Wood Burning Stoves

[jimess]

How can these be said to be 'eco friendly'? Surely wood is just another form of fossil fuel - albeit at an earlier stage of development? Or am I missing something here?

[jimess]

My problem is that trees are coal ( a fossil) at its first stage. (ie trees are fossil fuels in waiting)

[bobjim1705]

The carbon dioxide contained in wood is what was derived from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. Since the carbon dioxide would have been given off during respiration anyway, the net carbon dioxide emission is zero (or close to it) and so does not contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

[Calvesy]

Wood burning is carbon-neutral because it is only part of the carbon cycle that nurtures the biosphere. Digging up and burning carbon that has been locked out of the cycle for millions of years is the violation.

[Clanad]

If I may, aside from the question of carbon dioxide, here in the western U.S., many larger cities have imposed bans and/or strict liscensing requirements for woodburning stoves.  Primarliy because wood smoke contains fine particulates, which contain a bewildering array of organic and inorganic compounds � the normal byproducts of wood combustion. It may also contain minute amounts of dioxins and furans (a resin formed during combustion of pine type woods), and a variety of other proven and suspected carcinogens. These restrictions are even more enforced in Canada.

The probelm is especially compounded in cities such as Denver, Colorado, that experience temperature inversions in the winter months.  The inversions trap a stable air mass near the surface.  New technologies in woodburning stove development has seemed to help... but health concerns are still a consideration.

[alan30]

Amazing that parts of the US have issues with burning wood, a carbon neutral fuel, but as the worlds largest polluter will not sign up to global emissions accords?

[Clanad]

Gee, alan30, I didn't expect a political harangue, but, tell you what... do away with the exemptions for China and India as well as the other 138 countries so exempted and maybe we'll consider it.  For a given amount of output, most developing, exempt countries produce more pollution, many by far, than those of developed countries.  Just call it a level playing field mentality...

[jimess]

It's the destruction of the polar caps that really depresses me. I don't know what it will take to get people to change their ways. They would sooner see the world destroyed before walking away from that SUV.

[mimififi]

I'm no scientist, Im a Classicist, so forgive me for barging in on this topic with a coment that is probably inaccurate, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but,

I think maybe the point is is that a sustainable forest is capable of growing trees for more wood faster than making wood turn into coal...  Therefore, it is more eco friendly as it is a sustainable source of energy.  The time it takes to make more coal, well, it is more realistically to call coal/fossil fuels, only-use-onceable.?

[domfoy]

Hi Clanad, lets not be too defencive here! Many in the US seem to think it their "right" to drive uneccessarily large cars with huge engines and pay little for the fuel that they burn. Surely we all should be working for more sensible and sustainable energy consumption? I understand what you're saying about other countries, China could be a real problem but surely the US is big and clever enough to be more responsible?