008)

Redox said:
			
		

> Jimbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've seen the term "geothermal heat pump" several times, and I see nothing technically wrong with the phrase.

Geo-thermal quite literally means "ground heat."  A heat pump is simply a device used to move heat against a temperature differential.  Heat only flows naturally from the hot side of a temperature differential to a cold side.  You can make heat flow the opposite way, i.e. from cold to hot, but as thermodynamics tells us, it requires an energy input.  The energy input is the heat pump.  Volcanic sources of geothermal heat cause ground temperatures to be hotter than surface temperatures, so the heat will naturally flow towards the desired direction, all that's needed is the means to channel it where it is convenient.

It's why heat pumps are rated in coefficient of performance rather than efficiency.  They're not creating the heat energy from a different form, they're simply moving the heat energy against a temperature differential (cooler ground into the warmer house).  So I'd say there's absolutely nothing wrong with calling this "geothermal."


----------



## MarcM (Oct 7, 2008)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> Assuming the human population does not crash and that we use at the current rate, using fossil fuels puts a net increase of carbon into the atmosphere.  You are asking if we might reach an equilibrium- maybe, but if there is a net carbon increase (and looking at probable time scales for petroleum production- it will be large) then we are not carbon neutral.



Even if we release the potential carbon dioxide stored in petroleum, we really are still "carbon neutral."  It's a misleading phrase, and really only has meaning when you specify a time frame.

It's not like the crude magically appeared underground one day.  It took the energy of the sun to form all the biomass that contributed to the stores, so even burning it now, we're still technically "neutral."  Left underground and we're running a deficit .

It's just the rate of release and the time scale that's the problem with petroleum, apparently.


----------



## Jerry_NJ (Oct 7, 2008)

I, who do burn wood, upcoming winter with an EPA Insert for the first time, think the green heat claim for wood burning is an oversimplification and self-serving statement by would-be environmentalists.   Ouch, that's what 80% of this forum is all about.

My simple existence, I have a geothermal heat pump (a.k.a. Ground Source) driven about 50% from nuclear driven electricity) not an oil furnace, is that if one plants trees/etc. to offset oil burning hydrocarbons, they are just as green as the wood burner.  I take this one further, the oil burner could just simply let the many live trees cut down for fire wood to simply continue to grow.

True geothermal, wind, solar all come to mind as the cornerstones of clean energy in my mind.   Hydro and nuclear are runners up in my mind.

Edit: I see I skipped all the post on the last page when I made the... I've been in many times on the discussion on the label Geothermal, and that's what I call, as does the manufacturer, my ground source heat pump.  The advantage I see of limiting the term Geothermal to mean drawing heat (never cold) from the earth to directly heat or drive generators (for example) helps us communicate in fewer words.  Speaking of more words, the "ground source" heat pump is also a "ground sink" heat pump, and most use water (with antifreeze) as the intermediate transfer agent.  Boy, it sure is easier to say Geothermal, still I respect the benefit of using more exacting language.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Oct 7, 2008)

MarcM said:
			
		

> Even if we release the potential carbon dioxide stored in petroleum, we really are still "carbon neutral."  It's a misleading phrase, and really only has meaning when you specify a time frame.
> 
> It's not like the crude magically appeared underground one day.  It took the energy of the sun to form all the biomass that contributed to the stores, so even burning it now, we're still technically "neutral."  Left underground and we're running a deficit .
> 
> It's just the rate of release and the time scale that's the problem with petroleum, apparently.



I see what you are saying, but the fact is that even if the same amount is sequestered as is liberated, we establish a new equilibrium with a net higher carbon content in the atmosphere.  So- if you define "carbon neutral" as "not increasing the atmospheric carbon level", then we are not.  

If you define it as "producing carbon at no higher a level than is sequestered at equilibrium"- then I may be wrong- but I don't think we are that either.   That is merely another way of stating your "time" arguement, but I would counter that we do not know what the ultimate human induced global equilibrium level will be.  Calling this "carbon neutral" is much akin to being in a plane that's going down,  picking up speed and the pilot coming on and calmly saying "Don't panic, the plane will stop.   We'll be on the ground shortly"


----------



## MarcM (Oct 7, 2008)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> I see what you are saying, but the fact is that even if the same amount is sequestered as is liberated, we establish a new equilibrium with a net higher carbon content in the atmosphere.  So- if you define "carbon neutral" as "not increasing the atmospheric carbon level", then we are not.
> 
> If you define it as "producing carbon at no higher a level than is sequestered at equilibrium"- then I may be wrong- but I don't think we are that either.   That is merely another way of stating your "time" arguement, but I would counter that we do not know what the ultimate human induced global equilibrium level will be.  Calling this "carbon neutral" is much akin to being in a plane that's going down,  picking up speed and the pilot coming on and calmly saying "Don't panic, the plane will stop.   We'll be on the ground shortly"



What I'm saying is there is not a large scale production of carbon dioxide going on.  We've got about as much as we started with before there was any life on Earth.  Petroleum is mostly made from algae and plankton, which both derived energy from photosynthesis and carbon dioxide and water.  Coal is mostly the result of terrestrial plant life which also absorbed carbon dioxide in the process of photosynthesis.  So instead of decomposing fully and releasing all of the carbon dioxide it absorbed of the life of the plant, it mixed with some mud, got buried, absorbed geothermal heat and pressure which gave it some higher energy bonds, but the atomic content remained mostly the same.  

What it sounds like to me is there was a bunch of carbon dioxide drawn out of the atmosphere out over millions of years, and now we're releasing it all at once, which is the real issue.  Certainly I could be misunderstanding something in the process of the cycle, I've done that before.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Oct 7, 2008)

"What it sounds like to me is there was a bunch of carbon dioxide drawn out of the atmosphere out over millions of years, and now we’re releasing it all at once, which is the real issue. "

That is the- theoretical- issue.  It was buried, now it's being put into the atmosphere.  That is a net increase in the atmosphere- "carbon neautral" implies "no carbon increase".  The equilibrium shifts to a higher carbon compound increase in the atmosphere.  More carbon in the atmosphere- not carbon neutral.


----------



## oconnor (Oct 7, 2008)

Some info from the Government of Canada that I have used in my decision to burn wood for heat.

From the publication "A Guide to Residential Wood Heating", published by the forestry folks, the best key message is that when burned in a clean burning appliance, wood heating doesn't contribute to the problem of climate change the way fossil fuel use does. But wood fuel is truly renewable only if it is produced by using sustainable forestry practices

http://www.canren.gc.ca/prod_serv/index.asp?CaId=103&PgId=576

That said, the government environment folks have the following to say

Wood Heat Facts stolen from http://www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/Wood_Heating_Facts-WS87C5EE65-1_En.htm


*• In Canada, residential wood heating is responsible for 29% of the fine particle emissions associated with human activities. This makes it the third most important source overall.*
• Wood smoke contains over 100 pollutants. These pollutants not only negatively impact the environment but are also linked to a wide range of health problems.
• Residential wood combustion is a major contributor to winter smog. 
*• Burning wood in a conventional wood stove for 9 hours emits as many particulates into the atmosphere as a certified stove does in 60 hours or as car traveling 18000 km.*
• Spending money on the insulation of your home rather than on fuel is better for the environment and your health.
*• Certified wood stoves produce less emission and are more energy efficient. They consume up to a third less wood!*
*• The combustion of treated and salvaged wood causes the formation of dioxins, furans and other extremely toxic substances.*
*• If you're using clean, dry wood and there's still a lot of wood smoke, your appliance is not functioning properly or you are not using it correctly. *
• When you buy logs from commercial dealers you may need to split some of the wood again. The pieces sold commercially are often larger than needed for advanced stoves.
• Storing wood inside your home can cause mould and mildew to develop. Only bring in enough wood for your immediate (day's worth) use.
• Insulating basement and attic walls can reduce your energy bill by as much as 30%.

Whimfield

I notice from your profile that you are in PEI.  How is the forestry side of the issue seem there?  I would assume that cutting down the trees left on the Island for heat is not seen as a favourable idea?  Is this the main source of debate you are trying to confront?

I also note the "help me prove my point" vice "help me educate myself and others' discussion, and am approving of the educate perspective.


----------



## Duetech (Oct 7, 2008)

Well at least it has been brought to our attention but perhaps the term is "more positively/negatively carbon effected based on current reading standards." By the way has anybody looked at the cause/source and atmospheric effect of sulfur dioxide. Carbon takes a very back seat to sulfur dioxide which is much more directly in vogue with weather pattern swings than carbon but last in the latest opinion popularity polls. Whoodathunkit...Cave2k


----------



## Duetech (Oct 7, 2008)

[quote author="Whimfield" date="1222054034"]I'm a writer, and I facts from a reputable source[/b] that I can quote from.

     Biogas is an up and coming technology that has lain dormant since the beginning of the industrial age. India and China are using biogas as sources for heat and electrical energy plus motive energy supplies. Soil re-nutriation and waste problems and energy problems are addressed in one cyclical process. Waste products are used to fertilize fields which produce foods and plants for energy products. Foods when prepared and used produce waste which are then placed in a methane enzimatic production tank which produces methane for energy purposes. When the enzimatic process has depleted enough the now converted wast product (called a slurry) is used to fertilize crop production fields. This process is in progress in China and India while our government talks of alternative fuel/energy sources. People generate electricity and gas to cook and heat with and generate electricy all for the cost of around $300 dollars. More sophisticated methane collectors are used to store methane for automobile usage. The process there is beginning to escalate. Think of the saved energy costs that are not being spent for creature comforts. Our lifestyles would change for the better if we were able to adapt so well. I wouldn't mind using a methane production tank to heat my home with a methane boiler as I reach further towards old age. Of course not splitting wood might make me grow older earlier because I'm enjoying too many creature comforts and not getting the exercise I need...yadayada..ya...Cave2k


----------



## Duetech (Oct 8, 2008)

Links for viewing bio gas production/usage...Cave2k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrtINiLgNKY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7H3CTvClSk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BDF0azPGvM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WCv4-_-nwk&feature=related


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 27, 2008)

Sometimes we make things so hard....a great green sol'n exists today....

In most places in the country you can buy wind-power electricity (for a small premium, $0.025/kWh where I am) 

AND 

in most places in the country you can get most or all of your space heating from a properly-sized, recent vintage 
heat pump.

The decision to go air-source vs ground-source is a detail--with wind power both are carbon neutral, convenient, and 
pretty cheap to run.  Of course, the ground-source will be cheaper to run, but the final choice will depend on your 
climate, your geology, the size of your pocketbook, and your interest in long-term investments.  

When the air-source gets pricier to run (during your coldest weather) fire up the new stove and wood you bought with 
all the money you saved not buying a ground-source.


----------



## renewablejohn (Nov 6, 2008)

French nuclear power has a very negative sting in the tail with ever increasing pollution problems caused by leaking reactors into the subsoil. Future generations will wonder why we ever allowed nuclear reactors to be built when we do not have the technology in place to operate them safely.


----------



## billb3 (Nov 6, 2008)

Build it south of Miami.


----------



## ccwhite (Dec 31, 2008)

I cut wood on only approximately 8 acres of a 15 acre trac of land and heat 2 homes entirely and supplementing a third home. I rarely cut down a live tree. I cut dead fall and wind blown trees and then cut dead stands (trees that are still standing but dead). I only cut live trees if they are in the way for some reason or it is a hazard of some sort. The plain fact is green (live) wood takes a long time to season. If it's dead and has no branches or even bark left on it I can cut it and put it right into the furnace. 

Wood is a easily renewable resource. I can't think how it could not be considered environmentally friendly or "green". Heating with electricity is the same as heating with coal as coal is burned to make the electricity. Solar is great but pricey same with geothermal or even ground source. 

You also must consider what is involved in the manufacture of any technology. Take solar panels for instance. I know they work, but how are they made? Just my $.02.


----------



## PeteD (Dec 31, 2008)

With respect to the OP, this is a very complicated question that cannot be answered easily.  You really need to look at a bunch of factors to get the answer.  This type of stuff is the subject of theses and consulting projects (life-cycle cost/environmental impact assessments).

As a SMALL example of the questions that need to be answered:
How much energy does it take to produce the components of the system?
What pollutants are released during the entire life cycle of the components (cradle to grave)?
Are sensitive ecosystems damaged by the operations needed to produce the heating system?
What are the values of those ecosystems (if they are damaged)?
The list goes on and on.

Keep in mind these answers can vary greatly by geographic location and other other variables.

If I were you, I would focus on the benefits of wood burning as discussed often here and not try to make overly grandiose, unsubstantiated statements about how good it is compared to other "green" options.

Pete


----------



## Techstuf (Dec 31, 2008)

The answer, of course, depends greatly upon latitude, and in more than one sense of the word.   I mean, ask an Eskimo and the answer seems obvious.....body heat and lots of insulation....ask an equatorial native and get a puzzled look.  In most latitudes with seasonal heating requirements, as previously extolled, passive solar can readily fill the bill.  Evacuated solar tubes are enjoying increasingly wider success because of their high efficiency and viability for even the northern latitudes.  Any heating system which requires matter to energy conversion including wood heat, obviously, diminishes resources.  The future of home heating systems will gravitate towards highly efficient energy to mass, energy to energy, transfer systems such as molecular friction devices, the hydrosonic pump, and the new 'cheap solar' systems, with exceptions being the greater exploitation and upscaling of John Kanzius' microwave hydrogen gas generator and other high efficiency mass to energy systems.  As materials science really gets down to the 'nitty gritty', so to speak, our understanding.....referring to that of the general public, is being prepared for upheavals of the technological kind.  The programmed financial meltdown now occurring on a world scale will have a decisive impact on the distribution and generation of energy on various fronts, home heating  among them.



Regards,


TS


----------

