# Why do wood stoves make so much smoke?



## Freshguy (Dec 14, 2019)

In my view, the only "zero-carbon" heat source that makes any sense is a wood stove.  But the best wood stoves make about 0.5 grams of smoke an hour.  By contrast, a natural gas furnace makes about 0.0005 grams of smoke an hour.  If wood stoves were able to match this, then the laws restricting use of wood stoves would go away.  This is a very important issue that needs attention.  Sooo____ why do wood stoves make smoke?


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 14, 2019)

There are other issues with natural gas, but trees emit just as much or more carbon when they decompose in the forest. It's up to folks who operate wood stoves to be responsible for what fuel they choose to use.


----------



## bholler (Dec 14, 2019)

Freshguy said:


> In my view, the only "zero-carbon" heat source that makes any sense iwood stove.  But the best wood stoves make about 0.5 grams of smoke an hour.  By contrast, a natural gas furnace makes about 0.0005 grams of smoke an hour.  If wood stoves were able to match this, then the laws restricting use of wood stoves would go away.  This is a very important issue that needs attention.  Sooo____ why do wood stoves make smoke?


Well burnt correctly with good fuel a modern wood stove should make no visible smoke once up to operating temperature.   But burning solid fuel you simply will never get emmisions as low as you can burning gas.  It simply is not possible.  As far as the laws go without those laws wood stove emmisions would be much higher.  Yes some companies would have developed clean burning stoves without being required to.  But much of the market would still be made up of old design cheap simple steel boxed that would be very inefficient.

And for the record burning wood is not zero carbon.  It is pretty low but definitely not zero


----------



## bholler (Dec 14, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> There are other issues with natural gas, but trees emit just as much or more carbon when they decompose in the forest. It's up to folks who operate wood stoves to be responsible for what fuel they choose to use.


Well that isn't quite accurate when decomposing yes wood does release carbon but allot of it goes into the ground.  Allot of it goes into bugs that eat the wood etc.  When burnt most of it goes into the air which is why burning wood is not zero carbon


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 14, 2019)

bholler said:


> Well that isn't quite accurate when decomposing yes wood does release carbon but allot of it goes into the ground.  Allot of it goes into bugs that eat the wood etc.  When burnt most of it goes into the air which is why burning wood is not zero carbon


Not quite zero, no but wild fires are a serious air quality and carbon emissions issue. Lighting striking a tree and setting a forest ablaze is way more damaging to air quality and carbon emissions than burning in an EPA stove. Burning responsibly by cleaning up the dead trees from the forest and promoting positive growth will help keep carbon emissions lower. Sure, none of this is proven, but I'm sure someone could do the math. Wood burning for heat or cooking in the first world is tiny, but there are wild fires raging all across the country (some went out finally) dumping carbon directly into the atmosphere. If the third world could be brought up to the same standards as the US and Western Europe then emissions from wood burning could be slashed again. 

Perhaps wood is not zero carbon, but that's ok. It is sustainable and green compared to using energy to extract energy from the earth like coal, NG, petro, etc. 

I think carbon neutral is a good term.


----------



## bholler (Dec 14, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> Not quite zero, no but wild fires are a serious air quality and carbon emissions issue. Lighting striking a tree and setting a forest ablaze is way more damaging to air quality and carbon emissions than burning in an EPA stove. Burning responsibly by cleaning up the dead trees from the forest and promoting positive growth will help keep carbon emissions lower. Sure, none of this is proven, but I'm sure someone could do the math. Wood burning for heat or cooking in the first world is tiny, but there are wild fires raging all across the country (some went out finally) dumping carbon directly into the atmosphere. If the third world could be brought up to the same standards as the US and Western Europe then emissions from wood burning could be slashed again.
> 
> Perhaps wood is not zero carbon, but that's ok. It is sustainable and green compared to using energy to extract energy from the earth like coal, NG, petro, etc.
> 
> I think carbon neutral is a good term.


I don't disagree at all.  When it comes to heating properly operated woodstoves are pretty environmentaly friendly.  Just not entirely zero carbon or carbon neautral.   But pretty good nonetheless


----------



## begreen (Dec 14, 2019)

Freshguy said:


> In my view, the only "zero-carbon" heat source that makes any sense is a wood stove.  But the best wood stoves make about 0.5 grams of smoke an hour.  By contrast, a natural gas furnace makes about 0.0005 grams of smoke an hour.  If wood stoves were able to match this, then the laws restricting use of wood stoves would go away.  This is a very important issue that needs attention.  Sooo____ why do wood stoves make smoke?


There are tons of hidden carbon costs in natural gas. Some, like methane leakage, are exceptionally high. Fracking is carbon-intensive too. I  was just reading about the large forest clearing that is done in order to mine the special sands they use in the fracking fluid. Nothing comes for free, but at least wood is a renewable and not a one-way street.


----------



## Freshguy (Dec 14, 2019)

We agree wood stoves are much better than fossil fuel use BUT a "clean" wood stove produces about a thousand times more air pollution (smoke) than a natural gas burner. Are we content to admit we can't do any better? Why?


----------



## begreen (Dec 14, 2019)

We are doing much better. Magnitudes better than just a few decades ago. New regs take place in 2020 that are the next step. It is not a trivial issue to make a user-operated (huge variable) wood-fueled (another big variable) device installed in a wide variety of situations to perform like an automated, controlled gas furnace.


----------



## bholler (Dec 14, 2019)

Freshguy said:


> We agree wood stoves are much better than fossil fuel use BUT a "clean" wood stove produces about a thousand times more air pollution (smoke) than a natural gas burner. Are we content to admit we can't do any better? Why?


Just simply looking at volume of "smoke" doesn't tell you a thing.  You need to look at the chemical make up of that smoke.  You need to look at what goes into getting that fuel from it's source to the heating appliance etc.  Yes Nat gas burns far cleaner than wood ever will interns of pure volume of emissions.  But that doesn't mean it is a cleaner fuel overall. 

And the industry has been making wood stoves progressively cleaner over the past few decades.  It just will never be possible to get volume of emissions down to the level of Nat gas.


----------



## begreen (Dec 14, 2019)

While the average natural gas furnace may be much lower in particulates, it still emits plenty of CO2, CO and NOx.

Referring back to my earlier posting, here are methane emissions from oil and gas fields visualized. Methane is a much more serious greenhouse gas than CO2.








						It’s a Vast, Invisible Climate Menace. We Made It Visible. (Published 2019)
					

Immense amounts of methane are escaping from oil and gas sites nationwide, worsening global warming, even as the Trump administration weakens restrictions on offenders.



					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Freshguy (Dec 14, 2019)

I think if we answer the question, why (or how) a wood stove makes smoke, then we can begin to make progress.


----------



## begreen (Dec 14, 2019)

Freshguy said:


> I think if we answer the question, why (or how) a wood stove makes smoke, then we can begin to make progress.


This seems to not acknowledge that we are making progress. Note that progress is costly. There are testing and experiments being done with scrubbers on the flue, but they add maintenance and cost. Also, pellet stoves continue to develop. They burn wood as compressed sawdust in a cleaner form yet. But they are often noisy and complex. Drop by the pellet forum here to see what these folks are dealing with. I also would recommend that you visit and maybe subscribe to the Alliance for Green Heat  newsletter for more info on studies on this topic. They are doing good work.  http://forgreenheat.org Every few years they have held a contest for worldwide stove builders to demonstrate the latest in clean-burning technology. I went to the first one and can recommend it as a great educational experience.


----------



## bholler (Dec 14, 2019)

Freshguy said:


> I think if we answer the question, why (or how) a wood stove makes smoke, then we can begin to make progress.


I really am not sure what you are getting at here.  Modern wood stoves greatly reduce smoke when compared to stoves from just 35 or 40 years ago.  Burning wood makes smoke.  Woodstoves reduce that by creating more complete combustion.   But that can only go so far.  Can you tell us what you think a solution might be?


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Dec 14, 2019)

Freshguy said:


> We agree wood stoves are much better than fossil fuel use BUT a "clean" wood stove produces about a thousand times more air pollution (smoke) than a natural gas burner. Are we content to admit we can't do any better? Why?



I'm content. 

If people are really worried about carbon emissions from heating fuel, they need to get involved with insulating the houses in their community.   This will also lower the emissions from fuel needed to run air conditioners in the summer too.  It's simple, it's inexpensive,  and very effective.  

Focusing on cutting the energy needs of a community will produce greater results than focusing on a small niche group who heat with an alternative fuel source.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 14, 2019)

I sure one of your avg wildfires produces more smoke than all the wood stoves in america , so i wouldnt lose any sleep over feeling guilty about it.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Dec 14, 2019)

I think that NZ volcano eruption put out some pollution also.


----------



## bholler (Dec 14, 2019)

I don't really understand why people always bring up natural events live eruptions and wildfires to excuse man made emissions.  I agree those things release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.  But they would happen with or without us being here.  We can't change that.  We can change what we do.


And yes I know wildfires are influenced by human behavior as well.  So that isn't a purely natural event.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 14, 2019)

Were all free to give up our wood stoves with their man made emissions if we choose.  Can always go nuclear or wind generated electric heat if the guilt becomes too much to bear. We are already helping the situation here encouraging use of dry wood and cleaner burning efficient stoves to look at the bright side.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 14, 2019)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Im content
> Focusing on cutting the energy needs of a community will produce greater results than focusing on a small niche group who heat with an alternative fuel source.


Very good point ,cutting your energy use in half is always a good idea no matter the fuel source. Im content as well.


----------



## byQ (Dec 14, 2019)

bholler said:


> I really am not sure what you are getting at here.  Modern wood stoves greatly reduce smoke when compared to stoves from just 35 or 40 years ago.  Burning wood makes smoke.  Woodstoves reduce that by creating more complete combustion.   But that can only go so far.  Can you tell us what you think a solution might be?



1. Each year a wood burning appliance must be certified by a chimney sweep. No certification = no burning. (New houses need to be constructed in such a way that inspection is made easier - like roof steps).
2. All pre EPA wood stoves completely banned.
3. Outdoor wood burners that employ water jackets banned.
4. Conventional fireplace construction in new building banned and existing fireplaces must be updated w/epa inserts.
5. New house construction must employ passive solar concepts when possible and meet higher insulation rates.
6. Exterior chimneys not allowed in new construction - only interior chimneys.
7. 'Smart' technology used in wood burning.
8. Stricter regs to incorporate new changes as they are invented (like scrubbers/'smart' stuff).
9. ..........

I know this will never be done.


----------



## begreen (Dec 15, 2019)

#9. All firewood sold must be certified tested to <20% moisture content.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Dec 15, 2019)

Let's give anybody who wants to buy a woodstove an intelligence test to see if they are too stupid to play with fire.

*obviously joking, but intelligence plays a part in woodstove operation.*

This thread has gone stupid.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 15, 2019)

Boy looks like the OP is very good at spending other folks money. I object to unfunded mandates and many of the proposed issues are unfunded mandates. 

Sometimes there is lot to be said for the ignore member on this forum and this does seem another case.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 15, 2019)

begreen said:


> #9. All firewood sold must be certified tested to <20% moisture content.


Iv given up trying to explain this to some folks, otherwise intelligent people just cant seem to grasp this concept.  Some will listen but i see guys burning for 10 yrs or more still burning wet wood(or trying to burn it).


----------



## bholler (Dec 15, 2019)

peakbagger said:


> Boy looks like the OP is very good at spending other folks money. I object to unfunded mandates and many of the proposed issues are unfunded mandates.
> 
> Sometimes there is lot to be said for the ignore member on this forum and this does seem another case.


What mandates did the op propose?  To me it looked like they wanted the industry to do it on its own to avoid further mandates.


----------



## bholler (Dec 15, 2019)

As far as requiring wood being sold to be dry.  I don't think that is nessecary.  But requiring sellers to test moisture content and disclose that to customers along with literature on proper moisture levels and burning techniques sounds like a good idea to me


----------



## begreen (Dec 15, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Iv given up trying to explain this to some folks, otherwise intelligent people just cant seem to grasp this concept.  Some will listen but i see guys burning for 10 yrs or more still burning wet wood(or trying to burn it).


I saw a YouTube video yesterday titled Everything You Need To Know About Burning Wood in a Woodstove. He was burning in a Regency and deliberately placed a green log on one side when building a fire. When the fire was completely burned down that log was still a big lump of charcoal.


----------



## spirilis (Dec 16, 2019)

Harvesting firewood by thinning wildfire-prone forests is possibly the one situation where you can definitively call wood burning "carbon-neutral".  The only thing better for the atmosphere, would be to keep the thinned biomass sequestered (in the form of lumber) and use other non-emitting forms of energy instead.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Dec 16, 2019)

bholler said:


> As far as requiring wood being sold to be dry.  I don't think that is nessecary.  But requiring sellers to test moisture content and disclose that to customers


I agree. It is a simple fraud issue, isn't it?  Perhaps legislation that defines 'seasoned' -- I'd suggest 'seasoned' means 'X percent (95% by volume?) of each purchase is at or below X percent (20%?) MC' -- could be put in place so that buyers could have some assurance they got what they paid for.  I recall reading that some states don't allow the selling of 'face cords', likely for a similar reason.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 16, 2019)

Outdoor smoke dragons. A crime against your neighbors and yourself.








						Outdoor Wood Boilers
					

Outdoor wood boilers emit stunning levels of pollution that are hazardous to health.




					woodsmokepollution.org
				



*"OWBs Emit Shocking Levels of Pollution*

At 150 feet away, OWBs were found to produce particulate level peaks of over 1,000 μg/m3, with frequent values over 400 μg/m3 during routine usage. At 50 feet away, a shocking 8,800 μg/m3 peak measurement was recorded.

To put this in perspective, when China declared Beijing’s first ever red alert for dangerous air quality, levels had reached 291 μg/m3 — a mere fraction of the hazardous particulate levels to which neighbors of OWBs are regularly exposed. "

Even EPA certified OWBs produce as much as 18 times the particulate matter as a regular EPA wood stove is allowed to.


----------



## bholler (Dec 16, 2019)

Socratic Monologue said:


> I agree. It is a simple fraud issue, isn't it?  Perhaps legislation that defines 'seasoned' -- I'd suggest 'seasoned' means 'X percent (95% by volume?) of each purchase is at or below X percent (20%?) MC' -- could be put in place so that buyers could have some assurance they got what they paid for.  I recall reading that some states don't allow the selling of 'face cords', likely for a similar reason.


Yeah many states including mine PA require firewood to be sold in cords of fractions of cords.


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 16, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Outdoor smoke dragons. A crime against your neighbors and yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. I didn't know it was that high, especially for the new EPA OWB units. Are the IWB units the same way? I would think any gassification boiler would be fairly clean, so this is pretty eye opening.


----------



## bholler (Dec 16, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> Wow. I didn't know it was that high, especially for the new EPA OWB units. Are the IWB units the same way? I would think any gassification boiler would be fairly clean, so this is pretty eye opening.


Actual gassifiers are pretty clean.  But most boilers aren't gassifiers.  Really the only way they can burn clean is if they have a large amount of thermal storage and they are burnt hard to heat that water then shut down.  If not burnt really hard the water jacket just saps so much heat they cannot burn very clean.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 16, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> Wow. I didn't know it was that high, especially for the new EPA OWB units. Are the IWB units the same way? I would think any gassification boiler would be fairly clean, so this is pretty eye opening.


Very different animal from an indoor gasser.


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Dec 17, 2019)

Like I have said before, the EPA is just another tentical of the beast. They want control of the way you heat your dwelling. They can control gas or oil heat but not wood heat. That's why they have all of these emissions tests for wood stoves,Because they can't control who cuts wood.


----------



## Sawset (Dec 17, 2019)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Like I have said before, the EPA is just another tentical of the beast. They want control of the way you heat your dwelling. They can control gas or oil heat but not wood heat. That's why they have all of these emissions tests for wood stoves,Because they can't control who cuts wood.


Do you live next door to an owb, or in an area of inversion. It's not some beast, it's your nighbors that don't like the way you smell.


----------



## bholler (Dec 17, 2019)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Like I have said before, the EPA is just another tentical of the beast. They want control of the way you heat your dwelling. They can control gas or oil heat but not wood heat. That's why they have all of these emissions tests for wood stoves,Because they can't control who cuts wood.


And what have those regulations done to hurt woodburners?   They have greatly improved the woodstoves we have available to us.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Dec 17, 2019)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Like I have said before, the EPA is just another tentical of the beast. They want control of the way you heat your dwelling. They can control gas or oil heat but not wood heat. That's why they have all of these emissions tests for wood stoves,Because they can't control who cuts wood.


I don't know of any EPA regulations that control the way you heat your dwelling.  If you know of some, please cite them here.

EPA regulations control the sale of wood burning appliances.   This is allowed, legally, in light of the Clean Air Act and its amendments.  The Clean Air Act has been upheld by the courts, including the Supreme Court, often under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  Yes, _that_ Constitution -- the one people like to get all supportive of when it suits their perceived self-interest.

The "tentical (_sic_) of the beast" talk is fun and all, but researching the system of legislative justification in the United States might be a better use of one's time.


----------



## EbS-P (Dec 19, 2019)

Back to the OPs question. Fire is just breaking chemical bonds. Wood has a lot and they are not simple molecules either. Methane has a very simple structure so when those bonds are broken you only get carbon-dioxide and water.  The wood molecules break down into other molecules that are smaller and can still be broken up again (burned).   The larger the molecules the less clean it burns think diesel va gas.
The need to burn in cycles makes it smokier. The temp drops and must rise again for complete combustion.  Pellet stove solve the by continually feeding fuel.  Wood stoves Don’t have that luxury.  

second is there is no controlling the fueling rate so the air to fuel ratio needed for complete combustion isn’t always ideal. Fuel injection you have both independent air and fuel control. A carburetor has a set air to fuel ratio. Wood stoves well we can control some air flow. Nothing about the fuel. So it will run rich. Adding extra air only works if the environment is hot enough to burn the leftover fuel. Think secondary combustion but again if you don’t have enough air you won’t get a complete burn And you will get smoke. Adding air that is not hot will cause creosote condensation. I do think it is remarkable that the non cat systems today burn as clean as they do. Hope that helps.
Evan


----------



## mnowaczyk (Dec 22, 2019)

Air quality. Delete my post if it’s too OT.

So wood burning, if clean and efficient, makes CO2 that will eventually be released into the atmosphere when the wood rots anyway. Right?

Burning the wood, if we have hot enough fires should just increase the rate at which the CO2 enters the atmosphere. Right?

But when we don’t burn it efficiently, it adds smoke and particulates that cause other air quality issues. Right?

I would assume that the larger the organization or facility combusting materials is, the more likely they are to be burning as efficiently as possible. Right? So a power plant is going to be more efficient than a wood fire. Right?

Is it more “green” for me to heat my house with natural gas in my mod con boiler (95% efficient?) with radiator heat? Or to add a little wood burning with my fireplace insert? I’ve been letting more and more wood rot as I’ve started assuming that I’m just hastening CO2 production if I burn wood.

I’ve got a back yard fire pit that I’ve used only once this year because it bothers me that it doesn’t burn as hot and efficiently as I’d like.

<begreen edit> Moved to thread discussing wood smoke effects. See post #7 in this thread about Nat. Gas.


----------



## mnowaczyk (Dec 22, 2019)

Thanks for pointing me here. Post 40 resonates with me. I would love to be able to know exactly when to feed my stove and know that it’s a greener way to heat my home. I’m just not confident of that. 

I see that outdoor fires are just bad. I guess they don’t have the tall flu that sucks in air to assure a good wind source of very controllable air. Last time I burnt a backyard fire, I found myself wanting to make a charcoal heater to get the wood burning faster. Teaching my kids survival skills conflicts with being as green as possible. Hmm... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 22, 2019)

mnowaczyk said:


> Thanks for pointing me here. Post 40 resonates with me. I would love to be able to know exactly when to feed my stove and know that it’s a greener way to heat my home. I’m just not confident of that.
> 
> I see that outdoor fires are just bad. I guess they don’t have the tall flu that sucks in air to assure a good wind source of very controllable air. Last time I burnt a backyard fire, I found myself wanting to make a charcoal heater to get the wood burning faster. Teaching my kids survival skills conflicts with being as green as possible. Hmm...
> 
> ...


There are outdoor solutions like the Solo Stove products. I have their larger Yukon and small Ranger outdoor firepits. They are nearly smokeless and put out more heat than a regular fire ring or campfire.


----------



## jatoxico (Dec 22, 2019)

EbS-P said:


> second is there is no controlling the fueling rate so the air to fuel ratio needed for complete combustion isn’t always ideal.



If the OP seriously couldn't figure out why wood can't be burned as efficiently as NG I wasn't going to waste any time on it.

On the other hand it does bring up a topic I've heard here often which is that it most efficient to burn in cycles to which I disagree. Burning in cycles leads to cold/cool starts and (less importantly) finishes. Meanwhile tube stoves and cats both need to be hot enough to support secondary combustion so on reload you're smoking.

As long as I'm around I prefer to get the stove to operating temp and keep it there by adding fuel as needed and keeping temps up to burn clean.

Cycles may be more convenient but its not more efficient.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Dec 22, 2019)

mnowaczyk said:


> Air quality. Delete my post if it’s too OT.
> 
> So wood burning, if clean and efficient, makes CO2 that will eventually be released into the atmosphere when the wood rots anyway. Right?
> 
> ...


Well, I don't think most power plants burn anything but fossil fuels, so that's the difference.  

Burning cord wood is better than burning fossil fuels in terms of the long term carbon cycle (tens of thousands of years plus), which is the one that humans are mucking up most irreversibly.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Dec 22, 2019)

jatoxico said:


> Cycles may be more convenient but its not more efficient.



I sincerely believe you, but I'm curious to know more.  Do you have any links to research that supports this?  It would be interesting to me to see this quantified, and maybe to tease out the relationship between efficiency and emissions as they are both affected by loading practices.


----------



## jatoxico (Dec 22, 2019)

Socratic Monologue said:


> I sincerely believe you, but I'm curious to know more.  Do you have any links to research that supports this?  It would be interesting to me to see this quantified, and maybe to tease out the relationship between efficiency and emissions as they are both affected by loading practices.



Maybe I should set some parameters before making a blanket statement but not aware of any studies, more common sense.

If I cycle my stove with full load, I go from something like 250-300 then peak somewhere around 650-700. On the cold side I'm smoking because its too cool to support the secondaries so smoke is wasted. All you have to do is go outside and look.  On the hot side I'm often getting more heat than I can use or even recover from my insert.

So I'd rather keep temps at 450-550 which burns all the smoke and gives me even heat. On a related note I have heard that most, or at least a disproportionate amount of creosote formation occurs during start up.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Dec 22, 2019)

jatoxico said:


> Maybe I should set some parameters before making a blanket statement but not aware of any studies, more common sense.
> 
> If I cycle my stove with full load, I go from something like 250-300 then peak somewhere around 650-700. On the cold side I'm smoking because its too cool to support the secondaries so smoke is wasted. All you have to do is go outside and look.  On the hot side I'm often getting more heat than I can use or even recover from my insert.
> 
> So I'd rather keep temps at 450-550 which burns all the smoke and gives me even heat. On a related note I have heard that most, or at least a disproportionate amount of creosote formation occurs during start up.


That all makes sense, and it sounds to me to be a sensible way to burn.  

I wonder, though.  There are stages in the burn cycle that your process may skip, stages that give more heat for less particulate emissions: for example, the coaling stage.  Might that benefit be lost if the flue is always hot (so less efficient heat transfer to living space since more heat is going up the stack)?  

All this will be different on different stoves, too; our Hearthstone will fairly quickly go to secondary from few coals since the firebox stays hot so darn long.  I'm not saying that it is a particularly efficient stove, but it does likely burn differently than your insert, and so maybe this is as much about stove design as it is about burn cycles _per se_.  

I couldn't find any readily accessible data on relative efficiency of differing burn cycle models; emissions testing sometimes notes that data are averaged over the whole burn cycle, which might be taken as an admission that we don't know (or don't care?) what is happening during the burn cycle.  There's a good dissertation topic here, I tell you.


----------



## jatoxico (Dec 22, 2019)

Socratic Monologue said:


> I wonder, though. There are stages in the burn cycle that your process may skip, stages that give more heat for less particulate emissions: for example, the coaling stage.



Its not like I never run through the coaling stage. But I find by adding as needed I can easily manage the coal bed. So I just try to keep my eye on the temp and reload before my stove top temp runs below about 400. To me its just a matter of trying to run within the window where the stove burns clean. Keeps the room temp more even as well.

Pellet stoves are, in some respects, doing the same thing I am. Metering in the amount of fuel and air to maintain optimal combustion and maximum efficiency. I guess BK stoves are doing this too.

There are times and situations when I need more heat or not around but as far as I'm concerned, in concept getting the stove up to and keeping it at operating temp is most efficient compared to cycling.


----------



## Alexx (Feb 6, 2020)

Natural gas used for residential space heat is a fairly small portion of the natural gas burned. More is burned  to make electricity and for industrial uses. 
I might be wrong, but I believe a lot of natural gas is just in the way of the oil we want and not really the main goal of fracking.
I like the idea of burning wood and grass pastures, but using a wood stove puts the smoke in proximity of people. A cleaner way to burn wood might be in a hot compost pile using bacteria instead of flames.


----------



## begreen (Feb 16, 2020)

You're right, electrical power uses about twice as much natural gas as residential heating. However, natural gas is one of the most popular fuels for residential heating. According to the American Gas Association, 62 million homes in the U.S are heated using natural gas. Most of the fracked wells in the east are strictly for natural gas.


----------



## Brian26 (Feb 17, 2020)

begreen said:


> You're right, electrical power uses about twice as much natural gas as residential heating. However, natural gas is one of the most popular fuels for residential heating. According to the American Gas Association, 62 million homes in the U.S are heated using natural gas. Most of the fracked wells in the east are strictly for natural gas.



Its crazy  how much natural gas is flared everyday in the U.S. especially the Permian Basin. I read they flare enough gas there in one day that they could fuel like 5 million homes. This has been making the news alot lately as the flaring is increasing at crazy high rates.


----------



## begreen (Feb 17, 2020)

It is this waste and disrespect for nature that will be our undoing. Compare this to the perspective of local tribal people that lived where we live, just a couple hundred years before:

"The most important attitude toward all beings and life in general, therefore, was respect, in full awareness that any life form was capable of both good and harm. By showing such respect a human indicated self-worth, sometimes tinged with fear of unexpected consequences. *Of all, the most serious of the crimes against nature was waste because this showed disrespect both for a specific spirit and for all life.*

In particular, all communal activity sites, particularly those associated with fishing – such as weirs, traps, and platforms – were closely watched, not to keep out intruders but to be aware of whether respect was or was not being shown to nature and its bounty, especially the salmon, who demanded the constant expression of respect if they were to return and stay year after year."


----------

