600 gallons or 6 cords what pollutes more

[bayard]

i was wondering from a scientific point of view what puts out more toxic chemicals.say 1 winters worth of heating.k

 

[Patrick62]

That depends

600 gallons of what?
Fuel oil? Propane? Hydrazine?

That also depends on what is considered pollution.

If you are thinking about a zero impact, that ain't gonna happen.

Propane burns real clean, but a properly adjusted oil furnace does a pretty decent job of utilizing the fuel efficiently and cleanly. If the wood is dry, and the fire is run hot the initial flare off is a little rough but after that I am going to say that the wood can burn almost as clean as the oil burner.

burn whatever you have to stay warm.

 

[atvdave]

Ok... let’s just say Fuel Oil… Most all fuel oil is buried deep underground and will never release CO into the atmosphere unless it is extracted from the ground and burned in some form. Wood (or Trees) will absorb CO into its body and grow. When a tree dies, it starts to rot and release the CO it has absorbed throughout the years back into the atmosphere.

So my take on it is… If you burn wood your just recycling the CO. If you’re burning fuel oil, you’re adding to the amount of CO already in our atmosphere.

Just my take on it.

 

[turnkey4099]

Ok... let’s just say Fuel Oil… Most all fuel oil is buried deep underground and will never release CO into the atmosphere unless it is extracted from the ground and burned in some form. Wood (or Trees) will absorb CO into its body and grow. When a tree dies, it starts to rot and release the CO it has absorbed throughout the years back into the atmosphere.

So my take on it is… If you burn wood your just recycling the CO. If you’re burning fuel oil, you’re adding to the amount of CO already in our atmosphere.

Just my take on it.

Correct on the CO2, CO, etc. release when burning but. That is "over time". You burning it (as I do) releases far more over your lifetime than that same amount of wood would have rotted down over the same period. Bottom line. Heating with wood produces more carbon out than nature would have. More than burning oil? I doubt it.

Harry K

Harry K

 

[corrupt]

Dont for get all the co2 from the trucks and the huge ships transporting the other fuels + the vehicles for the thousands of people that drive to work at the refinery + all the co2 produced making the steel and all the other parts that go into that refinery + all the workers cars that work at the factorys that produce the parts for thoses refinerys. It goes on and on.

 

[woodguy105]

Let's not forget to fit new growth into the equation...at least as far as wood goes. Dropping big old oaks, maples etc.. with huge crowns will open up the forest floor to new growth. Essentially absorbing c02 for many years.

Corrupt made a great point: Total c02 output to find the oil, drill, bring in supplies,workers, run machinery, deliver to the distribution ctr/refinery, transport the oil to the local vendors, they transport daily to their buyers (home owners etc) must be huge.

Of course we run saws, splitters, wood haulers, buy woodstoves that have to be manufactured, tranposted etc.etc....but at least our heat source grows back and absorbs some of our c02.

Atdave summed it up:
"So my take on it is… If you burn wood your just recycling the CO. If you’re burning fuel oil, you’re adding to the amount of CO already in our atmosphere."

 

[woodguy105]

there is also the issue of particulate pollution along with c02. Wood stoves and OWBs definitely (some worse then others) can produce lots of it (particulate matter (sp?).

 

[Circle B MN]

The particulates emittied by burning wood is ash. Very very fine ash. It settles to the ground and makes the grass green.

 

[4seasons]

Toxic Chemicals?

The original question was about more toxic chemicals. Carbon Dioxide is not a toxic chemical no matter how stupid Al Gore is. While you can't survive in a room with only carbon dioxide it is the lack of oxygen that will kill you. Our bodies produce carbon dioxide as a side effect of breathing. The whole global warming/ CO2/ carbon footprint scam has been exposed. To have a discussion on what produces more CO2 as a pollutant is a discussion in stupidity.

Now if someone has a list of chemicals given off by a wood fire vs oil fire vs propane fire then we can examine the toxic chemicals and make an informed decision.

 

[Hillbilly Rick]

I'm not stickin' my head in a flue pipe to find out:yoyo:

 

[bluestem]

I agree with most here that burning wood is a carbon neutral process but the other chemicals given off in the process is something I'm not well informed about. I don't think Al Gore's argument about CO2 had much to do with it's toxicity, it had to do with it's characteristics as a greenhouse gas, it's ability to trap heat close to the earth's surface.

 

[logbutcher]

Will all engineers, scientists, Foresters, and assorted wood burners kindly raise your hands: IS THIS A REAL QUESTION ?

....and no I'm not going to stick my face into my flues, ......or tailpipe.

Heard about the Hamas terrorist wanting to blow up a schoolbus ? Burnt his lips on the exhaust pipe.

 

[mga]

so, what i'm reading is some of you feel wood burning is poluting just as bad as using oil for heat?

maybe you should write your senators and ask them to impose harsher EPA laws on wood burners too.

that will solve the problem.

 

[deerlakejens]

Most all heating sources are going to be emitting some pollutants, some worse than others. If you live in an area inclined to inversions, you can see quickly how much is put into the air by wood burning and internal combustion engines. I used to think it was just urban areas like Denver, LA, etc., where you could see the brown haze "dome" but you see it driving through small towns in Idaho and Montana as well. I'd be willing to bet, though, that the majority of this is caused by poor burning technique or the use of unseasoned wood. It's not a case of more or fewer laws, it really comes down to common sense and respect for your neighbors.

 

[bayard]

co2

thanks for the info, i was thinking that wood might be a little cleaner than fuel oil,all things considered.forest fires have been going on for millions of years.all of the wood stoves are not changing the out come by much! 86 million barrels of oil per day for 150 years might add up to somthing maybe.i know that road fuel gas and diesel.have 100,s of different compounds.do they add up to anything significant?

 

[Fronty Owner]

for the most part, a tree will release as much CO2 as it has absorbed in its life time.
If a tree is allowed to die and rot, it will give off said CO2 in a longer time frame, but will give it up just the same.
Oil gives up its carbon in the same way, just that carbon was sequestered years before.

Contrary to other thought processes, there is only so much carbon on this planet, burning one fuel over another doesn't create carbon, it simply changes the form its in.

 

[GotTreesNowWhat]

Briefly - On Climate Change

Carbon Dioxide is not a toxic chemical no matter how stupid Al Gore is.... Our bodies produce carbon dioxide as a side effect of breathing. The whole global warming/ CO2/ carbon footprint scam has been exposed. To have a discussion on what produces more CO2 as a pollutant is a discussion in stupidity.

I would be irresponsible as a father, as an American, and as a human, to let this go unchallenged. Since this is not the right forum for a Climate Change debate, I'll try to be brief.

1. The self-absorbed politician Al Gore is not a scientist, nor is he the source of any valid data about climate change. (Just like most characters on the other side of the debate - Bjorn Lomborg the economist and other climate amateurs.) Climate scientists are the source, and it is their claims you should be addressing.
2. It's interesting that you're so convinced GW is a scam, you don't even bother to substantiate your claim. That's kind of bold, considering that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with you. Surely you have some kind of climate science credentials to be taking on the entire scientific community? Maybe you've been up in the Arctic taking bore hole samples lately?
3. It's amusing that the MSM is often accused of "hyping up" GW, when they are also a major conduit for the junk science that tries to "expose" GW science as a "fraud".
4. Follow the money. GW research is done in a wide variety of institutions all over the world, and its funding comes from the same sources that fund other kinds of scientific research - most of which you wouldn't dream of challenging. Anti-GW propaganda is funded almost entirely by transnational businesses with huge and obvious conflicts of interest, such as the oil and coal industries. This is a no-brainer.
5. I strongly encourage you to engage with me on this OFF LIST PLEASE. This is in my view one of the most important debates the American public should be having, but instead it's usually dealt with using insults and obvious lies. Let's talk facts, there are lots of facts that we should be talking about.
   
   -- sorry, everyone, to add to the already off-topic content in this thread, but sometimes you gotta speak up.

 

[Biker Dude]

Maybe you should start a global warming thread over in the political forum. Those guys over there need to hear what you are saying.

 

[turnkey4099]

I would be irresponsible as a father, as an American, and as a human, to let this go unchallenged. Since this is not the right forum for a Climate Change debate, I'll try to be brief.

1. The self-absorbed politician Al Gore is not a scientist, nor is he the source of any valid data about climate change. (Just like most characters on the other side of the debate - Bjorn Lomborg the economist and other climate amateurs.) Climate scientists are the source, and it is their claims you should be addressing.
2. It's interesting that you're so convinced GW is a scam, you don't even bother to substantiate your claim. That's kind of bold, considering that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with you. Surely you have some kind of climate science credentials to be taking on the entire scientific community? Maybe you've been up in the Arctic taking bore hole samples lately?
3. It's amusing that the MSM is often accused of "hyping up" GW, when they are also a major conduit for the junk science that tries to "expose" GW science as a "fraud".
4. Follow the money. GW research is done in a wide variety of institutions all over the world, and its funding comes from the same sources that fund other kinds of scientific research - most of which you wouldn't dream of challenging. Anti-GW propaganda is funded almost entirely by transnational businesses with huge and obvious conflicts of interest, such as the oil and coal industries. This is a no-brainer.
5. I strongly encourage you to engage with me on this OFF LIST PLEASE. This is in my view one of the most important debates the American public should be having, but instead it's usually dealt with using insults and obvious lies. Let's talk facts, there are lots of facts that we should be talking about.
   
   -- sorry, everyone, to add to the already off-topic content in this thread, but sometimes you gotta speak up.

I'm with you on this subject. Perhaps start a thread in the Political Forum. It has been done before there but several years have passed since.

Harry K

 

[AKKAMAAN]

Ok... let’s just say Fuel Oil… Most all fuel oil is buried deep underground and will never release CO into the atmosphere unless it is extracted from the ground and burned in some form. Wood (or Trees) will absorb CO into its body and grow. When a tree dies, it starts to rot and release the CO it has absorbed throughout the years back into the atmosphere.

So my take on it is… If you burn wood your just recycling the CO. If you’re burning fuel oil, you’re adding to the amount of CO already in our atmosphere.

Just my take on it.

Thank you atvdave!
I could not have said it better my self! It really upsets me (make me sick) when I hear people talking about burning biomass is pollution in the same meaning or worse than burning petroleum products. Start look around the rest of the western world, and see what is going on....They got it figured out 30+ years ago.....
For millions of years, "Our Lord" have, on purpose, burnt millions of acres of biomass per year..... All scientists (except "tree huggers" and others that are politically biased to favor oil industry) agree about biomass being a CO2-pollution free (no net addition of CO2 to atmosphere) fuel resource.

"aw come on"
Per A, retired Forest Engineer