Heating with wood pollutes more than any other heating method

[stoveliker]

Lol, the highlight of this thread for me was the "gnat fart in a hurricane". New expression learned.

I subscribe to @Prof s opinion; when I have cancer, I listen to my doc, ask questions to understand, sure, and I use my own "what's important to me" values to evaluate different options laid out for me, and weight the advice of the doc heavily. However the facts as laid out by the doc, including their probabilities/error margins, are the groundwork for all next decisions. I don't rely for them on some source that did not spend 10-15 years of his life to *professionally* understand the science behind the matter at hand. Sometimes a second professional opinion is obtained (this is my application of "peer review" on my case.)
He's the expert. Period. (And no, this example is not hypothetical.)

 

[Echo Parking Lot]

Seems the biggest problem here is how such a hyper-individualistic society like the one in the US responds to a global problem with calls for individual action to rectify the situation. A losing proposition and, from the OP’s experience, just an opportunity to either scold others or cause unhelpful friction between people who may otherwise be politically aligned.

Liberal/center-left folks in the US seem to respond by competing for who can prove they‘re reducing their fossil fuel consumption, using all sorts of flawed methods of evaluating one‘s impact and misapprehending what are effective ways to reduce carbon usage (e.g. anti-natalists, neo Malthusians, eco-fascists).

The center-right/conservative knee jerk is of course a bit different, but no less laser-focused on individual choices; a common response is about the hypocrisy of an Al Gore or insert whichever is the conservative media’s bugbear du jour flying their private jets around while preaching about climate change. Again, though, it‘s about individual choices.

Human beings may be only a part of the “web of life,” but, we have harnessed tremendous power production and technology to alter the landscape in ways that have an outsize impact on the way the web interacts (highly recommend reading Jason Moore and other geographers about this concept). This is a collective problem, the impact of which is of course spread unevenly across the globe (see the tremendous amounts of movement northward from of areas like the Sahel or Central America). It requires collective action, and the focus of our ire should not be each other, but entities like oil and gas supermajors — that have been exposed repeatedly as lying about the knowledge of their impact on global warming — continued governmental subsidization of fossil fuel extraction and consumption (e.g. auto industry).

This doesn’t mean one can’t or shouldn’t be conscious of one’s choices, burning wood, for example (well-seasoned wood, a highly rated stove/insert, responsible forestry practices) but let’s not pretend global warming is something fixed by “consuming better.”

 

[Highbeam]

Maybe I have a few issues (other than insanity)... one is faith in believing the conclusion that humans actually caused this problem. Second is whether there really is a problem because we know from history that these things have occurred in the past. My favorite example is when the glacier recedes to show an old village which makes me feel like this is a cycle so do I care? Lastly, if I wanted to, is there anything that we can actually do to stop it? Like realistically, can these horses get put back in the barn?

In the end, as an engineer I have learned that I can't manipulate all of the variables. My circle of control is only so great. If I feel like there's nothing I can do about it even if I wanted to then the whole issue becomes a lower priority. Instead, I position myself to make the best of the situation.

Install that heat pump because power is going to become more expensive and air conditioning more desirable. Heat with waste wood. Insulate the home to save energy. Reduce or eliminate fuel use for commuting. Not because I'm afraid I'll cause more global warming but because these things improve my personal situation. But I do notice that these things ALSO reduce my carbon footprint so I suppose it's a win win.

 

[bholler]

Maybe I have a few issues (other than insanity)... one is faith in believing the conclusion that humans actually caused this problem. Second is whether there really is a problem because we know from history that these things have occurred in the past. My favorite example is when the glacier recedes to show an old village which makes me feel like this is a cycle so do I care? Lastly, if I wanted to, is there anything that we can actually do to stop it? Like realistically, can these horses get put back in the barn?

In the end, as an engineer I have learned that I can't manipulate all of the variables. My circle of control is only so great. If I feel like there's nothing I can do about it even if I wanted to then the whole issue becomes a lower priority. Instead, I position myself to make the best of the situation.

Install that heat pump because power is going to become more expensive and air conditioning more desirable. Heat with waste wood. Insulate the home to save energy. Reduce or eliminate fuel use for commuting. Not because I'm afraid I'll cause more global warming but because these things improve my personal situation. But I do notice that these things ALSO reduce my carbon footprint so I suppose it's a win win.

Your last paragraph is very much inline with the point I was trying to make previously. Regardless of why you are doing it reducing emissions and reducing consumption is a good thing all the way around. Even if someone doesn't believe in human influenced climate change reducing consumption still makes sense.

 

[Highbeam]

Your last paragraph is very much inline with the point I was trying to make previously. Regardless of why you are doing it reducing emissions and reducing consumption is a good thing all the way around. Even if someone doesn't believe in human influenced climate change reducing consumption still makes sense.

Thank you Bholler, we agree. Sometimes it starts with increasing consumption since there are some up front investments for long term efficiency gains. Buying newer freezers or woodstoves for example. The goal is usually to reduce waste.

 

[JRP3]

But I do notice that these things ALSO reduce my carbon footprint so I suppose it's a win win.

Which directly contradicts those who claim CO2 reduction is a hardship. Increasing efficiency in as many ways possible costs less in the long run and reduces impact.

 

[stoveliker]

Maybe I have a few issues (other than insanity)... one is faith in believing the conclusion that humans actually caused this problem. Second is whether there really is a problem because we know from history that these things have occurred in the past. My favorite example is when the glacier recedes to show an old village which makes me feel like this is a cycle so do I care? Lastly, if I wanted to, is there anything that we can actually do to stop it? Like realistically, can these horses get put back in the barn?

I know you did not respond to my post. Nevertheless, I have the urge to respond (call that my insanity).

I see your point. But what intellectual skills were you taught that provide a justifiable basis to doubt (i.e. have no faith) in the conclusions of those who do have those skills?

As one example, your village from a glacier example is not pertinent because 1. that (village existence) happened when there was less CO2 in the air, i.e. the world heater was set to a lower temp setting and the possibility of its existence thus had different origins, and 2. the previous changes, even radical end-of-ice-age ones, happened at orders of magnitude slower rates.

Testing this (indeed) multiparameter (climate) system at a speed/forcing that is much more strong than before is a risky thing to do from an engineering perspective. Something that essentially runs at (nearly) steady state (on our timescales, i.e. 100 years or so), is now changing much more quickly. That is bound to create system instabilities that do not compare to previous usage.

When someone tells you that your professional conclusions are just not believable, you can shrug and think "your loss". But when the actions of that someone affect your future (safety and quality of living), it's getting to be a problem.

Regardless, if everyone would have the same philosophy as that in your last paragraph, that would be great.

 

[Highbeam]

I see your point. But what intellectual skills were you taught that provide a justifiable basis to doubt (i.e. have no faith) in the conclusions of those who do have those skills?



When someone tells you that your professional conclusions are just not believable, you can shrug and think "your loss". But when the actions of that someone affect your future (safety and quality of living), it's getting to be a problem.

Regardless, if everyone would have the same philosophy as that in your last paragraph, that would be great.

It's up to them (scientists, politicians, etc?) to convince me that their proposal is true and important if they want my money or support. It is my responsibility to use critical thinking skills to agree, remain undecided, or call BS. Failing sufficient information, faith, or confidence to call BS, I can simply remain undecided. Being a sucker and swallowing every proposal hook line and sinker because you don't think you're smart enough to cast doubt is not the way I operate.

I disagree with doctors sometimes too. They make huge errors, mistakes, depend on faulty information despite extensive education. Doesn't take long to find numerous examples of that. Smoking? Cholesterol? Academic accomplishments do not make a person smart or trustworthy. Especially when there is money involved.

Fortunately, there are lots of decisions that can benefit each of us while also benefiting the cause of global warming reduction. I really like my LED lightbulbs better than incandescent. There is common ground that would go a long way.

 

[stoveliker]

It's up to them (scientists, politicians, etc?) to convince me that their proposal is true and important if they want my money or support. It is my responsibility to use critical thinking skills to agree, remain undecided, or call BS. Failing sufficient information, faith, or confidence to call BS, I can simply remain undecided. Being a sucker and swallowing every proposal hook line and sinker because you don't think you're smart enough to cast doubt is not the way I operate.

I disagree with doctors sometimes too. They make huge errors, mistakes, depend on faulty information despite extensive education. Doesn't take long to find numerous examples of that. Smoking? Cholesterol? Academic accomplishments do not make a person smart or trustworthy. Especially when there is money involved.

Fortunately, there are lots of decisions that can benefit each of us while also benefiting the cause of global warming reduction. I really like my LED lightbulbs better than incandescent. There is common ground that would go a long way.

Fair enough.

But (as a scientist, but with also a materials science and engineering degree), I ask: when is the last time you actually read a scientific paper arguing for or against something?
And, when it's in a field you don't know, how did that help you in any way? The problem, as Feynman said (you can look it up in one of the interviews available on youtube where I saw it - unfortunately it's tough to find), you don't even know enough for me to explain it to you. (That was about magnetism.)

The current state of climate science is the same as that of smoking (as in, there is the same level of consensus among those who actually know and understand the subject): smoking is bad, and the climate is changing due to human actions.

I said nothing about smart, and I resent the implication that your remark appears to contain. (Apologies if I'm wrong.) The only thing I asked is what skills (which is the opposite of anything smart...) you have to judge whether this conclusion about this complicated system is correct. That appears to me to be a valid question.

Critical thinking skills are highly valuable. However, there are more situations in life when it benefits a person to rely on the (thinking) skills of others than on their own. Hence our economic actors being specialized rather than generalists. (You do what you do best, and source other stuff from others who do that best.)

Nothing makes a person trustworthy other than their behavior. I have no quantitative data, but I am personally convinced the occurrence of scientific fraud (as in concluding something that they know is not correct) is significanty lower than in most other fields where the goal is to make money, when authors of scientific papers are focused on digging down to what is correct. Sure there are bad apples. Same as everywhere.

I'm not here to convince. I'm only trying to sow a seed of reflection on how to deal with this situation.

I like my LED-lights too. So, let's shake hands on that, and on burning wood cleanly. And I appreciate your insight on the latter here that is based on a longer experience in this field than mine.

 

[sirlight]

You don't have an opinion one way or another about climate change in order to make the decision to be more efficient. Even if a resource is almost unlimited (and most things are not), there is never a good reason to waste. Being careful about your consumption or resources usually makes good financial sense. If it happens to benefit the planet, all the better.

 

[NewENGLANDER30]

I've read that burning wood releases the same amount of carbon back into the atmosphere as when the wood naturally decomposes. So if that's the case then it's irrelevant because wood will grow, die and rot independent of man... So why not use it for our benefit if it's the same outcome?

 

[Ctwoodtick]

I've read that burning wood releases the same amount of carbon back into the atmosphere as when the wood naturally decomposes. So if that's the case then it's irrelevant because wood will grow, die and rot independent of man... So why not use it for our benefit if it's the same outcome?

I would agree that if a tree falls and rots in the forest, there is some carbon and energy “wasted” that could other wise go to heat a home, for example. However, a big part of forest health is what occurs on and below ground. Fallen trees play a big role in that forest health and a good amount of carbon and energy remains in the ground after a tree falls. You lose the health and diversity of a forest, other things go downhill with it. Trust me, I love heating with wood and would love to think that it’s a zero sum game like you’re describing. I don’t think it’s that easy though.

 

[JRP3]

I've read that burning wood releases the same amount of carbon back into the atmosphere as when the wood naturally decomposes. So if that's the case then it's irrelevant because wood will grow, die and rot independent of man... So why not use it for our benefit if it's the same outcome?

A tree may take 50-100+ years to absorb that CO2, burning it releases it all in a few weeks. It will then remain the the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas for decades. A dead tree naturally decomposing will take many years to release the CO2. Also burning wood creates other compounds as well.

 

[NewENGLANDER30]

A tree may take 50-100+ years to absorb that CO2, burning it releases it all in a few weeks. It will then remain the the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas for decades. A dead tree naturally decomposing will take many years to release the CO2. Also burning wood creates other compounds as well.

Valid points. There is a definite difference between those chemicals being released immediately through burning and through natural decomposition. I guess one thing that's hard to know is the relative impact of all the wood burners in the world and how that stacks up to the amount of wood decomposing in nature that we're unaware of.

I would agree that if a tree falls and rots in the forest, there is some carbon and energy “wasted” that could other wise go to heat a home, for example. However, a big part of forest health is what occurs on and below ground. Fallen trees play a big role in that forest health and a good amount of carbon and energy remains in the ground after a tree falls. You lose the health and diversity of a forest, other things go downhill with it. Trust me, I love heating with wood and would love to think that it’s a zero sum game like you’re describing. I don’t think it’s that easy though.

Also a very good point, that wood decomposing will give back to the soil and the natural world more so than just burning it in our stoves and sending the rest up the chimney.

I don't believe that we have zero impact. I don't believe that our impact is the same as what occurs naturally. I do wonder what is the lesser of the evils when it comes to impact in how we heat our homes.

 

[Ctwoodtick]

I don't believe that we have zero impact. I don't believe that our impact is the same as what occurs naturally. I do wonder what is the lesser of the evils when it comes to impact in how we heat our homes.

I hear you. I agree that wood burning i is the lesser of the evils. As long as people aren’t smoking each other out in congested areas or places where there are inversions that keep the smoke in the same place, it’s a great option. Especially when people know how to burn well with dry wood.
I like to think it’s a nod to more self-sufficiency and less reliance on others for resources.

 

[NewENGLANDER30]

I hear you. I agree that wood burning i is the lesser of the evils. As long as people aren’t smoking each other out in congested areas or places where there are inversions that keep the smoke in the same place, it’s a great option. Especially when people know how to burn well with dry wood.
I like to think it’s a nod to more self-sufficiency and less reliance on others for resources.

Absolutely. And while any generalization is short sighted, I see a lot of posts on here that align with that self sufficient mentality. And a lot that show a healthy respect for our environment trying to minimize impact.

 

[GrumpyDad]

I had a argument with someone the other day when he said I was polluting by using my dirty woodstove for heating my house. He said the smoke I create is worse than using gas or electric to heat my house. He also said that my heat is not carbon neutral since I am not growing trees to replace the ones that I burn. I heat my house with a modern EPA fireplace insert using wood from a local tree service. The stove creates very little smoke when it is up to temperature. Also, the smoke is no more toxic than a forest fire. That seems pretty pollution free and carbon neutral to me. Some people you just can't reason with.

Just b*tch slap 'him' and tell him to get a life.

 

[JRP3]

Probably the lowest impact would be a heat pump and solar panels, even if a portion of your power had to come from the grid. I installed a small heat pump to replace my fuel oil furnace and use it on days that aren't cold enough to make it worth bothering with the wood stove.

 

[bikedennis]

Here in Norcal with 2 fires close by creating very smoky air, I think that wood stoves should be a non issue.

 

[JRP3]

Just b*tch slap 'him' and tell him to get a life.

Or maybe just have a discussion like a rational person...

 

[sirlight]

Probably the lowest impact would be a heat pump and solar panels, even if a portion of your power had to come from the grid. I installed a small heat pump to replace my fuel oil furnace and use it on days that aren't cold enough to make it worth bothering with the wood stove.

We could also go round and round about the environmental impact of producing those solar panels. BTW, I have panels too, though not enough power from them to meet 100% of my electric needs. I think they are great for reducing non-renewable fuel consumption and for cost savings. Just don't try and convince yourself they are free from environmental issues.

I think that the important point here is to be as efficient as possible and respect this planet we call home. You can never be zero impact. Heck, hardly anything in this world does not have an impact. Consumption and waste is inevitable if you want to live. Make your consumption as little as possible. Make you waste as renewable and shorty lived as you can.

I think heating with wood is about as renewable of heating as you can get. From a carbon emissions standpoint, it is the same as a forest fire. This is not to say that burning logs in your woodstove is equivalent to a forest fire. That ash left behind is all the minerals and nutrients that the tree pulled from deep on the soil. The process of a tree decomposing (or a forest fire) releases the carbon and all those nutrients to feed life on the upper soil layers in the forest. This benefits the plant life that is not as deeply rooted as a tree. By burning a log in your stove, you are hindering that nutrient recycling. I use all my wood ash in my garden, but that is not the same as those nutrients going back into the forest floor.

 

[JRP3]

We could also go round and round about the environmental impact of producing those solar panels.

Sure as long as you do the same for the impact of producing a wood stove, chimney, and all equipment used to process and transport the firewood. As you say everything has some impact.

 

[sirlight]

Sure as long as you do the same for the impact of producing a wood stove, chimney, and all equipment used to process and transport the firewood. As you say everything has some impact.

Exactly, all that steel in the woodstove comes from somewhere. Everything has an impact. We decide what is acceptable to each of us.